|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Running 70mm print from 3in cores
|
|
|
|
|
David Kornfeld
Film Handler
Posts: 24
From: Cambridge, MA/USA, USA
Registered: Apr 2017
|
posted 04-23-2018 10:12 AM
quote: Synnove Vikstrom
Just wanted to say that I got in touch with the Hollywood and they denied the accusation that they ran Cleopatra, or any other 70mm print, via three inch cores, and took offense that someone would suggest that they did.
Sounds great. Now please explain the photograph.
I hate to be a gadfly, but the actions Ive been seeing from the Hollywood do not fill me with confidence. That photograph was posted on an alternative forum, & a thread followed, criticizing the [then unnamed] Hollywood for a major error, one that may have permanently damaged the only circulating 70mm print of that title.
Had the Hollywood owned up to their mistake -- "yeah, we blew it; sorry; we've spoken to the people responsible & this will never happen again" -- I sincerely doubt anyone would continue to hold this against them. But that isnt what they did. Someone from the Hollywood contacted the administrators of the alternate forum & had the thread deleted, which is as sure an admission of guilt as -- well -- the photograph that shows that they did, indeed, run Cleopatra off three inch cores. I mean, come on.
We all make mistakes. Ive been in this craft for longer than I care to admit, & I still make mistakes. Youre dealing with a thin piece of plastic running through a machine: mistakes will inevitably be made. When you make one, you own up to it. You learn from it. You grow from it. But what you DONT do is to try to sweep the mistake under the carpet, pretend it never happened, & then send someone to a forum to claim -- against clear photographic evidence! -- that it didnt! And saying, in addition, that theyve taken "offense" by the "suggestion" that theyve done what the picture clearly shows!
It's not honourable, Synnove Vikstrom. It's the way of a scoundrel, & we have enough of those to deal with right now, without the unwelcome addition of more.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Synnove Vikstrom
Film Handler
Posts: 3
From: Portland, OR, United States
Registered: Mar 2018
|
posted 04-24-2018 02:56 AM
As mentioned, I'm not a projectionist, so I won't make a foolish attempt to explain what is seen in the photo.
I am somewhat curious how this photograph was obtained, and the circumstances present when it was taken; whether it really is from the Hollywood's projection room at the time they screened Cleopatra.
That being said, if they are innocent of the charged being levied at them (which is indeed a possibility), I do not see why their desire to prevent slander is somehow an indication of guilt. Would the administrator of this other forum you mention had removed the post had the Hollywood not provided them some evidence, or would they have bowed at the drop of a hat?
It just strikes me as a case of rushing to judgement with limited facts, and is a judgement at odds with the history of the theatre:
-After their fund raising kickstarter to replace missing 70mm projection parts (they are a non-profit so a KS was necessary), they started projecting 70mm films in 2015. Since then they've played many films in the format a year, from new releases to old releases, private and studio owned, without incident. In the case of new releases, where the film is played for several weeks, the presentation looks just as good on the last day as it does on opening night.
-They've been projecting 35mm for far longer, ranging from new films to catalog titles, to very worn privately owned prints, with a great track record.
-Given that their last major investment was to renovate the entrance doors, I don't see how they'd be lacking in funds to pay for reels (those would have been covered in their Kickstarter).
Rushes to judgement in this small of a community can irreparably tarnish reputations. Obviously this is a completely deserved consequence at times, but in this situation, it seems haphazard at this point. Obviously, if what you say is indeed true to the letter, then of course they deserve the repercussions.
For those who want to dig deeper: NW Projection handled the upgrade back in 2015, and can be seen in a video on their home page discussing the project: http://www.nwprojection.com/ . Several shots of the projection room, reels playing, etc.
PS: When I spoke with them, they specifically denied running the film off a three inch core. The individual I spoke with didn't deny using split reels.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 04-25-2018 08:53 AM
quote: Synnove Vikstrom
Would the administrator of this other forum you mention had removed the post had the Hollywood not provided them some evidence, or would they have bowed at the drop of a hat?
That action indicates precisely nothing, except that the operator of the other forum had no desire to become embroiled in an online dispute that risked ending in expensive attorneys' bills.
I agree with you that questions remain to be answered as to where, and in what circumstances, that photo was taken and then published online. Taken at face value, it seems to invite the criticism posted above.
However, such photos can be deceptive. When we did a complete gut and refit of the booth at my last workplace, I was always stopping visitors from taking photos, because I didn't want pictures of an unfinished installation ending up online, perhaps with misleading descriptions of what they showed. For example, all it would have taken is a photo of a reel of scrap film running from a split reel for scratch testing, to have been captioned as showing a reel of the last surviving nitrate print of Casablanca on the projector, and I'd likely have been on the receiving end of an online lynching.
If something like that does apply here, and especially if this photo is not of the booth of the theater in question, I would hope that the management of the venue would be willing to register here and post an explanation.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Synnove Vikstrom
Film Handler
Posts: 3
From: Portland, OR, United States
Registered: Mar 2018
|
posted 04-25-2018 12:50 PM
Brad,
My initial reason for registration wasn't for the purpose you suggest*. In any case, I don't have a particular investment in the Hollywood being innocent of the charges as I don't volunteer/work for them (though I guess it's in my best interest for them to keep playing 70mm so I don't have to drive to Seattle ; ) ), and am not seeking quell the attention this matter is accumulating; as I said, if they are indeed guilty, they should suffer the repercussions.
I just happened to be familiar with the Hollywood and their history, and didn't see the evidence to support the accusation. That being said, evidently there was much more specific evidence at this other forum so I guess that settles that, though I'll admit to wondering about the who and why.
*Originally registered to ask about running a external PCM track instead of the that comes with the DCP, and how one would go about syncing that, but by the time my registration was approved I no longer had the question. Have been reading this forum for several years, though.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
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
Printer-friendly view of this topic