|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Splicing Tape Preferences -- Opaque or Zebra
|
Rich Ferrando
Film Handler
Posts: 64
From: Royal Oak, MI
Registered: Nov 2003
|
posted 01-31-2005 03:35 PM
Just to throw in my 2-cents. Yes, as everyone else has said, Opaque tape is evil and wrong. Zebra tape is, if seen by the audience, evil and wrong. HOWEVER- we do use zebra tape, but in a weird and strange sort of way that allows for splices to be eaily seen WITHOUT getting any yellow muck in the picture area.
Since our booth, due to the stupidity of its design, has very low light, we do need to be able to feel AND see the splices. So, we simply use the zebra tape in the exact opposite way than it's intended, meaning the space that's traditionally BETWEEN the zebra portions. The division between the zebra portions of the tape are slightly less than 35mm long, so what you end up with is a bit of yellow on the extreme top and bottom of the splice (on the SDDS soundtracks), which leaves the picture area, analog soundrack, Dolby Digital soundtrack, and DTS timecode track completely clear.
Naturally, if you run SDDS this option would be bad, but we run Dolby Digital, so it works beautifully for us. And yes, we always remove our splices on break-down, so if the next theatre has an SDDS system, they will not experience any issues.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rhys M. Blavier
Film Handler
Posts: 13
From: Richardson, Texas, USA
Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted 02-01-2005 02:12 AM
It has been very interesting to read the responses to my question. I don't agree with those responses, but I find them interesting. I am also curious about the fact that not one single respondent has anything positive to say about opaque tape when I know that there are other projectionists out there who do use it and, like me, prefer it. If even one of those who had responded had been in that camp, I would be willing to consider that the responses might be representative of the percentage opinions on the subject, but the animosity of the responses makes me believe that those who might agree with me are simply not wanting to get attacked as well and just chose to not post anything. I must say that I feel that the tone of the responses I have been reading makes me believe that a reasoned and objective discussion of different views may not be possible on here. I do want to answer a few things that have come out in some of those responses and then I will just let it all drop.
1.) I am a professional, I make my living at this and have done it for a very long time. My view on this matter being different from anyone else's does not negate that or make me unqualified to consider myself a professional.
2.) The company I work for are not concerned about the additional costs of zebra tape... I am. The company standards are to use it and I do not want to. I was hoping for supporting opinions or information I could present to them to change that standard.
3.) The Chief and other projectionists who trained me do not need to be "outed". They were outstanding practitioners who taught me well and instilled in me a love of this profession and of the shows I put on the screen. One thing that I was taught, however, which does not seem to be a consideration among those who have responded, is that when the quality of presentation is not adversely affected, practicality is not a bad thing. There are enough things that do need special attention and efforts that there is no need to make unnecessary things difficult... like finding splices.
4.) I do NOT find splices by "feel" because I do not touch film if I do not need to. This is especially important when my theatre management will not keep my booth supplied with film gloves as they are not, to them, a high priority to worry about. I will also say that this may be a hold over from when I was first being trained in 1982 as film gloves were never even something that we had heard of, much less had on hand. In fact, I was considered kind of overzealous when I started keeping Dawn detergent in my booths so I could wash my hands with it before I built up any print (being a degreaser, it would remove excess oil from my hands and fingers for when I did need to touch a print to make a splice). This was a personal "innovation" of my own because I did not like leaving fingerprints, etc. on my films when I worked on them.
5.) An opaque splice is seen on screen in half of a frame for 4/96th of a second. Cue dots are on screen more and longer (and if you want to make the arguments which are being made because of their visibility to the audience, then we should all be lobbying to have cue dots removed from prints). The human eye only perceives approximately 16 changes a second. Thus, I do not worry about the conscious or unconscious impact of an opaque splice. It is a non-issue. Dirt, scratches and other FILM DAMAGE ARE seen by audience members and, even if they aren't, still cause or indicate actual damage to a film. You cannot equate such problems with opaque splices.
6.) I agree with everyone that we need to be giving the audiences the best possible presentations of our films. I, myself, and all of my serious film friends, however, would like to see presentations that do not show us shutter speed problems, badly cut aperture plates, film jitter, torn or damaged screens, bad sound and other common problems I find all to often where ever I go. When there are no more problems which are there for every second of a presentation, when having an opaque splice is the WORST thing that I could say about a presentation, THEN I MIGHT be willing to consider worrying about the fractions of seconds during which an opaque splice is a concern.
7.) I think that ALL of us would agree that WHATEVER tape we prefer, the fewer reel splices that are needed the better. All to often I get my films on more reels than they need to be on. Why is no one lobbying to get films sent out on full 2000' reels (and, thus, on as few reels as possible) in order to minimize the number of reel splices needed on any print.
8.) As for other ways of marking upcoming splices (i.e. -- china markers, silver markers, etc.) I find too many of them used by people who get sloppy and end up getting marker, paint, whatever, on soundtracks, pictures, etc. In addition, these, in my experience, simply add to the amount of stuff that rubs off of the print and is left behind on rails and traps in film gates. I never leave anything permanent on a print that I can avoid leaving on it (like a permanent splice).
