Film-Tech Cinema Systems
  Home     Products     Store     Forum     Warehouse     Contact Us    
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » A massive Thank You to whom ever is responsible for my print of Step Brothers (Page 3)

 
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: A massive Thank You to whom ever is responsible for my print of Step Brothers
Anslem Rayburn
Master Film Handler

Posts: 476
From: Yuma, AZ, USA
Registered: May 2002

- posted 07-27-2008 06:16 AM      Profile for Anslem Rayburn   Email Anslem Rayburn   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Randy Stankey
Well, yes, but those "CAPped" reels are still at your theater.
AFAIK, it's always the same reel(s) which are capped in a given feature. This way, it's not possible to swap the reels around to defeat it.

So, IF two copies of a capped feature gets sent to a theater it doesn't matter whether the reels a swapped because they still have you on record as possessing that print for a given period of time.
If my brain is working correctly (no guarantees at this point), that would lead to problems when they go to other theaters if print 1 has a reel with CAP code from print 2 (and vice versa), and each print leaves you and goes to 2 different theaters.

You swap the CAP coded reels between 1 and 2.

The powers that be shipp print 1 to Oxnard, where it is camcorded by someone evil. Print 2 ends up in Cedar Rapids.

Even though the bootleg actually originated from the print in Oxnard, they are looking at the theater in Cedar Rapids for an explanation since the CAP code reveals it as print 2.

There is now smoke coming out of my ears, and I hope I explained that like I'm thinking in my little brain. I am assuming that the person breaking the film down isn't going to take the time (or remember) to switch the reels back.

Am I thinking clearly on this, or am I wrong?

 |  IP: Logged
Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999

- posted 07-27-2008 09:34 AM      Profile for Tim Reed   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Mike Blakesley
The reel bands always said, "DO NOT REWIND AFTER SHOWING!" or words to that effect.
I think it was, "DO NOT REWIND AFTER SHOWING - STANDARD PRINT MAKE-UP" And green bands for flat, red for scope.

 |  IP: Logged
Kenneth Wuepper
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1026
From: Saginaw, MI, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

- posted 07-27-2008 10:46 AM      Profile for Kenneth Wuepper   Email Kenneth Wuepper   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Tim,

You are right!

The advantage to this system was that you could put the shipping reel in the lower magazine of the projector on the last run of a film. The film was evenly and properly tension wound by the projector. That meant you did not have to rewind it, just band it and put it into the can.

When it arrived at the depot, they inspected with a machine (or by hand) and that meant they could send it out without rewinding since it would then be heads out.

It was not uncommon to receive a currier delivery a half hour before your showing and you could trust the film to run directly from the shipping reels. Such was the quality of the depot work at that time.

KEN

 |  IP: Logged
Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

- posted 07-27-2008 10:46 AM      Profile for Darryl Spicer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
And remember the prints arrived at the depots and were wound off the cores and on to the shipping reels. Normally crappy metal ones at the time.

 |  IP: Logged
Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

- posted 07-27-2008 11:19 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Kenneth, I found the quality of the work by NFS to greatly vary back in the day. I could never trust the Dallas depot on print inspections except to put light scratches on the print because they would only change gloves what seemed like once a month. There were 8 rewinding stations in the room with a bunch of nice older ladies who unfortunately didn't have any clue as to what they were doing other than winding it through their glove to see if it broke. They never stopped at splices to check for misframes or anything on a used print. I asked many times for them to just give me my cans empty with shipping reels in it and let me have the box with my print still on cores from the lab, but they wouldn't do it. Instead I ended up rejecting a fair number of reels on a regular basis due to their "inspecting" scratches.

Of course NFS was just as good as the current depots when it came time to splicing on the attached trailer at the depot. They almost always would find the first visible frame of the studio logo and chop it right there. [Mad]

Anslem, yes what you say does make sense, but in this day and age of major releases getting multiple prints per theater, it is also just as easy to break a print down into the wrong can number. I always train to tag the tail of the prints with the print number if there is more than one copy in the building, but I don't see many other theaters doing that. As a result, the studios HAVE to go to the depot and pull the print to double check the CAP code on them to make sure in such instances...so in reality, swap away. It doesn't matter.

 |  IP: Logged
Blaine Young
Master Film Handler

Posts: 477
From: Kirkland, WA, USA
Registered: Sep 2006

- posted 07-27-2008 12:06 PM      Profile for Blaine Young   Email Blaine Young   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I get a chuckle out of the faxes we receive from technicolor, which seem to dictate which print of a multi-print feature we're supposed to be giving.

quote:
Please have "Wall-E" Print #42 ready for your normal delivery window
Only problem is that Print #42 happens to be playing until 12:45am, while Print #86, which only played twice that day, was off screen at 3:45.

