|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Splicing Tape Preferences -- Opaque or Zebra
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-01-2005 10:16 AM
There are a handful of theatres in the country where one can be assured of a excellent presentation with the finest picture and sound quality possible; I can recommend the Senator in Baltimore, the Uptown in DC (before the recent developments), the AFI in Silver Spring, MD., and the Egyptian in LA. I suspect that the Northpark in Dallas would also qualify if it hadn't been closed a few years ago. There are other venues (the Wang Center in Boston qualifies) which run film occasionally and also put on an excellent show. Others can add to the list.
I would strongly encourage the original poster to visit one or more of these venues and compare the presentation quality to that at his own venue(s). While some items (lenses, sound equipment, etc.) cost money to upgrade and will likely never meet the standards of these venues, there are many improvements that one can make that don't cost a dime and which really do improve the filmgoing experience for the customers. One of these is insuring that nothing interrupts the flow of the film; this includes lab splices which are audible or visible (almost all are) and bad reel changes (either splices or changeovers).
I really think that most of the people who defend poor practices just have never seen anything better and really do believe that they are putting on a good show when, in reality, they aren't. If more executives of theatre chains made a point of seeing more movies in high-class venues with curtains, good equipment, and operators who care, presentation quality everywhere would improve. I bet that pre-movie ads wouldn't be popular, either.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-01-2005 01:42 PM
Rhys, allow me to refute a few of your points.
quote: Rhys M. Blavier
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.
Nobody here is going to defend opaque tape because the people here know the BEST way to make splices, and opaque tape is NOT the best way. It is the WORST way.
quote: Rhys M. Blavier
I am a professional, I make my living at this and have done it for a very long time.
That doesn't mean there isn't room for improvements. I was running film for over 20 years before I discovered Film-Tech, and there are a multitude of little things I've learned, as well as changes I've made to my daily practices, not to mention equipment I've added to my booth, that are all a direct result of this forum. It's when you close your mind to any suggestions, or decide "it's the way I've always done it (or was taught) so it must be right" that you run into problems.
quote: Rhys M. Blavier
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.
Well at least your company has sort-of the right idea. Zebra tape is better than opaque tape by a mile, but clear tape is better than both of them. Less waste, for one thing.
quote: Rhys M. Blavier
when the quality of presentation is not adversely affected, practicality is not a bad thing.
But that's the problem....opaque splices DO AFFECT the presentation adversely, whether you think so or not. Any time you BLANK OUT the screen for the equivalent of a whole frame, it may not cause the audience members to jump up in protest, but it does register as a "blip" in the overall experience.
quote: Rhys M. Blavier
I do NOT find splices by "feel" because I do not touch film if I do not need to.
Nobody ever damaged a print by placing their fingertips on the edge to feel for a splice. This just simply isn't a concern. And, if you have good enough lighting in your booth (or use a flashlight), you can see 99% of splices in the film roll without feeling.
quote: Rhys M. Blavier
An opaque splice is seen on screen in half of a frame for 4/96th of a second.
No. A splice covers up to half of two frames, so you've blocked at least part of the screen for 1/12 of a second. An eye blink is shorter than that. And what about the POP it makes in the sound (if you're running analog)? Or the dropout if you're running SDDS?
quote:
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,
It's hardly the same thing. Cues cover what, maybe 1/500th of the picture area? And they do not interrupt the flow of the movie in the slightest.
quote: Rhys M. Blavier
I do not worry about the conscious or unconscious impact of an opaque splice. It is a non-issue.
Wrong again. If you can see it on the screen, even for 1/12 of a second, it IS an issue. Why should your presentation have ANY impact on the audience, conscious or otherwise? Your job is to be invisible. Your presentation should be invisible. If a black blob goes through your picture and alerts the audience that a splice just happened, it can shatter the mood of the scene, interrupt the sound briefly, and if it is noticed by anyone in the audience, it'll completely take them out of the movie. It's not worth the risk. There are too many other things that take people out of the experience -- cellphones, seat kickers, talkers, whatever -- so your presentation should be as seamless as you can possibly make it.
quote: Rhys M. Blavier
I agree with everyone that we need to be giving the audiences the best possible presentations of our films.