9.) Some on here have brought up lab splices. I personally hate lab splices and I find them amazingly distracting when they go across the screen. However, again, the audience does not see them and I have been reprimanded before for "wasting time" to remove them from my prints and replace them with standard clear splices because it is "unnecessary". They are the one concession I have made to my personal standards. I hate them, but I now let them stay on the print. I will admit, however, that I honestly do not understand why they are made in the middle of a frame instead of between frames. Do any of you have a good answer for this?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Monte L Fullmer
Film God
Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004
|
posted 02-01-2005 02:46 AM
quote: Rhys M. Blavier
that I honestly do not understand why they are made in the middle of a frame instead of between frames. Do any of you have a good answer for this?
One thing is that lab splices are where the large rolls of positive are spliced together, and wherever the splice hits during developing, since the positive has no frame lines, sometimes this is where the lab splice hits, is in the middle of a frame after developing the positive stock.
Slap a piece of splicing tape over this splice if concerned if these splices will break.
You have to realize that most of here in this forum as film handlers/rollers are from the "old school" of reel to reel changeover operations.
As such projectionists in this "old school" field, we've done our best to present a show without the audience even knowing about what is going on. We tried to make our changeovers as smooth as possible, even during fadeout changovers, in which I've noticed that the "new operators" even cut these out when assembling prints, as one good example. Then when I get these prints, I reassemble the fadeout splices to make them as they were before the cut.
Then, when we moved over to the single machine/film transport form of operation, we carried this trade over to this form of operation, thus why we use the clear tape-to still use the practice of a smooth changeover. Using Opaque tape, or even Zebra (in which I've seen the Zebra part used as the holding/pulling part of the tape and just have the yellow/magenta edge lines be the reel markings-not the other way around..), deterrs from our passion to make such clean "changeovers", thus making this practice unprofessional in our eyes.
Yet, it's interesting that the comment of cuemarks had to be used in this, whereas this usage has been in effect since the silent era.
Now, granted, most of the moviegoing public REALLY doesn't see the opaque tape reel changes, since they are so engrossed in the movie itself. They see the movie, leave the theatre with their comments-good or bad, maybe buy the movie on DVD later, yet they're not worrying all about this for it's just a MOVIE. They're NOT going to get a bad case of heartburn, or indigestion of sorts over seeing (and if they did see) bloopy opaque spices. They figured that this is how it's done nowdays...and live with it.
Thus, when we see (and may I possibly speak for the others here)the opaque spice being presented in the feature, is that this theatre is PRESENTING this show on the audience's level, who doesn't care, since they just wanted to come see a MOVIE - and not being presented on the projectionist's level.
So why give them what they expect, and where you should give them what they deserve..which is the PERFECT PRESENTATION.....this is our motto.
We want our customers to remember what they saw, since in the motion picture industry, the goal is to give the movie going public the experience that they deserve, not just to serve them with a place to show a MOVIE.
It's just that we care of our professional trade.
=Monte
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 02-01-2005 04:55 AM
rhys,
people on this forum don't advocate opaque splices because, being on this forum, they've learned not to use them.
my theater used to use opaque tape. when i read on this forum about using clear tape, i had the same reation as you. it just seemed much more difficult. but i tried it, and in very short order became better than i was before at breaking down. feeling for the splice allowed me to react better to upcoming splices. the eyes glaze over. the fingers do not.
what you feel is merely the edge of the film. your fingers aren't on the surface, let alone the image area.
and the difference on screen was immediately apparent to me. in fact, i even went a step further to size the splices so the edge of the tape doesn't fall within, or barely grazes, the projected image, for a perfectly transparent splice.
this isn't the advice you wanted, but it is advice, and the intent isn't hostile. i'm sure many of us have been in your shoes. try the clear tape. try feeling for splices. it will make a difference.
carl
| IP: Logged
|
|
Monte L Fullmer
Film God
Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004
|
posted 02-01-2005 05:31 AM
quote: Carl Martin
try feeling for splices. it will make a difference.
One small suggestion in "feeling" for the splices when using clear tape and that is:
Take a piece of masking, or artist's tape and place the edge of the tape on the film roll on the platter where the splice is, then when the roll unwinds on breakdown, the edge of the masking/artist's tape will be your mark where the splice is. This is where you slow down the MUT accordingly to meet the splice.
Also, another trick is, especially for experienced operators, is that the filmroll on the platter actually tells you where the reels are, due to the nature of each roll having it's own "texture" or "shading" of the stock, to where the filmroll looks like a series of rings, and where the rings are different, is where the splice is. Granted, this is not a foolproof trick due to the "shadings" of lab splices.
I know basically why the operators that I've personally seen (and please, this doesn't include you-no offense of course) use the opaque tape and that is simply: to break down the print as quick and easy as one can in one pass. Pure and simple.
This has been the MAIN comment that I've heard from a lot of operators that I know who uses the opaque tape. They simply don't like using clear for the sake of having to "find" the splice. They don't want to "study" that filmroll to see the splices. They just want the splice to "stab" them in the eye to let them know that the splice is there.
