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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » The care and feeding of semi-retired 35mm equipment (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: The care and feeding of semi-retired 35mm equipment Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-20-2011 06:02 PM                        Bill pretty well sums up the situation here. We started running "classics" once a month about a year ago. I think we've had 3 35mm prints. I'd love to be an archive affiliated theatre, but it's not going to happen with our current set up. I was surprised to know there are arthouses running 100% DVD, but I know of at least one and bet there are others. As long as the industry is not going to make prints available, especially good prints, the public will get DVD/BluRays and most of them don't care. No point rehashing the thread I started last year about the psyhcology of DVD's, but like it or not the foreseeable future sucks.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 03-20-2011 06:29 PM                     quote: Bill Enos All the best film equipment can't correct for a print with 145 splices, scratches and 30 cues at the end of every reel which is the way all the last 20 or so old title prints came to us. Thank you. As a die-hard film fanatic myself, in no way would I rather watch a beaten print vs. a DCP. quote: Bill Enos The first thing the studio reps. say when you book older titles is that all the prints are shit----no good ones left. Shit is correct. Remember the depots RANDOMLY grab several prints to keep for the archives, and film handling is at an all time low, meaning the average print kept for repertory use is shit and when repertory prints are sent out to theaters they are shit on due to mishandling. We have tried to book rep titles recently and the distributors will openly admit the prints are bad and "not to complain" and "no they will not be printing any new copies". Personally I think most blu-rays look bad, but some do look really good (such as Baraka and animated stuff like Pixar). Until the catalog titles get released in DCP, the rep circuit is really taking a beating because you're damned if you run 35mm and you're damned if you run blu-ray. Shit on reels or on disc? In regards to the "vault prints", HA! Many of those are in awful shape as well. The "no cut" policy is completely ignored by most venues and the ends of the reels have so much shit on them from being handled on 20 minute reels (or built-up) that it's to the point of why do they even bother?  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-20-2011 07:45 PM                     First off, I'm going to start off by saying this: Digital = Lazy I have had so many people from people in the mail room and UPS drivers to people in the projection booth all the way up to the stuffed suits in the distributor's offices say to me that it's such a hassle to handle film. UPS drivers don't want to haul film cans. Mail room employees don't want to carry film cans and stack them. Employees don't want to retrieve film from the mail room even when I tell them to use a dolly. Projectionists don't want to splice films together and break them down again. I've heard people in the depots tell me that they don't want to track down film prints. I've had people at distributors tell me that it's too much trouble to book film prints. Cripes! I've been doing this job for 15 years (a drop in the bucket compared to some theater veterans) and, yes, I have days when I don't feel like carrying crap around but film is the name of the game and if you don't like it you can quit your job! It is my belief that the main reason film gets beat up is because of this pervasive laziness that permeates the industry. People don't want to do the jobs they are paid to do. They're all a bunch of fucking pansies! To that end, I think that digital movies have a good side: It lets the lazy people be lazy and those of us who want to do a good job work without idiots fucking up our film. So, up to a certain extent, I'm willing to let theaters use digital projection so that they'll leave the good film projectors and the good film prints to us. For the near future, film use will certainly decline in use but, after a certain period of time, I think we'll see a resurgence of film use. The same kind of thing has already happened with vinyl records. It's starting to happen with traditional film photography. I think it's only a matter of time till it happens in the movies. At that time, people who know how to run film will be at a premium... at least I hope...  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-20-2011 08:09 PM                     There are clearly different circles of prints out there. That is, I guess there is the general art/rep house circuit that is full of crap prints...and then there are those that have access to "archival" prints and those look wonderful. I pull a shift now about once a month at the AFI/Silver...and the prints I see there (regardless of vintage) are stunning, by and large. Yes, there are the odd crappy print but they are not the norm. Just this past Saturday I ran a beautiful print of Monkey Business as well as The Leopard (1963)...in fact it was still splice-free...all 11-reels. As for the no-splice rule...many of the archives require signing off on it...like UCLA's archive...you break the rule...you will NEVER get another print...these places inspect all prints upon return and compare the condition of how it went out and compare it to how it came back...you WILL get called on any changes. I agree with you Bill...that a print that is so spliced up and scratched to crap is one not worth running. -Steve  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-20-2011 09:03 PM                        quote: Randy Stankey I think we'll see a resurgence of film use. The same kind of thing has already happened with vinyl records. Randy, that's a totally different thing. If I decided today that I wanted to use vinyl records for my music, I could go get all the vinyl I want in pristine condition, even old music. But if I want to run "The Wizard of Oz" or some other classic on film... well you know.