|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: HATEFUL EIGHT 70mm - all discussion
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 01-03-2016 11:39 PM
Wow! For Quentin to be such a huge film lover, if I hadn't seen this video with my own two eyes I would've thought that was a bad joke. I hope he swings by my theater to inspect my plattered print (which is in beautiful condition).
Quentin if by some miracle you ever read this thread, please publicly retract that anti-platter "idiot projectionist" comment. 90% of the 70mm Hateful Eight presentations are being ran on a platter. Without those platter shows, your movie (which I find nothing short of magnificent BTW) would've barely been viewed on film at all.
quote:
But wait! Those changeover marks are on the plattered prints as well!
Not that this lessens your argument even a tiny bit, but FYI the plattered prints actually don't have any changeover cues at all.
quote:
A good projectionist will make either (platter or changeover) a success and a bad projectionist will make either fail.
That is so true. So damn true. And a good projectionist actually has a better chance of not making a mistake on a platter because he can thread and check everything with all of the booth lights on, whereas once the first 2 reels have played, the rest of the changeover reels have to be threaded in the dark. It's simply easier to make a mistake in the dark than it is with good lighting. Also once the show has begun there is no chance of the framing needing adjustment, a reel being run out of order, upside down or flipped left to right, interruptions from botched changeovers, and so forth.
Yeah send me that video. It needs to be part of the archive just like quoting a news article to ensure this discussion doesn't end up with a bunch of "missing footage" when someone is reading it (or using the thread for research) years down the road.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 01-03-2016 11:52 PM
quote: Joe Redifer
I’ve seen bad changeover shows as well, where every other reel was slightly out of frame.
Not to mention ones in which one of the lamphouses has a worn-out bulb and/or rectifier diodes, resulting in 20-minute changes between a steady, bright picture and a dim, flickery one.
The origins of changeover elitism were in the FIAF film archives in the 1960s and '70s, when FIAF's technical commission responded to the invention of platters (and towers) by deciding that cutting the leaders and tails off a print was a more sinful act than sodomizing your first born child, and that nothing could possibly be done to a print on a changeover installation that could ever cause that much harm. Their anti-platter fatwa remains in place to this day, and I have known of cases of well-maintained platter houses run by professionals being denied prints, while dirty and poorly maintained changeover booths run by projectionists whose skills base barely extended beyond threading and rewinding were regularly allowed to screen priceless and irreplaceable prints.
About the only substantive argument I can think of to support the archives' platter-phobia is that an error or accident in a changeover house is only likely to damage one reel (or half the print, if it's a projector fault that goes undetected for the entire show), whereas the equivalent problem in a platter house will damage the entire print.
Otherwise, either system in the hands of a professional will deliver a good presentation and an undamaged print, and vice-versa.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 01-04-2016 12:38 AM
It can happen without any building up. If, for example, a roller binds or a piece of abrasive crud lodges in a particularly destructive spot in the film path, and that is combined with a "projectionist" who doesn't feel the need to inspect or clean the film path between reels, then reels 1, 3 and 5 or 2, 4 and 6 are going to get scratched. I have encountered many prints, including ones in the collections of FIAF member archives, that have scratching, perforation or other mechanical damage on either the odd or the even-numbered reels, so it does happen.
If you're an archive that preserves the source IN from which the print has been struck, then the cost of reprinting three reels is not as bad as that of reprinting six.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Buck Wilson
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 894
From: St. Joseph MO, USA
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 01-04-2016 02:09 AM
Re: public relations argument-
I don't think anyone here, even the most cynical, intended to directly put down any operators. Even the "It's fucking hard" guy... perhaps he didn't mean "threading a projector is more difficult than pushing a solid state Irem rectifier equipped XeTron console up a narrow flight of stairs alone" type of hard but more of a "the whole scope of this project and task as a job, including the long hours, is exhausting". And of course we can't dismiss how journalists twist words and quote out of context. I've had it happen to me. It's not fun.
Face it, I'm quite sure nearly every single soul still in the film industry is there by choice. Despite possible difficulties. Because it's, as we all know, rewarding as fuck.
