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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » Renting Old Prints (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Renting Old Prints Jack Theakston Master Film Handler Posts: 411 From: New York, USA Registered: Sep 2007 posted 04-26-2009 03:29 AM                     With all due respect, Brad, the difference in quality between so-called "platter ready" prints of catalog titles and studio archival prints speaks for itself. [ 04-26-2009, 04:33 AM: Message edited by: Jack Theakston ]  |  IP: Logged Tony Ratcliff Expert Film Handler Posts: 216 From: Madison, IN, USA Registered: Mar 2002 posted 04-29-2009 10:08 PM                     I think part of the expansion of the "platter rule" may have to do with the increased availability of older films on DVD. I show classics several times a year. And now this year one of our regular films we show almost every year is "no longer available" for platter theatres, since there is only one 35mm print available for play. There has only been that one print for many years, and I have played that print many times without incident. But maybe with the growing popularity of classic films, perhaps some less-than-caring theaters out there are damaging prints.  |  IP: Logged Paul Burt Film Handler Posts: 46 From: San Francisco, CA, United States Registered: Apr 2006 posted 05-20-2009 11:30 AM                     I ran a vault print of a old Hong Kong action flick at a festival a couple of years ago. It came in on 10 thousand foot reels and had to be built up for a platter. There were no less that eight carefully preserved spliced frames at the head and tail of every single reel, from multiple platter screenings. Many of them were spliced on one side only, but obviously the operators didn't know the secret of peeling off the tape. I contacted the distributor to suggest that they could save feet of film if they sent out the prints on 2K reels instead, but they weren't interested. I can see the point of prohibiting platter screenings. A lot of platter operators don't give a damn.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 05-20-2009 11:47 AM                     quote: Jack Theakston With all due respect, Brad, the difference in quality between so-called "platter ready" prints of catalog titles and studio archival prints speaks for itself. Of course it does. When a print from the platter depot gets played at 20 different theaters for every one time a print from the changeover depot gets played, that certainly does give the ILLUSION that changeovers are somehow better.  |  IP: Logged Jack Theakston Master Film Handler Posts: 411 From: New York, USA Registered: Sep 2007 posted 05-20-2009 01:19 PM                     quote: Brad Miller Of course it does. When a print from the platter depot gets played at 20 different theaters for every one time a print from the changeover depot gets played, that certainly does give the ILLUSION that changeovers are somehow better. But Brad, by your own word, "there isn't a difference." After 20 runs, those print should be "just as good," no? Seriously, though, I don't know how you could make a statement like that without actually knowing the numbers. I could say just the opposite, but unless you know the number of bookings per print, that's just ridiculous. Most repertory cinemas (as few as there are left) are going to only be running prints once, and therefore don't need to platter films. Out of the few dozen places I can think of that are serious about running older titles, maybe two or three have platters.  |  IP: Logged Charles Greenlee Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 801 From: Savannah, Ga, U.S. Registered: Jun 2006 posted 05-20-2009 01:27 PM                        Key words, should be. Meaning platter transport should be just as gentile, buut often those locations that use platters also use that as an excuse to hire min wage booth monkeys, and thus improper care of the film, improper care of the equipment handling the film, etc.  |  IP: Logged Mike Olpin Chop Chop! Posts: 1852 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Jan 2002 posted 05-20-2009 01:31 PM                     The discrepancy is caused by the caliber of the film handlers, not the method. By and large, projectionists who run changeover houses tend to be more experienced than the average megaplex film jockey. A platter show does not add any additional wear to the print unless handled by incompetent inexperienced operators or on poorly maintained equipment. As evidence, I ran Napoleon Dynamite for 7 months off a platter. At the end of the run, it did not have a scratch or a spec on it. If a print is properly cared for during build, show, and breakdown, the print will not sustain any damage. Unfortunately, theaters like this are few and far between. I'd estimate that more than half undoubtedly damage the print on build or tear, therefore in practice almost every archival platter print is damaged and almost every archival changeover print is not.  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-20-2009 01:54 PM                        Just to add to the mix, at least with Universal, you can't build them onto hour reels either. You are explicitly told not to cut the heads and tails off. I admit a perfect platter showing is as good as a perfect reel showing, but one bad threading on a platter can trash a whole print, whereas one bad threading will only take out a single reel on non-platter prints. The distribs are just protecting themselves from the lowest common denominator.  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 05-20-2009 02:46 PM                     quote: Jack Theakston But Brad, by your own word, "there isn't a difference." After 20 runs, those print should be "just as good," no? Except the phrase "by your own word" doesn't mean "insert a phrase he factually did not say." He said quite clearly that it all depends on the operator.  |  IP: Logged Jack Theakston Master Film Handler Posts: 411 From: New York, USA Registered: Sep 2007 posted 05-20-2009 03:03 PM                     quote: Martin McCaffery The distribs are just protecting themselves from the lowest common denominator. Exactly. What it boils down to is that studios demand that you run R2R so that you're not stuck with zit-faced popcorn boy running the film. If you know how to run R2R, chances are you know what you're doing since it is so uncommon now. There are shitty R2R operators, of course, but there are a larger number of shitty platter operators simply because the number of platters out there IS higher. Clearly studios have come to this decision based on past experiences and not out of thin air. You used to be able to platter films, now you can't. Why do you think that is? The only shitty R2R prints I've ever seen have been... SURPRISE... built up, with the heads and tails cut multiple times. I have never, repeat, NEVER, seen an uncut print with significant damage done to it, other than perhaps light lines. That being said, I wouldn't have ANY problem with someone plattering one of my prints if I knew that they knew what they were doing. Unfortunately, studios that book don't have time to fly around the country and make sure you're doing it right. So by limiting the type of projection, they can ensure that their product will a) last longer and b) anyone who really cares enough will install a second projector to begin with.  |  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.