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 03-20-2011 09:16 PM                     And future generations who have never seen film will take one look at those worn rep prints and say "you used to watch movies like this??? There are skips and chunks missing and lines in the picture." I ran a 35mm print for some people a few months back and one person who was there was in his early 20s and did not understand WHY the movie couldn't be paused. (I would not risk scuffing up a section of the film as the sound drum came to a stop and then started back up.) He thought the whole film thing was silly because he can pause movies on his computer, DVD player and even live tv. It's just like a 70mm festival these days. It ISN'T what 70mm is capable of, but as the prints wear, the demonstration gets worse and worse. Steve, your comparison of the AFI/Silver is one that is simply not typical. That is a very special scenario and won't do anything for the general repertory circuit and even "changeover" repertory theaters. Also it's great that there is a pristine print of Monkey Business, but that is probably the ONLY one, and I'll bet it was a re-strike from maybe a decade ago. All it takes is one mis-thread and a reel of that print will be damaged forever.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-20-2011 09:20 PM                        The problem with art houses is that they generally have operators who are really good or really terrible, and there is not much middle ground. This may be at least somewhat related to the fact that the pay for operators varies so widely at these types of places. If you look at the pay rates at every theatre in a given town, there is a good chance that the highest and lowest rates both belong to art houses. By contrast, the multiplexes tend more toward the middle ground, with respect to operators' pay levels and general competence. I don't have a solution, but this is part of the problem.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-20-2011 11:55 PM                     Brad, Don't fool yourself...there are new prints being struck all of the time. I know...I've seen them. Sure there are also the really good older prints. I ran a beautiful print of Godfather II at the AFI...in IB-Tech...so you know that was an old '70s print that has had a good life. As I said, there are clearly two different circles out there for the Art/rep house...the standard one that gets the crap and the one that has access to the good stuff. But seriously...if you were an archive...would you sent your print out to an unknown "art" house on the hopes that they will take good care of it? I sure wouldn't Here is a place where a real "THX" like service could do good. Both the theatre AND the operator would need to be "certified" to run archival movies in order to get the good prints. The theatre would need annual inspections to ensure that its equipment wouldn't inherently cause damage and there would be statistics on the operators...just like with a driver's license...too many points and you loose it. At some level, I honestly don't think some operators or exhibitors even realize that their methods do damage the print. There is also this complete lack of sense that they are handling SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY. As for pausing in the middle of the show...well, if you had Kinoton Studio projectors...the flywheel would decouple to take care of that  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 03-21-2011 07:26 AM                        quote: Steve Guttag As I said, there are clearly two different circles out there for the Art/rep house...the standard one that gets the crap and the one that has access to the good stuff. Apologies for the shameless plug, but on the Projection and Presentation Committee of the Association of Moving Image Archivists (AMIA), we're in the process of trying to put together a web-based resource that enables archives to get a more reliable sense of which venues can be trusted with decent archival prints and are investing the commitment into continuing to do film right, even after most places are no longer doing film at all. At the moment, access to the good stuff is more or less entirely on word of mouth, and long-standing relationships between archives' access officers and individual managers and projectionists. The idea is for theatres to voluntarily put information about themselves on a website to which archives would have access, including pictures of the booth, technical specs, brief bios of the projectionists, details of previous shows etc. When they wanted to book a good archive or studio print, they could say 'Look at our page here - it'll tell you about our setup'. The chances are that the archive probably wouldn't want to make a decision based on that alone, especially if they've never dealt with the venue before, but that it would serve as a starting point and hopefully widen the public's access to good quality screenings of good quality prints in the hands of professionals (or, in rare cases, amateurs who have a track record of achieving professional standards), beyond the word of mouth approach which seems to dictate where the dwindling number of good prints of repetory titles are able to be shown, more or less worldwide, at the moment. We did think about doing this on an 'approval' basis like THX or ScreenCheck, i.e. AMIA actually checks the place out and gives it a seal of approval: but it quickly became obvious that the legal and logistical issues involved in doing this were way beyond what we're set up to deal with. Things are still in the very early stages as yet, but updates will be forthcoming as progress is made.  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-21-2011 10:33 AM                        Leo, I was just going to ask how to become archive certified, and you've kind of answered the question. We hope to do some major rehab and upgrade here in the next few years and to be "Archived Certified" is one of my goals. We'd probably be the only one in Alabama, so it may even be a useful designation for us. Now if we can only get the industry to create archived certified prints for all of us to use...  |  IP: Logged Bill Enos Film God Posts: 2081 From: Richmond, Virginia, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 03-21-2011 10:59 AM                     I've run 3 UCLA owned prints and all 3 needed work when they came in. Scratches abounded and one had several splices taped on one side only. They were somewhat better than what could have been had from regular sources but certainly a disappointment. On a screening of Phantom of the Opera we did from BD I got a couple emails saying how good our scratch free print was.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

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.