This forum is VERY intimidating to walk into as a new user. But if you're committed, and read up, you'll realize there's a reason for everything and that it is one of the best functioning forums on the web. It's more of a working, operable archive. You respect it like a high class library. Be quiet!
Re: Quentin Tarantino-
First of all, Hats off. Mad respect. It takes balls to demand this type of exhibition, and I thank you deeply for it.
BUT
It truly infuriates me that you a) seem to not have a goddamn clue about what happens in a booth and b) with that lack of knowledge, spew utter bullshit about equipment you know nothing about. Come on. Read up. Don't make yourself like like a dummy in front of your biggest fans. Beyond that, you're spreading dirty dirty misinformation to the general public who knows nothing about exhibition and will take your word for it, and bam, whole new generation of people who don't know what they're talking about.
You should register so we here and yourself can work TOGETHER on your next project!
****We're ANGRY because we CARE!****
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 01-04-2016 06:35 AM
Nah...Changeovers are the best! Always have been always will be. Check out the "mods" that may need to be done to keep the AW370 from scratching in low humidity climate months. Or if precise timing is performed...etc.
I agree that building up the reels for the changeover people was not the best idea. It was presented to me as a shipping cost savings since half the reels/cans would be required. The built reels, in my opinion were too heavy. 2-reels of 70mm is the same weight at 5-reels of 35mm and you are going to have to lift that above your head and hit a 1/2" target on each reel. From a presentation standpoint, if you can make 4 good changeovers, you can make 9 good ones. I'll put my changeover prints, after the run up against anyone's platter prints. Since I clean on the rewind and put on extra leader for handling, and rewind at reasonable speeds with gradual acceleration, I never had a problem of this "extra handling" that others allude to.
As a percentage of prints run for the 1-week exclusive (and by category), how many of the prints received permanent damage (visible scratches, burned frames or otherwise needing a splice) in platter versus the reel-to-reel venues? And how about as a percentage of the method?
The more one dumbs down the operation, the more you cultivate that level of person. While there are many that will continue to rise to the occasion to give their level-best regardless of the circumstance, it is against human nature (which tends towards lazy/easy) to sit next to a machine for over 3-hours waiting and still paying absolute attention. I'm not saying it can't be done (I've done it a lot, myself and let me tell you running "Sophie's Choice" on a platter for a season is one boring job in a single).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 01-04-2016 12:24 PM
quote: Brad Miller
True, but in common practice, how often does that scenario actually happen, where new reels are actually printed?
More often now than it used to. I've noticed that since I re-entered the exhibition side of the business, archives are demanding higher standards of film handling than they did 5-10 years ago, and that minor damage that would previously have been considered acceptable wear and tear or occasional accident damage now results in a theater being held to the contract term to cover the cost of replacing the affected reel(s).
Some time back we had an accident with a 20-minute short from one of the major non-profit archives: the retaining flange on a feed spindle popped open (for the second time: it happened to me a few months back and I thought that I'd probably forgotten to flip it over, but then it happened a second time, thereby making it clear that we had a defective spindle) and a reel fell off. No frames were lost, but we did have to put a splice in it. The archive is requiring us to cover the $1,050 cost of replacing the reel.
I suspect that collections managers in the big non-profit archives are worried that Kodak may announce the discontinuation of 2302 or 2383 at any moment, and to they are anxious to keep pristine prints in their collections as long as they can, even if this means reprinting something with only a very minor defect.
Paradoxically, however, taking this line will reduce the ability of audiences who really want to see film prints projected to do so, and worsen the FIAF archives' already poor reputation for being unnecessarily obstructive about access. We have already made the decision that whenever we request titles from the institution that charged us for the reel replacement again, we'll take a DCP if they have one available (and try to get the title from another source if they don't, even a much lower quality source), because of the financial risk we're taking on if we rent one of their film prints again. Accidents occasionally happen even in carefully and professionally run booths, and we're not able to take the risk of having to cover that sort of cost, except once in a blue moon and for a show that is absolutely guaranteed to sell out.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Home
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic