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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » What happened to 2 reels per movie cans? (Page 4)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: What happened to 2 reels per movie cans? Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 04-12-2005 05:58 PM                        The Danish ELR shipper looks good, though I take Joop's point that it must feel hideously unbalanced to be carrying one, especially up staircases. Perhaps this problem might be solved by putting some thinner cases into circulation which hold only one 6k reel? A typical print could be distributed in two of these, while a longer one (i.e. over 6 reels) could be shipped in one 'single' and one 'double' case.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-12-2005 06:43 PM                        Agreed with Leo. If they made those boxes so that they held one 6000' reel each, they would be ideal. I really think that 12000' of 35mm film is just too much weight to put into one container and that two containers with 4-6000' of film in each would work better. This applies regardless of whether the film is on cores or reels. It's not fun carrying a heavy box up a steep flight of stairs to the booth. With the Danish system, I'd be curious to know what happens with films that would ship on 7 reels in the US. Do they ship a third big reel with only 2000' of film on it? What happens if theatres can't handle the big reels? Do they have to break down the print in order to show it? Do the prints have lab or depot splices every 2000', or does each reel contain one continuous piece of film?  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-12-2005 06:51 PM                     Speaking of ELRs, did anyone else see the retarded way the labs were assembling the reels? Let's take a 5 reel movie and put reels 1, 2 and 3 on the first one, then 4 and 5 on the second. Real intelligent guys! That way if a house wants to run changeover there are good odds that they just added another changeover for them just to run the trailer pack because the labs didn't put reels 3, 4 and 5 on the second reel, thus leaving enough room on the first reel for the theater to splice on their previews.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 04-12-2005 09:43 PM                        It would seem with Mylar that we have already reduced the thickness of the film. If we could do that again so that the net reduction is 50%, you would get 4000 ft on 15" reel. One large reel could hold 12000 ft instead of the 6000 we had with acetate. I believe than any curved gate machine, properly set up, would have no trouble with that. Flat gate is another story. This would address the issue of weight. (How oh how did anyone lift those 70MM reels every 20 minutes?)  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 04-13-2005 12:02 AM                     quote: Louis Bornwasser How oh how did anyone lift those 70MM reels every 20 minutes?) ..they aren't that heavy - about 35lbs and at about the same height as a 6K arm -being a 24 inch reel and never full. But..hunkering up a 13k, 36inch, 35mm reel full to the rim with 145 minutes of film to a spindle height of a little over 6ft is another matter..lol -Monte  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 04-13-2005 05:38 AM                        quote: I believe than any curved gate machine, properly set up, would have no trouble with that (very thin print film). Flat gate is another story. Ah --- there's the rub! The film needs to be stiff enough to hold focus in a wide variety of projectors. The stiffness of a piece of film is roughly proportional to the cube (**3) of thickness, so even a few micrometers of thickness makes a noticeable difference. Kodak has made print film base as thin as 0.0035 inches / 90 micrometers (normal is 0.0047 inches / 120 micrometers) for special applications.  |  IP: Logged Brian Guckian Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 594 From: Dublin, Ireland Registered: Apr 2003 posted 04-18-2005 03:06 PM                     As a matter of interest, has anyone any comments regarding the storage of ELR prints? It would seem that long-term storage in the vertical position could lead to compression of film layers as they get closer to the hub of each reel, with all kinds of consequences...horizontal storage would seem better, but then there are handling issues in the depot or the archive in lifting the cases from a vertical to horizontal position. (This puts a cantilever-type force on the lower back if the lifting is done unaided). One could engineer shelving where the cases are inserted vertically then rotated to lie horizontally, but that would presumably cost an arm and a leg. Is there an easier way?  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-18-2005 05:32 PM                     If the ELRs are broken down/rewound/taken-up/whatever properly so that they are smooth and tightly wound, it shouldn't be much of an issue.  |  IP: Logged Brian Guckian Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 594 From: Dublin, Ireland Registered: Apr 2003 posted 04-19-2005 07:27 AM                     Thanks Brad, I'd been operating out of the assumption that once made up in the labs, ELRs are left that way even after use.  |  IP: Logged Kevin Orman Film Handler Posts: 24 From: Sompting, Lancing, UK Registered: Mar 2005 posted 04-20-2005 07:51 PM                     We have used two types of 6000ft plastic spool. The first type is totally useless and is the black 'brittle' plastic type made by Cinemeccanica. About 8 out 10 of ours are broken/cracked. The second type we started using several years ago is way more successful. These are also 6000ft but are grey plastic - no NOT the brittle thin grey plastic that comes to mind - this plastic is called 'Duron' or something similar. We have 12 of these and not one of them has sustained damage and they get THE worst kind of use - mobile projection. The spools are moved in and out of a vehicle every day, up and down stairs, bashed, crushed and occasionally dropped and still they survive! You can even (and I'm not joking) stand on them squashing the flanges together and nothing happens to them (this was how they were demonstrated to me!). They are made in Italy and do not appear to be readily available outside Italy. They would be ideal for distributing features but I agree that two separate boxes would be more sensible. I believe there was a scheme here in the UK a few years ago to distribute on two spools, don't know why that did not happen though as it would be a major improvement in presentation due to the reduced physical handling of the print during make-up. Personally, if I was involved in distribution (it seems as though just about everybody is here at the moment with new distributors springing-up all the time) I would distribute only on 6000ft spools. I can't believe that anybody can't handle a spool this size.  |  IP: Logged Jeremy Jorgenson Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1002 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: Feb 2005 posted 04-23-2005 04:38 PM                        quote: Leo Enticknap Indeed, 70mm cores are pretty rare The 8/70 and 15/70 prints that I've assembled have come either on cores or the entire print completely pre-assembled. Fantasia/2000 was 22 reels, Beauty and the Beast was 28 (however, on the 8/70 prints, I believe it came with three reels assembled per core). Polar Express 3D was 60 reels (30 per eye), although I was not the one assembling that print. I should note though, we'd almost always get these prints days, usually weeks, in advance of our first booked show. I've never worked with 5/70, but when I saw Lawrence of Arabia at the Egyptian in Hollywood, I toured the booth & the cans I saw for it looked pretty much like the ones shown in the pic Scott posted back on page 1 or 2 (14 reels for LofA, I think? could be wrong as this was 5 years ago)  |  IP: Logged Rachel Craven Madam Moderator Posts: 2190 From: Pensacola, FL Registered: Dec 2000 posted 04-23-2005 05:07 PM                     quote: quote: Scott Norwood -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is there _really_ any need to put the entire movie in one container? Has anyone ever received only half of a print because one can got lost? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes... Did you know that you were asking a rhetorical question? Me too, just two weeks ago for The Amityville Horror.  |  IP: Logged Joop de Gruiter Film Handler Posts: 33 From: Lund, Sweden Registered: Jul 99 posted 04-30-2005 07:21 PM                     Stephen here is a picture of a probably similar can i guess you're referring to: This can is made in Denmark by Dancan www.dancan.dk It seems very sturdy. The cans were only wrapped with paper with string around it. I guess these boxes give enough protection as is. When lifting the package instead of feeling a "klonk" when all the reels shift place it was solid as a rock without being heavy as one. The bottom of each can fits into the lid of the other with round feet. Very nice solution.  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 05-02-2005 04:12 AM                     Similar idea, but the one I saw was round, and the central retainer was only half the height of the film roll; there was a similar one attached to the lid of the can. I've only seen one of them, the rest of the print was in normal, fragile, mostly broken, cans. There's no projection work going at the moment, and not likely to be for some time, so I don't know if any more of these cans have turned up.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-28-2005 03:31 PM                        Bump. I was going through some photos today and found this one, which I took last fall. It's a better shot of a 70mm print in the typical USA shipping configuration. The film is "The Abyss."  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

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.