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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » filmguard vs. PTRs (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: filmguard vs. PTRs John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 04-17-2004 10:35 AM                        quote: Our experiments with PTR's in clients cinemas would find them crudded up after running 30 - 40 minutes of film ads prior to the feature Many rolling stock ads are printed on "no name" film stocks that are unfortunately still more prone to projector abrasion and "shedding".  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-17-2004 10:47 AM                     So John, what you are saying is that any cinema that runs rolling stock shouldn't use PTRs because they clog up with dirt too easily because non-Kodak filmstocks shed too much? If that's not what you are saying, then what are you saying?  |  IP: Logged Dave Williams Wet nipple scene Posts: 1836 From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA Registered: Jan 2000 posted 04-17-2004 11:15 AM                        Having been in the situation of having to speak for my companies products and also having to admit without bieng able to admit that our product is not for every circumstance... I think that John is saying that PTR's are very good for thier true intended use, (labs, IMAX, other uses where direct contact with film or negative stock would cause problems were FilmGuard used). However, in cases where today's non union projectionist world, where we have the lowest common denominator in hired projection in MANY cases, the use of PTR's would provide little benefit, as they would not be used properly. FilmGuard is easy enough to use even stupid people should be able to figure it out, and it is really stupid people proof for the most part. I think john has pretty much eluded to that point, without bieng able to really say that. So it is a better tool for most than PTR's. I think he said it when he said something like "different horses". On the film stock issue, note he said "no-name". I used to use the same term when describing anyone other than us. they must mean Fuji? Of course, John really can't agree or disagree anyway. Who knows what kind of slave drivers those kodak guys are? Ciao Dave  |  IP: Logged Richard Fowler Film God Posts: 2392 From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA Registered: Jun 2001 posted 04-17-2004 11:41 AM                     The rolling stock of one company is printed by Technicolor on Kodak stock. The other company uses a major processor using Agfa print stock. Same results. My opinion the crud on the prints are based on trailer makeup and breakdown practices. "No name" would be a catchy Trademark...we are no name but we try harder  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-17-2004 12:19 PM                        quote: Of course, John really can't agree or disagree anyway. Who knows what kind of slave drivers those kodak guys are? Yeah. At least his company hasn't "shut him up" yet like so many other companies have with their people who tried to participate here.  |  IP: Logged Brian Michael Weidemann Expert cat molester Posts: 944 From: Costa Mesa, CA United States Registered: Feb 2004 posted 04-17-2004 04:47 PM                        I have nothing against FilmGuard, especially since I've never worked with it. I'm sure it's as miracle-working as it's claimed to be. I'd love to witness it IN ACTION! Being involved with IMAX, I deal in PTR's; which, for short prints of 45 minutes, work great (3D emulsion-out prints, not so much ... damn shedding! ... but it keeps the prints in "stable" condition). And it's part of the routine to clean them thoroughly EVERY show. That's never been a problem. On screen, presentations are not perfect (we can't cycle the field lens AS a speck comes up, only after), but they're darned clean. Back at CinemaStar, we had PTR's on all ten 35mm auditoriums, and it was only a mild hassle to clean all PTR's between every show, but we had to, and it was done. We never failed to have a clean pair for every start. New prints stayed new looking, and it was great. Since I've never seen a booth (multiplex or not) that didn't have more than 10 or 11 projectors to an operator-on-shift, I don't see how PTR's can ever be a BAD thing; just, perhaps, not the BEST thing.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 04-17-2004 05:08 PM                        Just saying that some stocks are more sensitive to projector abrasion than Kodak, based on our tests. We've made significant improvements with VISION Color Print Film, and verify that by evaluating "the other guys" on a regular basis.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.