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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Apr 2 Nitrate booth fire at the Stanford, Palo Alto (Page 5)

This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8

Author Topic: Apr 2 Nitrate booth fire at the Stanford, Palo Alto John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 04-12-2009 10:10 PM                     It does seem like the lesson here is to think about drainage. Apparently nobody ever tested the fire suppression system (stands to reason, soaks the booth!), but if they had, they'd have figured out this water problem. Engineering systems is hard. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Philip Krikau Film Handler Posts: 4 From: San Francisco, CA. USA Registered: Jan 2008 posted 04-14-2009 03:26 AM                     I am the chief projectionist at the Stanford Theatre in Palo Alto and have been for the past 18 years. We have Simplex XL's that were rebuilt by the designer himself Howard Straight who has since passed on. In 1996 we removed the inadequate Peerless Magnarc's for the larger Strong rotating positive 35/70 Specials. These were found at the Warfield in San Francisco and rebuilt. On the night of the screening of "Cover Girl" the print I believe, combusted in the aperture starting the flaming trail to the feed sprocket and within seconds went to the upper magazine. My training taught me to bail out once a fire starts and not to play hero as we all know that the ramifications of such a fire are immense. The fire which was by no means small was tremendous. Amazingly enough, only the upper magazine was destroyed with the Ampex mag head sustaining the rest of the heat. The projector in the upper feed area had some scorching but is able to still function. The sprinkler system while it did nothing to extinguish the fire itself, prevented the rest of the booth from going up. It is true that a lot of water was dumped into the theatre but this being the first time, left us with no experience as to how to shut that off. Nitrate film does not improve with age and we will begin an intense discussion on how best to prevent this from happening again. Comments made on this site range from the sublime to the ridiculous. It is true that the film company had a safety print of Cover Girl but the color and clarity didn't even come close to the nitrate print we had. One would have to see it to understand. And to suggest as someone wrote, that they could play a nitrate print on a platter just boggles my mind. Any comments or questions will be gladly answered here.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-14-2009 03:29 AM                     Sometimes people's minds NEED to be boggled. Separating the film into a different fireproof room with film choppers and fire rollers, whether it is on 1000 foot reels or on a platter would be far safer than leaving the reels on the projector. Also in the event of a fire like this, only maybe 20 feet would have been destroyed instead of burning the entire reel and making a bigger fire. Do the math. The concept is far from ridiculous. It is much smarter than the way you have been running nitrate. Are you really incapable of seeing why? Just because someone has been doing something for a long time a certain way doesn't make it the best way. Technology is your friend. Use it.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 04-14-2009 04:49 AM                     What I'm curious is the removal of the Magnarcs. Was is due to the age and wear and tear of the transmission that couldn't keep the "8's and 9's" aligned up with the lampcard? I ran a theatre similar with this above setup (XL's with Magnarcs running the same size of arcs) with a 55' throw...and we had great light hitting our silver screen. Thus, using those higher 35/70 Strong units, I wonder if the mirror was slightly out of focus where the film got to hot-why it combusted in the trap, or was it just fate that a small secton of film had a weak spot to let go like that. Has this film been ran before, or first time on the screen?  |  IP: Logged Bill Enos Film God Posts: 2081 From: Richmond, Virginia, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 04-14-2009 10:19 AM                     Time will be the ultimate determining factor in exhibiting from nitrate film. Eventually all the available prints will be worn out or in such poor condition or missing reels that even marginally safe projection in a public space will be impossible. Any guesses as to how long that will take? How many presentable prints of nitrate films are out there? After an event such as the Stanford fire, does the theatre have to pay for the destroyed reel or does the owner of the film accept the risk the same as the theatre?  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 04-14-2009 10:33 AM                       Monte, Throw's got nothing to do with it. I know you know this but this is one of my pet peeves. It only the size of the screen that matters. You said silver screen right? The Stanford is a Matte.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 04-14-2009 10:46 AM                     Brad, maybe since there's a lot of emotion here, it might be a good idea to seperate the proposals on how to platter nitrate elsewhere into another thread? In any case, I think the fear with your proposals are: What if the fire valves/choppers don't work? Then you lose the entire print, not just the 10-minute reel. These devices aren't perfect. 10-minute reels with magazines is a time-tested approach. Regulatory bodies are slow to move and slow to approve new things. The local fire folks and building inspectors and insurance people may not be comfortable with a system that is other than what they're familiar with, even if it looks better on paper. And there can be unexpected surprises. Philip: Thanks for stepping forward and telling us what happened to you. It sounds like a harrowing experience! Chin up! --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-14-2009 11:04 AM                     John, I am aware of how many people are scared of platters even for regular safety film stock, but you cannot tell me that putting two 1000 foot fireproof magazines in an adjacent room equipped with double (if you want) choppers on the leading side of the walls (feed and takeup) with 10-15 feet of distance from the projector to the wall is anything but tremendously smart for running nitrate. You know how slow the film burns. In such a situation a projectionist could even simply sit by the wall where the film enters and exits the booth via the tiny slots in the wall with fire rollers (even a second set if you like) and through film choppers AND keep a pair of scissors in his hands to boot. Fact of the matter with such a design, there would be tons of time for the projectionist to cut the film himself if he didn't want to rely on some form of automated film cutter, it would put the projectionist's life at less of a risk and virtually guarantee that only a few feet of the print would be destroyed (which unfortunately can not be said for the print that ran in this incident). I am not saying the Palo Alto guys did anything wrong, but the fact remains that just because this is "the way its always been done" is NOT necessarily the best way it could be done. I will draw you a picture if you still don't get it.  |  IP: Logged Philip Krikau Film Handler Posts: 4 From: San Francisco, CA. USA Registered: Jan 2008 posted 04-14-2009 11:23 AM                     My experience with people who've gone on before me and that are still present who ran nitrate is that fire rollers or choppers as Brad likes to call them, work only half the time. They didn't work for me. The flame worked itself right up to the magazine. Imagine that happening on a platter. I shudder at the thought.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 04-14-2009 12:29 PM                     Sorry Sam, I added the throw out of habit. Our screen size was 35 feet wide when the side tabs were open for scope. We had silver due to early 3D presentations...and just kept the screen up since. -Monte  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-14-2009 01:01 PM                     Bill, You'd be amazed at the amount of projectable Nitrate film still available...and I mean millions upon millions of feet! Philip...you are misinterpreting what a chopper is...it is what its name implies...it CHOPs the film like a spring loaded pair of scissors. What Brad is proposing is basically increasing the time available to break the film once the fire is started...you are still only putting one reel on the platter but you are putting that reel at a greater distance so you have time to either manually or automatically cut the film before the fire reaches the rest of the pack. With conventional reels/magazines, there is not enough time to respond and you are at the mercy of the fire rollers which, work some times. Imagine if you had 20-feet of film between the projector and the reel...in that 20-foot path you have have a spring loaded film cutter (chopper) that if either fire system went off or you manually pressed a button (heck we could even make it tension related...if the system looses all tension for over a second or two, CHOP)...this would keep the fire from ever reaching the rest of the pack...the fire would be over in mere seconds as it would run out of fuel. Note, it does not have to be platters...just locate torque motor reels, in magazines, at a sufficient distance from the projector/soundhead such that there would be time to break the film in some manner. And I'll repeat...I've never seen a safety version of a print compare favorably to its Nitrate counterpart. Some may call it lab work but I think there is more at play there...again, my experiences, other experiences may vary and I'm okay with that too. Steve  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 04-14-2009 07:26 PM                     ...and to add to this: have tonnage of updraft ventilation to carry the fumes and smoke straight up and out of harms way - to even have an exhaust hood over the setup.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-14-2009 08:37 PM                     Thank you for explaining that Steve. Surely Philip can follow your more lengthy explanation of the proposed AND MUCH SAFER setup. (My design always had in mind a "lack-of-tension" automatic chopper action, but a projectionists could always sit on a barstool beside the "wall" with a pair of scissors in his hands too.) Philip, where you interpret "fire rollers" out of the term "chopper" (made by Kelmar Systems I think) I have no idea. Regardless you could stand to learn a lot if you care to read the posts here carefully in the future.  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 04-14-2009 09:04 PM                       Brad, You have a good idea but getting local fire inspectors to approve anything new sounds like a nightmare. They go by the book like a traffic cop. I would only agree to one of these systems if it were in a completely different room and most Rep houses are in crowded older booths with no space for a platter or film room. Then there is always the possibility the film on the platter will go up for some entirely different reason than the film aperture lighting the film. A platter speed control, motor fire, who knows? Nitrate vaults have been known to go with up with no documented ignition source. There's a good reason magazines have doors on them. Imagine a platter with a metal cover.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-14-2009 09:38 PM                     Phillips used to have that chopper built into some of there heads and the GK21 had a system built into it as well  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8

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.