Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Technicolor to stop using reel bands

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Technicolor to stop using reel bands (Page 4)

This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Author

Topic: Technicolor to stop using reel bands

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-19-2004 06:38 PM

"Printable tape?" I predict the tape will be printed with something very useful like

TECHNICOLOR ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES
Title________________ Reel #______

and then nobody will ever fill the blanks in.

No, after thinking it over, I predict that only the first line above will appear on the tape. As if the orange cans aren't enough of a clue.

[ 04-20-2004, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: Mike Blakesley ]

| IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002

posted 04-20-2004 06:54 AM

Jon posted a picture of a banded reel of film.

We don't have bands at all in England; I took a couple of pictures on Sunday, this is how our prints come:

What may look like a band is just a tape label on the film. The cans used to be metal, which got bent and dented, so the lids jammed. The plastic ones are better, but do sometimes get damaged, as this one was. The score line on the lid of the box is one of several different positions where it can be folded, depending on how many cans it needs to hold. This box had six cans in it, long films sometimes come in two boxes.

This works reasonably well, as long as the end of the film is taped down, and the can is reasonably full. I would rather see cans with a central spigot to hold the core in place, as someone once mentioned did exist somewhere.

Trailers do come with bands, held in place by elastic bands, like this:

Different colour bands indicate different BBFC certificates.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 04-20-2004 03:58 PM

Assuming that plastic "cans" were used with the center nipple/shaft to keep the core from shifting within them, I would VERY MUCH welcome the conversion of shipping films in this way over those joke reels the industry is using.

If some useless projectionist before you was using cheap/used/not enough tape to hold the leader down, at least it wouldn't get tangled up between reels. Each pancake of film on a core would be in it's own plastic "can" within the normal shipping cans.
Labels on the plastic "cans" wouldn't get discarded like reel bands or a label placed over the tip of the leader would.
Projectionists would be forced to put just a little more effort into handling the film. As such this would end the whole "grab the reel out of the can and watch as the reel breaks in half and the film unspools at 30MPH down the booth.
Shipping in plastic "cans" would speed up the packing for the depots so they could process the orders faster. Same goes for "junk day" at the depots.
Plastic "cans" wouldn't break nearly as easy as those "reels" and are probably cheaper, so hopefully when a crack developed the depot workers would just toss it instead of trying to keep reusing it, which happens now.
It would wake people up to the fact that so many platters out there on the market are shit for film handling during breakdown.

Now before anyone gets their panties in a wad over having to purchase an $80 split reel for their theater, just remember that whole cyan/red reader nonsense. [Razz]

| IP: Logged

Daryl C. W. O'Shea
Film God

Posts: 3977
From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from)
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 04-20-2004 06:19 PM

quote: Brad Miller
Plastic "cans" wouldn't break nearly as easy as those "reels" and are probably cheaper...

Plastic film canisters cost more to manufacture than plastic reels since the substantially increased volume requires that it be injected on a much, much, much larger machine. It also requires more injection points, adding to the cost of tooling. Cycle time also needs to be extended to avoid serious warping, further increasing costs by slowing down production.

They are however, much more durable and certainly the best solution. I much prefer dealing with film on cores in plastic canisters (art product, some archive film, etc) than exploding Fox reels any day.

| IP: Logged

Jon Miller
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 973
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 04-20-2004 07:56 PM

Depends on the can, Daryl...

Of all the festival prints I've received from Spain (virtually all of them made at Madrid Film Lab), more than half the cans arive cracked, some practically disintegrating. The plastic the cans are made of are relatively thin and cannot stand the torture of international shipping.

The cans IMCINE of Mexico uses are a lot more robust, except for the centerpost which has a tendency to break off the can.

I don't mind core shipping as long as the film always leaves the booth tightly wound on the core, with at least six inches of tape to secure the film end. However, with so many unprofessional people working the booths 'round the world, it's just wishful thinking...

| IP: Logged

Daryl C. W. O'Shea
Film God

Posts: 3977
From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from)
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 04-20-2004 08:12 PM

Just like reels, it all comes down to cost. I hardly get any damaged plastic canisters (actually I don't get too many cheap broken reels either). Usually I get decently thick canisters made of polyethylene. I find we/they spend more on better shipping up here.

Now if they really wanted a good plastic canister, they'd make them out of delrin. Of course that'd double the cost.

Anyway... it really shows that it's not the method, rather it's the cost cutting. Look at films shipped in cardboard boxes... even 'some' of the cardboard boxes are useless because they are so cheap.

| IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002

posted 04-21-2004 07:35 AM

I find cans vary, some are good, some break too easily, and the bad ones seem to be getting more common.

When I was looking for the box in my picture to pack up the print, I found a different, smaller, type of box, which I have only seen once before, doesn't take cans, just loose rolls of film, that get covered in dust and fibres from the cardboard. I hope these don't catch on.

Most rolls are now quite a bit smaller than the cans; with polyester I think you could get 3000 feet in the same, or a very slightly larger can. Isn't there now a case for sending out prints in longer parts? If they went to 6000 foot parts then I think shipping reels would be essential, that amount of film is not easy to handle on cores.

I've never seen the new white plastic shipping reels which so many people here complain about, but from the pictures they look pretty useless. The old black plastic ones were better, the even older metal ones were too heavy.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 04-21-2004 08:18 AM

Kodak still uses METAL cans for packaging motion picture film. They are available from Kodak FPC in Hollywood:

http://www.fpchollywood.com/4280.html

FPC also sells vented polypropylene cans:

http://www.fpchollywood.com/4288.html

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 04-21-2004 09:33 AM

The problem with metal cans for moving release prints around is that they tend to get bent and battered very quickly: before too long either the lids won't open or it's impossible to seal the cans without putting tape round them.

quote: Brad Miller
Assuming that plastic "cans" were used with the center nipple/shaft to keep the core from shifting within them...

...which, stupidly, the UK ones don't. The only ones I've seen which do are Japanese, and the containers which the Cinémathèque Française ship their archive viewing prints in. I keep meaning to ask them where they buy them from.

| IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002

posted 04-27-2004 12:59 PM

Leo, I haven't yet seen one of those cans, but I have seen a picture of one, and they look very good They shouldn't cost much more than a normal can, would be lightweight and provide good protection to the print. Why they're not being more widely used I don't know.

I'm still in New York at the moment, in the Easy Internet place on 42nd Street, flying back home on thursday evening.

| IP: Logged

Steve Scott
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1300
From: Minneapolis, MN
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 06-17-2004 05:45 PM

Today, I received my first print from TES without reel bands: The Terminal. I don't know if this is the proposed change or not though... Each reel had its normal ID sticker on the head, and most reels had about four inches of what looked like the same tape TES has used to secure the tails of previous reels. Reel 2 on both prints didn't have the tape secured to the head, so the head was wrapped around another reel... [Roll Eyes]

Several other reels had the tape peeling itself off from the film.

Although I was happy not to see the reel bands, it's bittersweet to think that this is what I've got to look forward to. Is this what Technicolor is actually moving to? [Confused]

| IP: Logged

John A. Parker Jr.
Film Handler

Posts: 21
From: Brevard, N.C., USA
Registered: May 2003

posted 06-18-2004 07:59 AM

Well folks, got my first reel band less Technicolor print today. The tape that they promised would have been nice, but
instead all 6 reels were held down with nothing more than with one of their stupid inspection stickers! [Mad]

I have a bad feeling this is going to be the norm. And yeah, as usual, they didn't peel off. Way to go Technicolor!!! [puke]

Are we having fun yet?

| IP: Logged

Paul Konen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 981
From: Frisco, TX. (North of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-18-2004 10:07 AM

Me too. It was like the post at the top of the page. It was a reel identification sticker that does not peel of to be reused. Had one reel that unravelled because this sticker was no where near close the end of the reel

| IP: Logged

Dean Kollet
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 591
From: Florida State University
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 06-18-2004 12:04 PM

we got three prints of Terminal and one was without bands...I don't know why they have to phase them out like this, but I guess there is some pathetic reason. Our print sans the reel bands was secured with tape, much like ETS does.

I think I saved 5 minutes building up that one print b/c I didn't have to mess around with reel bands...

| IP: Logged

Dominic Case
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 131
From: Sydney NSW Australia
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 06-20-2004 11:48 PM

quote: John Pytlak
Kodak still uses METAL cans for packaging motion picture film.

Is that so, John? Not on raw print stock, you don't. It comes to the lab, extremely well packaged, in lightproof foil, and cardboard packaging, on pallets. But not in cans.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.