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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » 'Fight Club' and the bastardization of projection terms... (Page 4)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: 'Fight Club' and the bastardization of projection terms... Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-10-2008 02:50 AM                        Come on Tim, because I called "carbons" "carbon rods," that means I only have a cursory understand how they really work and I only think I understand them? That a pretty high horse you are riding on, don't you think? You're are assuming I don't know that they are called carbons. That's an erroneous assumption. Fact is, there are many different common names that are used for a whole variety of items and which even change over time; this idea that you are the guardian of the single definitive absolute "correct" nomenclature of every one of them is a tad inflexible to say the least, wouldn't you agree? If a person uses the word "machine" rather than "projector," by your yardstick, that would mean he only has a "cursory" understanding of its workings? Listen, I would be the first to admit I know a lot less than many on this forum and I have publicly admitted that any number of times; I have many times asked questions and sought advice and changed my opinion when that advice was given and I was happy for being enlightened. You start off by saying you don't want to be insulting but in my set of values, saying that a man can't take correction or isn't willing to ammend his viewpoint, well that is pretty insulting. Then again, I think it was you who insisted on getting into a pissing contest over the use of carbons and carbon rods, so let's leave it at that.  |  IP: Logged Kenneth Wuepper Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1026 From: Saginaw, MI, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-10-2008 06:09 AM                     Monte, I was working at the Temple when we did a color 3D feature. I remember the Altec service technician changing out the old silvered mirrors for the newly developed "red" dichroic mirrors. There was a little difference in the light on the screen but a really great difference in how cool the apertures operated. The lamps drew 160 Amperes and the projector gates and Silver jaws of the lamp were water cooled, just as they are there today. Boy do I feel OLD! KEN [ 05-10-2008, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Kenneth Wuepper ]  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-10-2008 09:29 AM                        quote: Monte L Fullmer "Machine 1" and "Machine 2" - I used these terms as well. So was there a convention as to which projector was #1? In our booth, the machine on the right was called #1, even though we always started our shows on #2 (because that's where the manual dimmer and curtain-opening switches were). The numbers were written on the lamphouse doors.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 05-10-2008 01:43 PM                     quote: Mike Blakesley So was there a convention as to which projector was #1 I believe it was how the head operator, using the home created terminology, "audience position" (audience left, center or right) as which machine was numbered. Thus, as with the positioning of the booth equipment as if one was facing the screen, No.1 machine was always the left machine. (Be the same as with a car: driver's side is always left side of the car...) Some chief projectionists would have instruction that the No.2 Machine to start the trailers with making the feature start on the No.1 (left) Machine. (thx for the correct term of the mirror being "dichromic" - which I have a hard time remembering the name..yes, we feel old talking about the 'old school' method of showing movies, but we had pride in doing this trade..) -Monte  |  IP: Logged James Westbrook Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1133 From: Lubbock, Texas, Usa Registered: Mar 2006 posted 05-10-2008 03:14 PM                     The Ballentyne Pro-35's that ran on 6K reels the left one was "Master" and the right one was "Slave". This was how they were installed by Mann Theatres at the Fox in Lubbock, anyway.  |  IP: Logged John T. Hendrickson, Jr Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 889 From: Freehold, NJ, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-10-2008 07:35 PM                     OK- Now I'll go way back in time as far as nomenclature is concerned. Machine # 1 (or projector #1 if you will), was the one on the left facing the screen. "After all, you read left to right, don't you?" as one old timer explained to me. Trailers were started on #2. Why? As it was explained to me, because that way reels 1,3,5, etc. (odd reels) were always projected on number 1. Reels 2,4,6,etc. were run on number 2. That way, when you pulled a reel from the cabinet, there was less likelihood of threading up the wrong reel on the wrong machine. Gosh, when you think of it, it makes perfect sense! Now to throw another monkey wrentch into the discussion. I must admit that I never "laced" a machine. I always "threaded up". I've been doing that since I was five years old, when I got my first projector. Monte Fullmer said: "In my terminology, I would call a booth person "booth operator" when all he did was lace and ran the movies." Sorry Monte, but when I hear the word "lace", it drives me nuts. I can understand our English and Austrailian breathren using the term, but quite frankly, I never encountered it until I started reading posts on this site. I think of "lacing" a pair of shoes (v.t. to pull together or thighten, to fasten, interlace, or intertwine). "Thread" is for a projector (v.t to pass or proceed through in a winding or twisting manner) at least for as long as I've been involved in the business. I do recall in the old days, there were "operators" (those who simply ran the shows) and "projectionists", a term that implied experience and professionalism in a craft. No disrespect intended. I still thread. Always will. Old habits die hard.  |  IP: Logged Robert LaValley Expert Film Handler Posts: 104 From: Tampa, FL Registered: May 2007 posted 05-10-2008 07:44 PM                     lace or thread projector or machine booth or "upstairs" Theatre or Theater Management or Mcdonalds employee it's all pretty much the same thing. hahah I'm being sarcastic for those needing the disclaimer  |  IP: Logged Paul Mayer Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under! Posts: 3836 From: Albuquerque, NM Registered: Feb 2000 posted 05-10-2008 07:48 PM                        Ahem. Guys, that's "dichroic".  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 05-10-2008 08:49 PM                     quote: Robert LaValley Theatre or Theater ..can be the same, but don't let the stage owners and employees see you spell the name of their "Theater" as "Theatre" Sorry, I picked up the term "lace" from one of my operators long time ago, and it sorta stuck with me - even though I knew the correct term was "to 'thread' up the machine".  |  IP: Logged Kenneth Wuepper Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1026 From: Saginaw, MI, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-11-2008 06:51 AM                     You THREAD a needle by pulling the thread through the eye of the needle. You LACE your boots by pulling the laces AROUND the lashing pins. There were even hooks made to help you get the laces around the boot hooks back in the early time before they made the laces go through holes as they do new. There were two innovative types of 16mm projectors. The first type was the "self threading" machine where you just put a trimmed end of the leader into the start of the film path and the machine did the rest. (You still had to attach the end to the takeup reel) The second was the "Slot Loader" where the film path was open with guides and you simply grasped the end and dragged the film through that slot from top to bottom as the machine guided the film into proper position. Securing the film to the takeup and closing the film path made the film ready for projection. As a student operator in high school, I referred to the self threader as "The Self Shredder" since not all leaders were created equal and some did not work in that system. KEN KEN  |  IP: Logged John T. Hendrickson, Jr Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 889 From: Freehold, NJ, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-11-2008 12:16 PM                     Ah Kenneth, you're taking me back in time as well. We had one of those "Self Shredders" at the High School where I taught. Every time I saw that damned thing, I sent it back to the AVA office and requested another machine. You could always tell when someone else had used it from the look of the leaders on the prints they ran on it- chewed up. Damned thing couldn't take a splice, either. I once asked the AVA guy why he bought the damned thing in the first place. His answer was for the teachers who couldn't thread the conventional machines.  |  IP: Logged Matthew Bailey Master Film Handler Posts: 461 From: Port Arthur,TX Registered: Sep 2000 posted 05-11-2008 09:17 PM                     I found ob Ypu Tube a 2 Girls 1 Cup spoof of the projectionist scene in Fight Club. (only the music is heard) click here I magine if the same thing happened in a Cinema Paradiso spoof.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 05-12-2008 12:11 AM                     quote: Kenneth Wuepper "The Self Shredder" Ah, the classic "Self Shredder" - the Bell & Howell 567 Hated their shredding properties and would manual thread these things back in HighSchool while I was in the AVA DEPT. -Monte  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 05-12-2008 07:09 AM                     That "Hell and Bowels" projector wasn't quite the classic classroom unit, as that has a power supply underneath it for the Marc 300 short arc lamp. Regardless, those things sucked. The only auto loaders I ever liked were the Eikis. (I used to use those power supplies to drive the Marc 300 lamp in my custom modified Super 8mm projectors until I switched to an external lamphouse behind a Beaulieu 708 setup.)  |  IP: Logged Jack Theakston Master Film Handler Posts: 411 From: New York, USA Registered: Sep 2007 posted 05-13-2008 04:52 AM                     For what it's worth (if it's worth anything), "Flat" DOES refer to the differences between 3-D, 'Scope and matted widescreen, which took over in May of '53. I've got a trade article talking about it somewhere that goes into depth (no pun intended) about the terminology. What irks me? Projectionists that don't know the difference between 1.33:1 and 1.37:1. It's a small, but incredible difference, because if you say 1.33:1, I think you're talking about a silent aperture.  |  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.