Well then, do what the real pros do....dump that opaque tape.
quote:
Some on here have brought up lab splices. ... 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".
How do you know the audience doesn't see them? 99% of the audience doesn't know what a lab splice is. All they see is a bright flash of light. Between all the bright flashes of lab splices and the dark blobs of opaque reel splices, I'd say you have a pretty tattered presentation.
Please, don't get upset that everyone has jumped on your case for this. For the most part, this community says what it thinks and doesn't pull punches. You asked a question and you got your answer. The fact that nobody agrees with you is not because people are afraid to speak out. It's because you are in the minority AMONG THE PROFESSIONALS on this. Unfortunately, I have the feeling that all the evidence in the world is not going to get you to change your mind. Too bad for your audiences.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Hawkinson
Film God
Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 02-01-2005 03:47 PM
Mike writes, "Nobody ever damaged a print by placing their fingertips on the edge to feel for a splice. This just simply isn't a concern."
Strictly speaking, that is untrue. You won't see it with any first-run prints, but old acetate rep. prints can in fact be damaged during the handchecking process if they are very very brittle. It's mostly a non-issue, but I have seen it happen (when the film is very very weak between the perfs).
Rhys is technically correct that the splice is not visible on the screen for 1/12 of a second, because of the intermittant pulldown time. But this ignores the phenomenon of persistence of vision, where the viewer PERCEIVES the image to be on the screen during the extra 2/96 second per frame of pulldown.
And it is the PERCEPTION of the splice that is important. Viewers do notice lab splices. And they do notice opaque splices. It's even worse with opaque tape, actually, because first they see the top half of the frame covered, and then it shifts to the bottom half of the frame. So it is not only an interruption, but an interruption that moves in a well-defined way. The top half the frame flashes and then the bottom.
The entire time from start to finish of this effect is what matters, and that is 1/12 of a second, or 83 milliseconds. It is in fact a real concern for many of us.
--jhawk
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rhys M. Blavier
Film Handler
Posts: 13
From: Richardson, Texas, USA
Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted 02-01-2005 04:25 PM
I not only peel off all tape from my own splices which I remove, but I peel off all tape from old splices which others are not considerate enough to remove when they send a print out. I take the boy scout view of, whenever possible, sending a print out in better shape than that in which I recieved it (obviously this does not, can not apply to a print I got in as a virgin). When I train others, I also emphasis that I want all prints sent back in the condition in which I would want to recieve it myself. If for no other reason than I hate hypocricy and if I sent prints out with old tape, cue tape still on, etc. then I would have no moral ground for getting mad when I get a used print in that was sloppily done.
BTW, Brad, I know that you are at the Studio Movie Grill in Plano and not the one in Addison but you are still with the company (as I understand it... if I am wrong about this, I apologize) so I want to say that when I mentioned torn screens, I was specifically refering to the Addison theatre as it has at least two screens with tears or holes or marks which I find incredibly distracting when I watch movies there. And just the other night I was at another major Dallas theatre where there was dirt that got caught in the film trap (and was there for the entire show) in addition to having bad shutter speed. These are problems which honestly concern me much more, not just as an audience member but as a projectionist.
I will also say, for the last time, that just because I have a differing opinion from the rest of you, and while I acknowledge that I will never be up to the level of many of you (I doubt I will ever consider myself more than a compentent journeyman and never a "master" projectionist) it does not mean that I am not a professional, that I do not take pride in my profession, that I do not care about the presentations I give my audiences, that I do not know what I am doing and that I do not try to be the best projectionist that I can be. I would appreciate the courtesy of not having personal alligations to the contrary used to attack my honest and sincere difference of opinion on this matter. It is not just bad form for making an argument, it is rude and demeaning and I do not believe that I deserve it. I am not resorting to personal attacks upon anyone else to try to bolster my argument, I am trying to simply present relevant points and information. If anyone does not agree with me, I respect that and, yes, I am reading all of these posts and considering the points being brought up. One thing I always try to keep foremost in my mind is that no matter how strongly I believe in something "I may be wrong". With that, I am open to changing my opinions or views when presented with logical arguements and valid points of difference. Personal attacks only make me inclined to disregard anything being said by the person making the attacks.