Yes, they know that clear tape makes the better presentation, but their main concern is of the task of breaking down.
....like it's a HUGE chore to do - breaking down a print.
And WHY it's a HUGE chore to do, is that they just don't like doing this part of being an operator. They want to get that film broken down as quick as they can, so they can get out of that building and finish the night while it's still alive. Also, they are the LAST ones in the building way after the last show has completed its run, money put away, place is empty, and it's time to go home.
I've seen theatres with prints that needs to be broken down, laying on the platters for a good couple of weeks on end, or laying on the floor due to the unwillingness in getting these prints broken down until the corporate office get's on their heinies to get that film out of the premises.
I just don't know WHY it's such a task in breaking down a 6 reel print.
Yet, it's the easiest of all filmwork, since you DON't have to attach trailers, snipes, rolling stock, cue tape(s), and then finally attach the reels together to make the feature.
You simply separate the film where the splice is at and return that roll to its proper assigned reel.
Little help from all of us. - Monte
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-01-2005 08:21 AM
Rhys,
The opaque splicing tape is strictly for amatures, no matter what you claim.
Here are the facts...those that use opaque splicing tape:
1) Flash the screen in a manner every human can see.
2) Thump the analog sound in a manner every human can hear.
These distractions are placed there by the booth personel for the sole purpose of overcoming their poor training on print breakdowns. I say poor training since, as you may have read, breaking down a print that has clear splices are not seen as difficult by those that are properly trained.
It is irrational to claim that opaque tape is as good as clear since one does not affect the show like the other.
There are crutches for those that need the "flags" on the film for splices. Neumade and Jack Roe offer striped tape that will flag the edges of the film such that neither the sound nor the picture will suffer to the audience yet still be a beacon flashing on the platter pack during breakdown (please note, Jack Roe has a couple grades of tape..."Splicemark" is their higher grade and will not leave any yellow or magenta residue on the film).
Heck, we have even had discussions as to just how wide the tape must be to have a good splice that is less visible on screen and is less likely to cause a digital dropout. We have had discussions on how to make splices in a manner such that analog sound makes the transistion undetectably.
To make up film with opaque splicing tape and not to recognize that you are doing, at best, a 2nd rate job is just plain silly. You need to interrupt the film every 18-minutes or so (picture AND sound) for the entire run, just so you can see this big bright flashing rectangle beaming at you during the breakdown phase of a print's life? Seems pretty selfish on the operator's part and cleary offers no benefit to the movie going public.
Just because you can't get anyone to agree with you here doesn't mean the whole site is too biased on this issue. However, your position has ZERO merit. It fails on presentation and it even fails on operator assistance since proper technique negates the visual benefit of it.
You need to acknowledge that perhaps your training has been less than the best on some areas (who hasn't had that?) and have a desire to improve one's performance. The fact you received zero comments to support the use of opaque splcing tape should really be telling you something.
I take a strong position on the superiority of running changeovers...and you will get debate on that as some will speak to the benefits of each system (and not just me and Brad)....with opaque splicing tape, where is the up side?
You want to get into a discussion of who makes a good soundprocessor...you will get a lively debate with Dolby probably taking a predictable lead...but opaque splcing tape?
Heck, you could even spark a debate on who makes a good quality splicing tape and have people chime in on what they think is good or adequate...but opaque splicing tape, anybody's, at best, puts out an inferior show that even the layperson can detect. It has zero benefit. Your argument is without merit.
Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark J. Marshall
Film God
Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 02-01-2005 09:46 AM
Rhys,
Welcome to Film-Tech. It's unfortunate that you sorta touched a nerve with this question since you're new here because the responses give the impression that everyone is ganging up on you. But in reality, the folks who hang out here are in fact extraordinarily nice, knowledgeable and helpful people. They're just very passionate about what they do. While I don't doubt that your chief projectionist loves what he does, he may not have been properly trained himself on this issue. Some things are difficult to "un-learn."
For example, threading projectors from the bottom up was something I *NEVER* considered, and when I tried it a few times, it was incredibly difficult, because it was backwards to the way I was taught. But I kept at it and kept at it, and in a few weeks, I became quite proficient at it. And now, I'll never go back the other way, and I'll never train anyone to do it the other way.
The company I work for insists on everyone marking splices with silver paint pens. Aside from the paint being sticky, and often times glopping all over the film when the pen malfunctions, they're totally un-necessary, but the folks who broke down depended on them. I started by "forgetting" to mark one splice in a print when I built it. A few weeks later, I'd forget to mark 2 or 3. A few weeks after that, I stopped using it all together. Know what happened? Everyone watched how I found the splices, and re-trained themselves with their own techniques. And now... no more paint pens. We threw them all away, because now, everyone knows how to look for splices instead of looking for silver paint.
Let me ask you a question... If your chief projectionist came to work at my theater, could he break down a print in a reasonable amount of time? Say a 7 reel movie in 20 minutes? Not if he doesn't know how to look for clear splices he can't. If I go to his theater, could I? Of course I could. It doesn't matter what kind of tape he uses.
Cheers. And again, welcome to Film Tech! I hope you stick around for a while.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic