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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » Renting Old Prints (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Renting Old Prints Tony L. Hernandez Expert Film Handler Posts: 158 From: Windsor, CO, USA Registered: Dec 2005 posted 04-20-2009 06:46 PM                     I agree with Brad about on his statement that those prints should be inspected upon each return. I'm sure that when they say no platters, they mean 6k as well. I've run a lot of new prints of classic Fox pictures from Criterion as well as several older, archival prints of Universal pictures this past year and they have all been uncut with notes in the can stating that they can be used on 2k changeover only. George Eastman House will scream bloody murder if anyone cuts their prints..they do inspect. I prefer an uncut print...makes build up a lot easier. As for platters being harder on prints: I would not exactly say that they give a print more wear just by their nature however there are many more parts and rollers that must be completely cleaned after every showing (in addition, of course, to the projector)in order to prevent scratches. Also god help you if a roller gets bumped out of alignment or a simple threading error occurs. With changeover (2k or 6k), all that needs to be cleaned are the projectors. My whole point is, most of the platter clowns don't learn from their mistakes and the ones that do are usually gone within a couple months anyway.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-20-2009 07:30 PM                     It ALL depends on the operator.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-20-2009 08:36 PM                        UCLA also has a "no platters" policy. They actually send out a questionaire to theatres that want to book their prints and want to know what type of equipment (specifically) is being used. The Eastman House questionaire is even more thorough. I agree that the "no platters" policy is silly and misguided. Brad's approach of billing for damage is better. I'd also like to see a requirement for a full-time operator to be near the equipment throughout the show and also some sort of requirement that the theatre has had a service call by a competent technician within the last 3/6/12 months (pick your interval) and that any issues identified have been corrected. Another useful question would be "how often does your theatre/operator handle archival prints?"--this would weed out the multiplexes that might occasionally want to show these films, but do not have the facilities or knowledge to do so without causing damage.  |  IP: Logged Tony L. Hernandez Expert Film Handler Posts: 158 From: Windsor, CO, USA Registered: Dec 2005 posted 04-21-2009 02:27 AM                     I'd personally like to see ALL prints inspected after every use and theaters billed for damage...I don't care what kind of picture/print it is or what theater is running it. I do, however, realize that this is at very least impractical if not down right silly idea in this particular day and age. I would say that UCLA is perhaps the most strict with their prints. I remember running "Killer of Sheep" from them about 2 years ago and I seem to remember there being a note saying is WAS okay to platter that particular print. Why this was I do not know. I have not run a ton of their prints (maybe half a dozen or so) but all the rest I have run have included stern instructions in each can stating that the print could be run on 2k changeover only along with several other regulations which I cannot remember off the top of my head. It seems this thread is going slightly off topic from the OP's question. Perhaps it is time to create a thread RE prints that may not be plattered?  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-22-2009 08:48 AM                        quote: Brad Miller It ALL depends on the operator. And of course the first line of defence there is that there IS an operator.  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 04-22-2009 09:49 AM                     I've never seen anything that said 'No platters'; what It normally says is 'No cutting of leaders', or 'No running on long-run systems'  |  IP: Logged Jack Theakston Master Film Handler Posts: 411 From: New York, USA Registered: Sep 2007 posted 04-24-2009 05:19 AM                     Again, this has nothing to do with "what does more damage." A R2R policy guarantees that an operator is by the machines at all times, which isn't guaranteed with a platter or 6K-foot set up. Furthermore, I have to reiterate, do you think the theater that was careless enough to damage a print in the first place would care enough to pay the tab to re-strike something? Studios/archives being anal retentive about how prints are run and by whom is running them might be slightly irritating to some, but it guarantees that the studio isn't just making a print that's guaranteed to get beat up from the get-go.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-24-2009 09:15 AM                     quote: Jack Theakston A R2R policy guarantees that an operator is by the machines at all times, which isn't guaranteed with a platter or 6K-foot set up. Ummm, bullshit. I've seen plenty of changeover theaters where the projectionist walked away once the reel was going to do other things in the building, or even to go down the street to buy some food. And this is in totally manual theaters without even so much as a failsafe. quote: Jack Theakston Furthermore, I have to reiterate, do you think the theater that was careless enough to damage a print in the first place would care enough to pay the tab to re-strike something? Bullshit again. Legal contracts have nothing to do with carelessness. quote: Jack Theakston but it guarantees that the studio isn't just making a print that's guaranteed to get beat up from the get-go. Wait, what is that? Oh yeah, more bullshit. I've seen my fair share of prints that were ran one time on a changeover setup with horrible scratches and sprocket damage. Running reel to reel guarantees NOTHING.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-24-2009 10:15 AM                     Guarante? No but platters all but encourage one to not pay attention.  |  IP: Logged Robert Minichino Master Film Handler Posts: 350 From: Haskell, NJ, USA Registered: Dec 2005 posted 04-24-2009 10:51 AM                        Most of the trouble we see with otherwise good prints is at the head and tail splices. Either far too many frames are missing from the end (lost ID frames) so that the CO cue is only a few frames away from the tail, or there are multiple cuts and multiple layers of splicing tape from lazy or sloppy projectionists. 2k changeover doesn't guarantee anything but it at least eliminates the need for any cutting and splicing.  |  IP: Logged Joe Tommassello Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 547 From: Coatesville, PA, USA Registered: Jan 2008 posted 04-24-2009 12:03 PM                  quote: Brad Miller I've seen my fair share of prints that were ran one time on a changeover setup with horrible scratches and sprocket damage. I had a print of Jurassic Park that had a green emulsion scratch on the extreme right of the frame in the exact same place on reels 1,3,5 and 7. I wonder how that happened? Once digital projection gets enough penetration that the operators have more flexibility they will be able to distribute classics much easier. Everyone could show "Frankenstein" on Halloween and it will look great. I still think WB is missing the boat if they don't release "House of Wax" in Digital 3D for a week or two this Halloween season. It's been a long time since it had a release.  |  IP: Logged Bill Enos Film God Posts: 2081 From: Richmond, Virginia, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 04-24-2009 12:11 PM                     Played a UCLA owned print this past weekend, it had been cut and platterized many times before, with crosswise scratches from a deck, splices, many very poorly made, multiple cues, 5 or 6 cut and taped single frames at every reel end. It was part of a festival and had originally been requested to play at a MPX. We got it because they couldn't play it in 1.37.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-24-2009 12:44 PM                     Oddly enough...UCLA normally has a zero-tolerence of any splicling of their prints...including not wanting the theatre to rework any splices. Steve  |  IP: Logged Joe Tommassello Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 547 From: Coatesville, PA, USA Registered: Jan 2008 posted 04-24-2009 03:07 PM                  Bill - What was the title?  |  IP: Logged Bill Enos Film God Posts: 2081 From: Richmond, Virginia, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 04-24-2009 09:55 PM                     Title was The Exiles. According to the shipping labels it had been to 3 theatres before it went to the festival people we played it for. Some of the splices were taped both sides but not perf punched. One was out of frame. [ 04-25-2009, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: Bill Enos ]  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

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.