One thing I would like to ask, however, is that if everyone is so uniformly sure that opaque tape is a blight upon the world and an evil without without peer, and no one, (according to Brad, not even the megaplexes) uses opaque tape except me, why has it been around for so long and why does every company which makes it even bother since there is obviously no market for it. If I was honestly the only projectionist who prefered it, it would not be available from ANY company. I did not create opaque tape, did not train myself to use it and do not have to introduce it when I go to new theatres or new companies.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-01-2005 06:04 PM
I don't think anyone here said anything to the effect that the state of the industry in general has good or great performances. In fact, I've yet to be pleased by the performance in a multiplex type theatre.
Where you are missing on this particular issue is the word "opinion"...it is not an opinion that opaque splices are visible and distrupt the sound...it is a fact...no opinion there. What you do is demonstratably, and measurably inferior and, as I have stated previously, is a practice that absolutely has no merit.
When looking at the whole way the opaque splice is perceived...it is worse than has yet to be described...typically the opaque splice user uses the fat stuff of approximately 1" wide. This allows for up to 3 perforations on either side of the splice. As such, when it goes though, the bottom of the screen gets the first flash, then the top...but the brain does not just process it that way. It actually looks like a dark black bar across the middle of the screen with gray bars top and bottom that are out of sync with each other so they flash. All this for no benefit? Where is the opinion in all of this?
Are there other problems associated with projecting film...sure...but this is such an easy one for the booth personal to fix without having to spend, well, ANY extra money. In fact, by your own admission, the company you work for is willing to spend extra money on striped tape to avoid the poor performance opaque tape presents (picture and sound) just so you can have a marker to see on breakdown. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
I don't think you will find anyone advocating torn screens, dirt in the aperture (or on the film). There are things within a projectionist's control and there are things that are not...in your specific case, you have been afforded the means to present the show in a higher quality and yet want to project it in a lower quality..
What next? Is it okay to pull down a wad of leader onto the floor when threading up the projector so you have slack?
If you can't get the whole concept of not actively degrading the show is wrong, you aren't a journeyman...just an apprentice. As I've explained it to several older operators with bad habits...1-year repeated (insert your years of service) does not equal experience of that amount of time. (e.g. 1-year repeated 10 times does not make 10-year of experience...it is still just one year.)
Brad, why don't you tell em to use curtains...they help protect the screen! ![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 02-01-2005 06:16 PM
quote:
Brad, why don't you tell em to use curtains...they help protect the screen!
Ok, this is a long time inside joke between Steve and I, but for the benefit of others to experience my aggravation, I'm going to explain it here.
The theater USED to run curtain calls! One day awhile back there was a special event rental and some podiums and staging was set up in the front of the big auditorium. After the morning rental was over, these items were moved to the side to get them out of the way so they could run movies. When this happened, somehow the podium got placed in such a way to prevent the curtain motor from functioning propery (even though it is in it's own box) and the chain jumped the track...but only AFTER the curtains closed just before the first preview was to hit the screen.
It took 45 minutes for the projectionist and manager on duty to untangle the mess, cut the cord and manually pull the curtains open. To make matters worse, every show sold out that day (did I mention this was the biggest auditorium?) and the running time that was provided by the studio was something ridiculously incorrect to the tune of 20-30 minutes off. By the end of the day they were running almost a full show too late! Needless to say the customers were NOT pleased.
The "money boys" said "unhook the curtains - never use them again". Sure I can see their logic, but then again that wouldn't have happened had the people running the SE at the time not thrown their stuff in an area that they were not supposed to. Oh well, I just grumble quietly about it now. It's their decision. Grrrrrrr ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rhys M. Blavier
Film Handler
Posts: 13
From: Richardson, Texas, USA
Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted 02-01-2005 06:22 PM
Brad,
I perfectly understand what you are talking about with bigger problems than what we can take care of ourself. As for where I work, I am at the Magnolia (was working at both the Magnolia and the Inwood before they did the rennovation to the Inwood, but now they have me at the Magnolia exclusively). I have quite a few problems that require more than just personal attention. Hell, I have problems with them letting me stay to clean the projectors much less doing a lot of the big stuff that I feel needs to be taken care of there. In fact, when I try to implement any real standards there, the response is to cut back my hours and tell me in writting that I have no authority to set standards or make expectaions for anyone else who operates the booth... mainly managers but also some part time people. If you could have seen the condition of the booth and the equipment there when I was hired to be the Chief, I think you and anyone else who actually cares about quality in booth operations would have been appalled. I certainly was.
Mike, I would like to say that when I was first trained it was on a reel-to-reel set-up (as I was told, my theatre was the last chain theatre in Texas to still be doing changeovers) and my theatre did not use ushers or even managers to do projectioning. I will say this for Plitt, at least in my experience with them, they didn't push for training operators or for having Managers or Ushers or anyone else doing projectioning except for a trained and scheduled projectionist... that all started when Cineplex- Odeon came in and bought us. I was trained in a very dedicated enviroment at a theatre and by staff that gave a damn about being good... and we used opaque splices and had, as I understand it, since that theatre had opened in 1973.
As for the speeds some of you are talking about doing break-downs, how fast are your rewind capabilities? They must be considerably faster than mine are. I can break-down an average of about one reel in five minutes and most of that time is simply waiting for the film to rewind onto the 2000' reel. It takes me longer to do build-ups because that is when I do all of my cleaning of a old stuff left on prints by other theatres (expecially old cue tape and splice tape left on ends or on leaders) but because of this all I have to do for break down is remove my splices and my cues and go. The most time consuming part of my break-down is the waiting for the film to rewind onto the reel. However, no matter how rushed I am for time, I never send a print out in a condition in which I would not want to recieve it. Expediency is not effciency and I do not believe in doing things badly just because it is easier. A half-a$$ job that saves time is still a half-a$$ job.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 02-01-2005 06:33 PM
The Inwood has always been a major shithole incapable of putting on a good presentation. I have gone to many a show over the years there simply because it was the ONLY place to see a particular movie, and every time I left with a major presentation horror story. I even serviced them twice, but the place was so nasty in every way possible I flat out refused to return. As far as I am concerned, the Inwood is one of about 3 places locally that is actually worse than the Glen Lakes, which has the reputation of being able to scratch a print before the projectionist opens the cans. Everyone I know agrees that it has something to do with the cans being physically carried through the front doors that does it, because the Glen Lakes is immediate death to film. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Just so you know, the Magnolia never used opaque tape until Mye left. A gal by the name of Mye Hyong used to run that place and did an awful good job at it, as I have played a couple of circuited prints from when she was running things 3-4 years ago and they were quite good with no complaints from me (those who know me should know how clean her prints were by that comment). Things must've really gone downhill with operations, because the last couple of circuits I have heard about from the Magnolia were not happy stories in regards to the print condition. (This may not have been your fault if you got them used or if other people in the booth are damaging the films when you are not working though.)
More importantly, you will want to read this since you have to deal with Strong platters. It might be worth your going across the street to the Angelika and asking the projectionist if you can take a look, as they use these clutches there.
While you are at it, read this as well. It shows how you can mark the edges of the reel to make breakdown easier.
I know someone will ask and yes, I swear sometime this year I will make a full blown detailed video showing proper breakdown.
| 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
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic