Film-Tech Cinema Systems
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   » No More Orange Film Cans? (Page 2)

 
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Author Topic: No More Orange Film Cans?
Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 01-13-2010 08:59 PM      Profile for Scott Norwood   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Norwood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
We solved this in another thread: make small boxes with handles in 2-reel, 3-reel, and 4-reel sizes. Then make large boxes that hold various combinations of the above, also with (sturdier) handles. This gives a single box for transporting one complete normal-length feature and an easy way to separate the boxes to carry them around in the theatre, up or down stairs, etc. As an added bonus, it provides additional protection for the film.

Why is it that TES and DFS cannot figure this out?

 |  IP: Logged

Jonathan Althaus
Master Film Handler

Posts: 435
From: Bedford, TX
Registered: Dec 2008


 - posted 01-13-2010 09:46 PM      Profile for Jonathan Althaus   Email Jonathan Althaus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Personally, I have no problems with the current system. I know that film is heavy, so I don't lift the box as if it was only 20 lbs. I like the cans, but the boxes tend to not roll around in the back of my truck as much.

 |  IP: Logged

Jim Cassedy
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1661
From: San Francisco, CA
Registered: Dec 2006


 - posted 01-13-2010 10:31 PM      Profile for Jim Cassedy   Email Jim Cassedy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Mike Blakesley
just open the box and carry 2 or 3 reels at a time...a pain in the neck, but a back saver.
I've been doing this ever since I had an abdominal hernia
repaired 2 years ago and my guts are now held in place by
some surgical mesh, permanant sutures and half-a-dozen
metal screws. If I can't get one of the 'kids' at the
theater to bring thw whole box up to the booth, I carry
the film up 2 or 3 reels at a time. Sure, it takes a
couple of extra trips and a little more time, but it
beats tearing my stitches or popping my screws and
winding up back in the hosptial.

But I still think the side handles are not a great idea.

 |  IP: Logged

Ian Parfrey
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1049
From: Imbil Australia 26 deg 27' 42.66" S 152 deg 42' 23.40" E
Registered: Feb 2009


 - posted 01-14-2010 02:15 AM      Profile for Ian Parfrey   Email Ian Parfrey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
...hence the idea of Octagonal corrugated plastic film trunks of no more than 4 spool capacity. But, as mentioned previously, companies don't like expense..but I'll bet they would dislike even more a whole stack of Compo claims.

Maybe now is the time to go to 6K spools.

 |  IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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


 - posted 01-14-2010 02:54 AM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Jonathan Althaus
like the cans, but the boxes tend to not roll around in the back of my truck as much.

....is why you lay the "effing" cans on their side so they don't roll around.....or ,you got tiedowns lining the edge the bed so you can tie the cans down to the sidewalls....

 |  IP: Logged

Ian Parfrey
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1049
From: Imbil Australia 26 deg 27' 42.66" S 152 deg 42' 23.40" E
Registered: Feb 2009


 - posted 01-14-2010 03:42 AM      Profile for Ian Parfrey   Email Ian Parfrey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Monte

[thumbsup]

 |  IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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


 - posted 01-14-2010 03:56 AM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
..sorry, that one got me .... been in the business WAY too long... [Big Grin]

 |  IP: Logged

Damien Taylor
Master Film Handler

Posts: 493
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2007


 - posted 01-14-2010 08:03 AM      Profile for Damien Taylor   Email Damien Taylor   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Ian Parfrey
Maybe now is the time to go to 6K spools.
Can anyone tell me why this failed the first time? I heard theatres were forced at thier own expense to prepare for this, in much the same manner as Cinemascope. It seems like a pretty good idea.

 |  IP: Logged

Richard Hamilton
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1341
From: Evansville, Indiana
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 01-14-2010 08:57 AM      Profile for Richard Hamilton   Email Richard Hamilton   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I was working one Thursday night and they delivered the films early. 2 new films with nothing to pick up. I was finishing up with a concession girl [Big Grin] and told the usher to take one of the movies upstairs, I'd get the other one. I was about 30 seconds behind him and suddenly it sounds like he was tumbling down the stairs. I rounded the corner just in time to see a film can bouncing off the wall at the bottom of the stairs. The usher was standing at the top of the stairs with a "deer in the headlights" dumbass look on his face. He just stood there and said "it slipped". One of the cans I was carrying was fairly light, so I just reached down and was able to get 2 cans with 1 hand and 1 in the other. The usher just stood at the top of the stairs staring at me. When I got to the top, all I could say was "fucking pussy" as I walked passed him.

 |  IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 01-14-2010 09:19 AM      Profile for Scott Norwood   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Norwood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The 6000' shipping reel thing failed for a bunch of reasons:

- many theatres could not accommodate the large reels, requiring double-inventory (extra expense) for distributors
- the shipping containers were large, heavy, and awkward
- the reels were poorly designed (flimsy and collected dust; also, they had 1/2" shafts, which many theatres could not accommodate, even if they could deal with the larger reel diameter); they would not fit on many rewind benches or makeup tables
- film storage facilities (racks/shelves) are not designed to accommodate the large reels and would need to be replaced (more extra expense)
- replacement reels (e.g. changes to credits, etc.) would have to be supplied in 6000' lengths (yet more extra expense)
- production schedules usually require that titles (first reel) and credits (last reel) be printed last due to late changes; this would not be possible if the prints were to be made in 6000' lengths
- the few titles that were released this way were typically printed in 2000' lengths and spliced together by hand; sometimes the splices were made badly and needed to be re-made by the theatres

I am sure that others can add to this list. I never actually received one of these, but have seen them in other theatres and have heard nothing but horror stories about them. It was a well-intentioned idea that failed for practical reasons.

The only time it would really make sense to ship prints on 6000' reels now would be for 2-strip 3D prints.

 |  IP: Logged

Michael Voiland
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 219
From: Naperville, IL US
Registered: Aug 2009


 - posted 01-14-2010 09:20 AM      Profile for Michael Voiland   Email Michael Voiland   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The fox boxes are a pain to move around. Now we have technicolor boxes that look like some hazmat container. I will take the cans over a box at least the dts disk stands a better chance with 3 reels and trailers in a can compared to the entire film in the box.

 |  IP: Logged

Ian Parfrey
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1049
From: Imbil Australia 26 deg 27' 42.66" S 152 deg 42' 23.40" E
Registered: Feb 2009


 - posted 01-14-2010 03:38 PM      Profile for Ian Parfrey   Email Ian Parfrey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
During my stints as Film Festival operator, quite a few European prints arrived on 6000' spools in plastic trunks, usually octagonal, and they were a delight to use. Just the time saved in make up and break down was worthy of the idea.

The 1/2 shaft didn't bother us as we had Century's with the 1/2 shaft in place, but it wouldn't be too much of a drama to retro-fit other projectors for this size spindle. If the print came on cores, we had a 6K split made up and just wound off.

The vast majority of outfits now sport 6000' capability, so it seems pointless to spend $$$ on modifying 2000' spools when going 6K would ultimately save print damage due to make up/break down.

The weight issue now makes no sense as the single boxes are harder to lift, heavier and bulkier than 2 6000' trunks. The only advantage I can see is the stackability of boxes over 6K spools and trunks...but as Monte pointed out, just lay 'em flat if transporting- and if long term storage is the aim, stack them as per usual like the 2000' trunks.

For once, it would be great if some suit in a large corporation came up with an idea that benefits the whole chain and not just one sector. The European method of plastic octagonal 6K trunks does just that.

 |  IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005


 - posted 01-14-2010 08:53 PM      Profile for Louis Bornwasser   Author's Homepage   Email Louis Bornwasser   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
After mylar film was introduced, the thickness of film was reduced 30%. The original plan was to then reduce the thickness another 30% later. This never happened.

With 4000 ft on a "2000 ft reel" you would only have 3 reels to equal 12000 ft. Same weight and length as a 6 reel acetate shipment.

D Cinema ended all of that. Louis

 |  IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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


 - posted 01-14-2010 10:21 PM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
..ain't it though....

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 01-15-2010 12:29 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Just got another email from Technicolor thru NATO about the cans vs boxes issue. Normally I wouldn't post this since it's a NATO communication, but since it will affect all of us I'm going to post it.

quote: Technicolor

On behalf of Tim Burke:

I received several calls and emails from some NATO members asking about the Technicolor 35MM print box. I would like to provide you more of a complete update than the initial email.

As for timing, I don’t anticipate Technicolor Distribution shipping 35MM prints in boxes, other than one test wide, before May. I doubt that many of you have seen, other than the emailed picture, or used our box unless your theatre(s) played Transylmania. I suspect most of you have seen the Deluxe box (gray). There are two primary differences between the Technicolor and Deluxe box:

Technicolor will not put more than 6 film reels in one box. For 7 and more reel films, we will use two boxes.

Technicolor has two handles on opposite sides of the box with lifting instructions printed in large font on 2 wide sides of the box. These lifting instructions were written by UPS Safety Engineers.

A majority of theatre personnel that we have surveyed prefer the box. Most theatres that do express concern of the box say that it is too heavy. It is for this reason that Technicolor made the aforementioned changes. A 6 reel film with 6 trailers in Technicolor box will average 54 pounds. I have in my office:

A print of ‘Precious,’ 6 reels with 6 trailers, in a Technicolor box. It weighs 55 pounds.

A print of ‘Precious,’ also 6 trailers, in two film cans. On can weighs 30 pounds. The other can weighs 47 pounds.

Most theatre personnel carry 2 cans at a time. Currently, a theatre person carrying print of Precious carries two cans at 30 and 47 pounds. The future would be a theatre person carrying one 55 pound box, lifting with two handles, and theatres that received Transylmania told us the handles are comfortable, following lifting instructions on the box written by safety engineers (lifting with legs, keeping close to body, etc) The instructions also encourage using a cart or dolly to transport to and from steps.

Some of the reasons why projectionists tell us that they prefer box vs can are:

- The boxes are cleaner. Many of the cans are very old and incl rust.
- The cans have sharp edges. Every month we receive calls about cuts and torn clothing
- The latches on the cans are old and sometimes take long while to open and close cans.
- Boxes stack better, especially important in crowded projectionist rooms. Many cans are bent and uneven, and don’t stack as easily.

Another plus is that UPS errors will decrease as much as 50% shipping in box than can. Cans are like golf clubs, exception freight, and cannot travel on UPS sort conveyor belts, thus have lot of manual handling. The other reason is probability. Most UPS errors are one can shorts. Assuming a 1% error rate on a 1000 print release, 20 cans could be effected and theoretically 20 theatres. With boxes, it is only 10.

Thank you for all feedback received thus far. Again, I am available via phone or email. My contact information is listed below.

Tim Burke

Tim Burke
Technicolor Cinema Distribution
3418 Progress Way
Wilmington, OH 45177
(937) 383-6089 I Cell (513) 646-9016 tim.burke@technicolor.com


 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
   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.