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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Hey you, you suck! (AKA: Outing bad film handlers) Part 2 (Page 37)

This topic comprises 51 pages: 1  2  3  ...  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  ...  49  50  51

Author Topic: Hey you, you suck! (AKA: Outing bad film handlers) Part 2 John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-26-2009 03:20 PM                     Hey, Laurie, this thread is for outing film handlers... But with that in mind: 1. Solve your UPS problem. Talk to your driver (did you guys get him anything for Christmas?). Talk to the local depot. Make sure they understand. Since they're delivering film cans, which are pretty damn identifiable, you're not just some random customer. Make sure they understand what's going on. And if you're still having trouble, talk to Technicolor. They're a big UPS customer and have access to resources within UPS that you don't. So if you can't solve it at the local level, ask them. They're genuinely interested in hearing about people's UPS experiences and making this thing work like clockwork. If for some reason you can't get good results out of Technicolor, please email me and I'll give you some specific people to talk to. 2. Technicolor doesn't decide who to send onesheets to. That is exclusively the province of the studios. Deluxe and TES just do what they're told. So figure out which studio isn't meeting your needs and talk to their Exhibitor Relations people [who deal with the marketing materials] and see what they say--for Sherlock Holmes, that's Warner Brothers. Find their contact info on http://wbexhibitorlink.com, but I guess for you ("South") it's Barbara Laufer? But don't blame the messenger. HAPPY HOLIDAYS! --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-28-2009 10:39 AM                        Just to clarify a bit on the onesheets issue, at least as applied to smaller exhibitors -- Technicolor may do what they're told by the studios, but what the studios tell them to do can be maddeningly inconsistent. Sometimes they ship things automatically, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they'll ship anytime, sometimes they require a playdate in place. The key is to order the onesheets you need, or even the ones you think you're going to need, as far in advance as possible. They'll charge extra for Disney onesheets that aren't shipped automatically, so do whatever you can to get Disney to ship you stuff themselves, rather than ordering direct from TES.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-28-2009 11:06 AM                     Oh, that's all true. Note that if the studio orders, they pay shipping (and, in the case of Disney, the $5 exhibitor direct billing fee); but if you order, you pay shipping. Mike, have you had a playdate restriction on onesheets? I've seen them on trailers, but I don't remember seeing them on onesheets... --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 12-28-2009 11:12 AM                        If we "need" d-cinema so much, shouldn't we have virtual 1-sheets? Then you could just download whatever you need. Louis  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-28-2009 11:18 AM                     Don't laugh. Bass Industries, who make the often-recommended poster frames/cases (Edgeline, etc.) market exactly such a product (see above URL). I'm not 100% sure where you get the digital onesheets. Sometimes you can find them on studio Exhibitor sites. Sometimes you can find them on studio Press websites. And probably there's some special channel I just don't know about... I would be very sad if physical onesheets went the way of the dodo, but it certainly is possible. It'll probably happen before film goes away, at this rate... --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-28-2009 11:47 AM                        This is getting _way_ off topic, but I have occasionally wondered about the printing costs for posters. They seem to use some very high quality printing process, and the double-sided ones must require special equipment to properly register both sides. On the other hand, giant LCD or plasma monitors aren't exactly cheap, either, and the picture quality is poor by comparison.  |  IP: Logged Carey Barber Expert Film Handler Posts: 143 From: Newport News, VA, USA Registered: Jan 2003 posted 01-19-2010 09:31 AM                     I just saw one of the worst presentations I have ever seen...This was at the "Cinema Cafe" in Hampton, Va. I had taken my 3 year old to see "Princess and the Frog". The movie was actually a decent children's movie, but it was hard to enjoy with all of the problems. The print was horribly scratched from the first frame of the trailer pack to the very end of the movie. It was also quite a variety of scratches, so this was probably not from just one one goof-up, but a series of mis-threadings and continual neglect. There were steady scratches, wavering scratches, thick ones, thin ones, vertical ones, horizontal ones, little dash marks, etc. This print should definitely have been replaced. And Cinema Cafe should definitely be charged for it. I pray that no one else gets this print. The movie was FLAT but the masking was set to SCOPE for the whole movie. I think there was something reflective behind the screen because I would keep seeing something shining through (perhaps some scaffolding back there?) The aperture plate needed some serious filing...There were significant shadows on the left and right (although if the masking was set to FLAT this may have looked better.) Every splice was pretty sloppy and disruptive. The print was dirty, although I was afraid it would be much worse after that first trailer hit the screen and I saw all those scratches. The good news...the image was only SLIGHTLY out of focus! C'mon Cinema Cafe...You can do better than this! (Can't you?)  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 01-19-2010 01:19 PM                     quote: Carey Barber There were significant shadows on the left and right (although if the masking was set to FLAT this may have looked better.) What causes this, and I bet it's a curved gate Simplex XL using single changeout aperture plates: the aperture sits so far back behind the film plane that you get this shadowing effect from all around the image and there is nothing you can do about it.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 01-19-2010 04:48 PM                     One man's "significant" is another one's "unimportant" -- it would help to be quantitative. Are we talking 3 inches, 6 inches, or 18 inches? Anyhow, no matter that the projector, the purpose of masking is to hide aperture shadow. It should always be possible. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 01-19-2010 05:19 PM                     quote: John Hawkinson the purpose of masking is to hide aperture shadow Some people foolishly believe there should be zero bleed onto the masking, as in ALL of the shadow should be visible on the screen. How can I put this delicately? Oh I know...morons!  |  IP: Logged Carey Barber Expert Film Handler Posts: 143 From: Newport News, VA, USA Registered: Jan 2003 posted 01-19-2010 06:14 PM                     Hmmm...The shadows had a lot of variation in it...I would say that it ranged from 3 to 6 inches. With the side masking set to SCOPE rather than FLAT it looked pretty bad. For all I know this was not an aperture plate problem at all...I am not sure what the acceptable or standard amount of aperture shadow would be. I do know that it was very distracting!  |  IP: Logged Sean McKinnon Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1712 From: Peabody Massachusetts Registered: Sep 2000 posted 01-19-2010 07:15 PM                        Does'nt SMPTE specify the amount of over bleed into the masking? I want to say it specifies a foot but that seems like an awful lot maybe it's an inch? I forget. I agree with Brad though it looks terrible when the plate is cut right to the edge of the masking.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 01-19-2010 08:25 PM                        I recall 6" Louis  |  IP: Logged Sean McKinnon Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1712 From: Peabody Massachusetts Registered: Sep 2000 posted 01-19-2010 09:16 PM                        Thank you Louis! Now that you mention it that sounds exactly right!  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 01-20-2010 03:15 AM                     Err...I don't have a copy of RP40 handy, but the TAP guidelines say the sum of masking, aperture, etc. should not exceed 5% (with 3% preferred as a maximum). They cite SMPTE S195 and RP40. S195 doesn't discuss the percentage (I looked), so I guess its in RP40. I'd be surprised to see a fixed linear distance though. It gets harder and harder with bigger screens... --jhawk  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 51 pages: 1  2  3  ...  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  ...  49  50  51

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.