Guess which print TES picked up...

 |  IP: Logged
James Westbrook
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1133
From: Lubbock, Texas, Usa
Registered: Mar 2006

- posted 07-27-2008 03:40 PM      Profile for James Westbrook   Email James Westbrook   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I had a courier that specified he was to pick up print 1022, but I just tore down print 1057. (I forget the title and I'm making up the numbers here as I forgot those too). I took the reels from 1057 and put them in 1022's can and the courier was happy.
This is probably common with multiple prints MOST everywhere.

 |  IP: Logged
Anslem Rayburn
Master Film Handler

Posts: 476
From: Yuma, AZ, USA
Registered: May 2002

- posted 07-28-2008 12:31 AM      Profile for Anslem Rayburn   Email Anslem Rayburn   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Brad Miller
Anslem, yes what you say does make sense, but in this day and age of major releases getting multiple prints per theater, it is also just as easy to break a print down into the wrong can number. I always train to tag the tail of the prints with the print number if there is more than one copy in the building, but I don't see many other theaters doing that. As a result, the studios HAVE to go to the depot and pull the print to double check the CAP code on them to make sure in such instances...so in reality, swap away. It doesn't matter.

Okay. That's kind of what I figured, but just thought I'd bring it up.

We label the prints with their print number if receiving more than one print, also.

 |  IP: Logged
Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

- posted 07-28-2008 11:47 PM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Tim Reed
And green bands for flat, red for scope
(For FOX releases)..and to add: Black was mag/optical and Blue were Optical with "Fox Sprocketholes"

 |  IP: Logged
Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002

- posted 07-29-2008 04:34 AM      Profile for Stephen Furley   Email Stephen Furley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Monte L Fullmer
Optical with "Fox Sprocketholes"
I've never seen that; what was the point in it?

 |  IP: Logged
Kenneth Wuepper
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1026
From: Saginaw, MI, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

- posted 07-29-2008 06:04 AM      Profile for Kenneth Wuepper   Email Kenneth Wuepper   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Stephen,

Have you ever seen what standard sprockets do to the perforations in FOX HOLE films?

One pass through a projector with the wrong sprocket will destroy the entire print. It looks really bad during that first pass as well.

It was very important for the projectionist to be aware of the perforations on any incoming film as well as the sprockets installed in his booth.

KEN

 |  IP: Logged
Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002

- posted 07-29-2008 07:45 AM      Profile for Stephen Furley   Email Stephen Furley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, but what would be the point of making an optical only print on cs perf stock in the first place? I've only ever seen them used on mag striped prints.

 |  IP: Logged
Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

- posted 07-29-2008 01:11 PM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
On this side topic above: The only print that I saw that used the "fox holes" for optical only was when FOX released (in 1961) - "Snow White and the Three Stooges," which I ran as a kid show back in the early 70's (and amazing, the Deluxe print hasn't faded to red yet..).

...and what forever reason FOX did this form of release, is totally unknown to me, just that it was totally odd where, I do agree, why not standard holes for an optical only release?

Only thing I can come up with is that there were mag/opt releases of this film (being that the DVD does have a stereo soundtrack), and to cut production costs some was to use a single inventory film stock and stripe the stereo releases.

I did hear that FOX did release a few other films using "Foxhole" stockage, but never ran them....

-Monte

 |  IP: Logged
Laurie Higgins
Film Handler

Posts: 45
From: Norcross, GA, USA
Registered: Jun 2008

- posted 08-02-2008 03:42 PM      Profile for Laurie Higgins   Author's Homepage   Email Laurie Higgins   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, my Meet Dave the entire thing was tails out, woot! Not.

 |  IP: Logged
Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

- posted 08-02-2008 05:02 PM      Profile for Chris Slycord   Email Chris Slycord   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Laurie Higgins
Yeah, my Meet Dave the entire thing was tails out, woot! Not.
If you have 6K reels and a rewind bench, then what's the big deal? Or do you not like having the whole process go quicker by not needing to rewind?

 |  IP: Logged


All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
- Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.