Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: I love explaining interlocking to managers who never handled film

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » I love explaining interlocking to managers who never handled film (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: I love explaining interlocking to managers who never handled film

Sean McKinnon
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1712
From: Peabody Massachusetts
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 12-05-2019 06:54 AM

I remember when those platters first came out the gradient pattern on the feed plate was implemented by just putting a sticker with it on the post. Well, what would quickly happen is that from inserting and removing the feed plate the pattern on the sticker would get rubbed off and it would cause very erratic operation. I believe they changed to some kind of aluminum or other metal plate.

It's too bad I think these could have been good platters if they had worked out the bugs.

| IP: Logged

Kenneth Wuepper
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1026
From: Saginaw, MI, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 12-05-2019 04:52 PM

I operated a booth with a single projector and the Big Sky platter. It was very reliable and worked to the end of film. The pay out sensor you refer to was easily protected with a layer of magic mending transparent tape. The glossy stuff caused poor operation as did the scuff marks from careless insertion of the brain into the platter deck.

The fail safe was very good (but we never had it deploy) and only operated as a test when doing preventive maintenance on the booth.

| IP: Logged

Peter Mork
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 181
From: Newton, MA, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 12-08-2019 09:22 AM

An alternative to interlocking. We used to run a plattered print in two houses, staggered start times, by starting the first show, at the mid-point let the splice go through, break it and thread to a new platter.

Move the first half to a new house; start the second show when it's time. When the first show ends, move the second part to empty platter in the new house, when the break point approaches, you pull film out and into a clean box, do a splice on the fly, feed the loose film and Bob's yer uncle.

Did this often. With practice it's not as scary as you think.

| IP: Logged

David Ferguson
Film Handler

Posts: 12
From: United Kingdom
Registered: Sep 2018

posted 12-08-2019 10:00 AM

Peter, your post reminds me of a YouTube video of someone doing "changeover" with a single projector.

| IP: Logged

Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God

Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004

posted 12-08-2019 12:14 PM

Back when I was projectionist for the Laemmle Grande in L.A. I had to do a trick similar to Peter's when a print arrived VERY late for the first show.

I built up half the print on the platter (Strong Alphas which suck balls, but that's a story for another time.) I attached the 4th reel to the platter pack from the MUT, then threaded and started the show.

As that fourth reel got pulled onto the deck I built the last two reels as the tail of each reel approached, all on the fly.

I had to be very careful to not allow any tension on the film on the deck to build up or it would have been a huge pileup. The weight of the pack on the deck kept things in place. (If you think about the physics of this, since I was started with roughly 8,000' on deck and was adding 2,000' in "reel" time as it fed into the projector, the amount of film on deck until the last two reels stayed over 4,000', just enough to prevent disaster.) But, as you can imagine, the payout was scary for that last 3,000 or so feet.

On the topic of interlocking, we had the ability to interlock screens one and two, with a custom control box that programmed the platter operation (to avoid the takeup trolly folly)...it was originally a cable that had to be physically flipped end for end each time.

It all worked surprisingly well, with the only "gotcha" being that, if you needed to stop the show, you had to trip the failsafe on the second projector... pressing stop on either automation would only stop that machine. (I found that out the hard way.)

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 12-08-2019 06:15 PM

But David's video above shows the film being run REEL TO REEL (aka: not a platter), so obviously the film is not capable of being damaged. Furthermore that's true ARCHIVAL projection since there is no platter!

The above is of course what many blind people think. [Roll Eyes]

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

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

posted 12-08-2019 06:52 PM

The irony of all of this is that, now that platters are effectively obsolete, it's interesting to explain how they work to people who have never seen them in operation. I've run into a number of people who have only worked in archival/repertory exhibition who have never seen film running in a multiplex with only one operator for many screens.

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 12-08-2019 08:53 PM

quote: Peter Mork
An alternative to interlocking. We used to run a plattered print in two houses, staggered start times, by starting the first show, at the mid-point let the splice go through, break it and thread to a new platter.

I remember we did the less spectacular version of this back in 1997 with Titanic. After we had to turn away more than half the crowd on opening day, but without any possibility of getting another print, we took the film off the platter and ran it old-school change-over in two theaters, with an offset of 30 minutes while lugging the reels between booths using a "reel runner"...

It was an old building, no way to get any clear path between the booths to do interlocking. In order to avoid transporting the reels via the lobby, we transported them via emergency exits...

We did two shows a day for three consecutive nights this way. If I remember correctly, we had one show where the DTS timecode reader would stop working on one of the projectors, but we didn't have any other major issues, besides being pretty exhausted after three days of reel-running.

| IP: Logged

Sean McKinnon
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1712
From: Peabody Massachusetts
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 12-14-2019 03:50 PM

This is the comment I posted on that you tube video...

quote:
This is terrible film handling practice and terrible planning. As someone who has experience with temporary 35mm setups I understand that you have to do what you have to do to get the show on screen however we ALWAYS either bring three complete setups (2 projector changeover and a spare machine) or two machines and two spool towers (with one machine running a second print as a hot backup) there is no excuse for planning to damage the film this way.

It also appears they do not have the right aperture plate or lens for this screen and throw and the screen is not properly tensioned causing wrinkles. It also appears to be very very bright. I doubt they had or used a light meter here.

| IP: Logged

Peter Mork
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 181
From: Newton, MA, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 12-15-2019 01:10 PM

Well, I guess you showed them! How dare a no-budget small-time operator flaunt professional standards and be clever enough to make do with a bit of improvisation.

Be charitable. The show must go on, and it did.

| IP: Logged

Sean McKinnon
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1712
From: Peabody Massachusetts
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 12-15-2019 02:18 PM

Sorry Peter but that is BS. Showing a scratched print to an audience is not OK and this method will scratch film before it hits the gate. There are other options to make the show happen. Two regular platter make up tables ok blocks with large reels would work without damaging film. Hell, 6k reels with intermissions would have been much much better. This looks like an Indian film so it would have had intermissions anyway. I'm sorry if you can't be bothered to get the wrinkles out of the screen or use a proper splicer instead of scissors that's sad. I'm sorry but the attitude of "good enough" when it comes to presentation is a contributing factor to the switch that was made to digital cinema.

Believe me I've stood and turned platters by hand for three hours, I've rigged up plenty of contraptions to get shows on screen running off the spare deck of one platter and taking up on the spare deck of another etc... I've use jumper cables to strike lamps when an igniter died and there was no spare so I understand the show must go on but the audience never knew any different. There were no scratches, no dirt, no film on the floor, If it's acceptable to you and your standards then that's ok it is not acceptable to me and I don't feel bad voicing my opinion.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 12-15-2019 03:25 PM

In this day and age NO film damage is acceptable. New prints except for the rarest instance are simply not being made anymore.

If somebody doesn't have the means to properly handle the film, please do not take shortcuts!

20 years ago this sort of practice would've been "ok whatever it's a junk print and they are just having fun...there are hundreds more" but this is 2019.

| IP: Logged

Peter Mork
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 181
From: Newton, MA, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 12-15-2019 04:23 PM

You guys! Running any film wears it out. Leaving it in the can keeps it pristine but is no fun.

End-of-reel cinch marks are good for you. I'm happy the audience in a tent show in Bangkok got to see a real movie, even on a wrinkled screen with no aperture plate. Ask them if they enjoyed it.

Professionalism is overrated anyway. Perfectionism is nuts. You don't get to tell others - particularly those who operate under less than ideal circumstances - what is acceptable practice. What I saw in that YouTube vid made me go "wish I'd thought of that", and I bet it did zero harm to the print.

First world problems.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-15-2019 04:31 PM

Peter...you should watch the video again...the scratches were clear and abundant. That print is forever damaged and it isn't just cinch marks.

Show them a digital version of the same movie...ask them if they enjoyed it. If that is the standard. The process they used was a destructive one.

| IP: Logged

Peter Mork
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 181
From: Newton, MA, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 12-15-2019 04:34 PM

Well I'm glad you agree at least that cinch marks are part of the experience.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.