------------------

 

Shakiness seems to be a real problem lately. Did anyone get a print with good registration of "6th Sense"???

 

Our prints of "6th Sense" aren't all that steady, but it's hard to tell whether it's the camerawork. Beyond that, I'm not sure if I should blame the print stock manufacturers, the labs, or our (new Simplex) projectors, or all. As far as presentation goes, can anyone recommend some current movies (1.85 aspect ratio) which do generally have well-registered prints?
 

I went to a theater recently with the newer Simplexes (a year old) and I must say the registration is very poor on them. I always praised the Simplex design for it's steadiness, but not anymore. These were quite shaky. Also, the new intermittent shoe design is a joke! Anyone have any experiences/comments on the "new" Simplexes?

 

If the print perfs are "rock steady" but the picture still has jump and weave, the print stock and projector are likely NOT the source of the unsteadiness. If the print perfs are unsteady, do the same test with a roll of SMPTE 35-PA (RP40) test film to see if the unsteadiness was the print film (if RP40 is steady) or the projector (if RP40 is also unsteady).

If the print perfs are steady, notice whether the framelines and edges of the image are moving relative to the print perfs. If the whole image tends to be "dancing", then the unsteadiness was probably introduced during printing. Sometimes you can actually see the image of the round edges of the BH-perf of the printing negative move relative to the more rectangular KS-perf of the print film.

Camera unsteadiness is usually seen as a movement of one frame relative to an adjacent frame, across the frameline. Frame the projector so the print frameline is across the center of the screen. You can then see how the camera positioned one frame relative to the next frame. Any side-to-side movement or "bounce" across the frameline during a scene was likely introduced in the camera.

If everything EXCEPT the image itself is steady, it may just be that the camera was handheld or not mounted rigidly.

Trailers are likely to be less steady than the feature film because there are usually more "generations" of printing between the camera negative and the final prints.

Another factor that has affected steadiness is that most labs no longer edge-wax prints, because of increased environmental restrictions on the solvents used. Kodak process specifications and SMPTE Recommended Practice RP151 specify edge-waxing of 35mm prints to reduce friction in the projector gate. Properly lubricated prints are steadier, quieter, and much less prone to projector abrasion, gate deposits, and dusting/shedding.
 

Sounds like Hollywood really wants to phase out film in favor of video, and the piss-poor job the labs are doing will make it happen soon!
 

With much tweeking the Christies "can" be made to project rock steady, but they do require fairly constant attention. When I say this, I am referring ONLY to a PA35 test loop. No film on polyester stock will run truly steady. However, take an older print on triacetate (even back from the 60s) and it's perfectly steady. I still think some of the current problems is the base material being used today. I can take a 10 year old trailer (stored emulsion out, of course) and the green band will project as steady as a slide...no joke! And this was with 10 year old printing technology. I've never seen that with polyester base film stocks.
 

Surely presentation was overlooked. Either that or it was not studied for long enough. After the first few prints came out and judging by the way that they performed, you would think that any intelligent individual would see more disadvantages than advantages and switch back to tried and true triacetate. Obviously there aren't too many intelligent people making those kind of decisions, and money is more important than anything else. Greedy greedy greedy! All the world hates people like that, and there are far to many of them.

I guess the rule is "If we can make it worse, we will."
First the switch to polyester, and now once we almost get it under control they can't even print the film steady anymore. The film industry is highly inefficient, and laughable. I am not the one laughing, however.
 

Kodak did NOT lead the conversion to polyester. The distributors and theatre owners felt there would be advantages, and requested the conversion. The January 1991 NATO News reported: "The board also resolved, at the (Technical Advancement) committee's request, to approve and recommend the use of polyester film, which is thinner (allowing more film per reel) and less likely to break".

Other film manufacturers encouraged the conversion to polyester, with pictures such as "The Fugitive", "Free Willy", "Secret Garden" and "The American President" being released on their new stocks. During this time period, Kodak publically expressed concerns about an excessively rapid conversion of the industry to polyester base.

In October 1993, the Intersociety Committee for the Enchancement of Theatrical Presentation sponsored a project to study the performance of polyester prints in theatres. Kodak provided polyester film for the Warner Bros. picture "Mr. Wonderful", and followed up on the performance of the prints with visits to the lab, exchanges, and theatres. A comprehensive written survey questionnaire was sent to 250 theatres playing the polyester prints. I presented the results of the study at ShoWest in March 1994. Although most theatres reported no problems, and even preferred the performance of the polyester prints, a few theatres DID have problems, including static, dusting, and slippery rolls. Many projectionists also expressed concern about the strength of polyester and the risk of equipment damage. Despite these concerns, the conversion continued because the advantages polyester offered (thinner film, resistance to perforation damage, more "friendly to the environment") seemed to outweigh the disadvantages. Kodak had to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to make the conversion to 100% polyester for release prints, building a completely new base manufacturing plant.

Kodak continued to address the known concerns of polyester (e.g., increased static charging, projector abrasion), which led to the recent introduction of Kodak Vision Color Print film. At its own expense, Kodak is also supplying all its laboratory customers a special antistatic process additive that enhances the antistatic performance of all films. Kodak continues to encourage laboratories to properly lubricate prints, per Kodak processing specifications and SMPTE Recommended Practice RP151. And Kodak continues efforts to further improve film performance, with millions of feet of the latest improvement being tested now.
 

The only gripe I had with Estar is its unwillingness to break if something happens. Once I had a new print arrive on Estar. It was apparently slit improperly and was just a bit wider than 16mm in a small area. Anyway, the film stopped in the gate, and broke the teeth off the claw. I was impressed with the durability of the base stock, and I have never had the problems with easily-scratched emulsion on Estar either.

My new 35mm trailers on Polyester stock jump and bounce like crazy on my Holmes. I am looking forward to trying Film-Guard. I ran a loop of polyester 35 through my projector for about an hour last night. There was a small snowstorm under the intermittant, and the only damage to the film I noticed was light abrasions on the edges of the film where the springs in the gate actually touch the perforations. The picture area is black with no noticable new scratches.

I think that if Film-Guard does what it is ment to do, this shedding thig will soon be history.