Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Is it because it's zebra tape?

This is topic Is it because it's zebra tape? in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000297

Posted by Carl Welles (Member # 59) on 10-11-1999, 11:53 PM:

I occasionally get a print from a screening and the leaders are put back on with that yellow striped zebra tape. I can peel off the clear tape and even the solid yellow tape, but never the zebra tape. I hate cutting frames off. Is the zebra tape made out of some kind of permanent adhesive and is this due to the stripes in some way?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-11-1999, 11:57 PM:

Depends on the brand of zebra tape. If it is Neumade, it seems to peel off just as easilly as the clear stuff. Any other brand seems to leave residue and even yellow junk on the film that must be washed off with FilmGuard.

What I hate is when people use zebra tape and splice with the yellow line across the middle of the frame! It looks horrible onscreen! People usually splice like this in the middle of the reel.

Posted by Rick Long (Member # 213) on 10-12-1999, 05:59 PM:

This seems like the most appropriate topic on which to post this message.

This past weekend, I had a service call to check on a problem of "sound drop-outs". I had not previously met this projectionist. He informed me, in a conspiratorious manner, that he was a bit of a "perfectionist" (always a dangerous thing to admit).

I smiled and did what I usually do to judge the attitude of the projectionist - I inspected (inconspicuously, of course) the booth. I was impressed. The lenses and port-holes were clean (not always found nowadays), the equipment was immaculate and the booth could rival the cleanliness and organization of a hospital operating room. Not a single frame of film on the floor.

I began to think that this guy was right. He was one of the few that really give a damn. (Most of the rest are on this Forum).
He showed me a flourescent light he had mounted on the make-up table to be able to see the platter for make-up and break-down during low-light (performance) conditions.

I took a seat (on my toolbox) beside the projector in which the sound problems had been reported. It was at the end of the first reel that I noticed it. A splice - using opaque tape. Same thing for all the reel splices.

When I brought this up to the projectionist he replied "Ah, c'mon, it's no big deal. We do so much make-up and break-down that we need this tape" (He had to buy it from a local independant supplier - the chain does not stock it). "Besides, he added, its only half of one twenty-fourth of a second. Who's gonna see it?"

Not sure I agree. Your comments please?

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 10-12-1999, 06:18 PM:

I am not a perfectionist.

I like Zebra tape to see where I made a splice I need to break later. I usually use clear tape to repair a film break. Sometimes in the heat of the moment you make a mistake.

With the Zebra tape I only use the lines on the outside of the frame. I let the frame line of the tape go to waste.

When the theatre I worked at opened, yellow opaque tape was part of the start kit. When Joe left that theatre 6 years later, the yellow tape was still in the film cabinet, unused. I will never use that tape! I can see it go by. I can hear it go by. I'll bet I could smell it go by.

I hate that it leaves sticky yellow gunk on the film after you peel it off.

I don't know if I would build up a print with the ultrasonic splices like Brad does but if you can see it on the screen; don’t put it on the film!

Well, I guess that’s close enough for government work.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-12-1999, 07:59 PM:

My current theatre came with lots of rolls of opaque tape as part of the package. The techs said it was for trailer work. I don't think so. Like Greenwood, I let it sit in the cabinet. It's still there. Anyone want it? $500 a sleeve! Mint condition! Ha!

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 10-12-1999, 08:44 PM:

We use the Nuemade tape. It seems pretty good.
I see no use for the opaque tape- blocks too much. But I would use the zebra tape. As far as I know, the zebra tape (when properly applied in the center) blocks about 0.150" of the entire film across the frameline, and about one frame height (0.750") on the sides. This means two blocks of SR-D data, one block of DTS sync data, and one frame of SDDS - on both sides. If I read the specs correctly, all three digital systems can recover (play from cache or recreate) that much data.
Analog will make a little blip, but not noticable.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-12-1999, 09:29 PM:

Joe--when I started working at one place, they had a pile of white opaque tape, too. Management was really cheap, which is why I threw that tape in the trash as soon as no one else was looking. If I hadn't done that, they might have used it, rather than ordering clear tape. As it was, I bought a ton of clear Neumade tape with my own money just so that I could get rid of the white stuff. I don't understand how anyone could stand the white tape...not only does it show up on screen and "pop" the soundtrack, but it also was very difficult to peel cleanly. At least the all-yellow tape that I've seen will peel well.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-13-1999, 02:36 AM:

What is up with that white tape, anyway? Especially the kind with 4 dots on it that come on the prints sometimes from the labs. Do any theatres splice with this stuff? What are the purpose of the 4 dots? This has to be the worst tape I have ever encountered.

Posted by Erika Hellgren (Member # 22) on 10-13-1999, 02:56 PM:

I have to comment on Rick's story. I can't stand people who say they are a perfectionist, but then ever use the comment "What difference does it make?". That right there negates the whole idea of being a perfectionist. I once worked with a projectionist (*snicker*, sorry, it's hard to use that word to describe this guy), who claimed to be anal (not something I would brag about) about the booth. But as I got to know this guy, I must have heard him say "What difference does it make" about a thousand times. One thing he never understood was why I took such good care of used trailers. "They're just trailers!" he would say. Yeah, they're just the first impression a customer is going to have of our presentation!
I don't know if I'd call myself a perfectionist, but I have to say that EVERYTHING matters to me. If anyone mentions something that I do that distracts from the presentation, I will change my routine. In fact (to keep this post on topic) I have considered using clear tape to join my reels, and just chucking that terrible zebra tape that leaves the yellow residue when you peel it off. I just need to get the cooperation of my co-workers first

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-13-1999, 03:25 PM:

Joe --- could you send me a sample of some of the splices with the "four dots"? I suspect they are process machine splices where two 6mm diameter holes have been punched in each of the two ends of film being spliced. The holes are there so the tape on each side of the splice can adhere directly to the tape on the other side, making a very reliable (but ugly) splice that will not come apart in a high speed, high temperature processing machine. The labs are usually pretty good in removing these splices and remaking them with an ultrasonic splicer or clear tape during inspection and "positive assembly", but some do get through the system. When you find them, they should of course be remade properly.

------------------
John Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Professional Motion Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243

Posted by Chris Erwin (Member # 176) on 10-13-1999, 06:15 PM:

I think that the zebra tape is terrible. I take the time to "peel and save" instead of "cut and toss" when it comes to those frames at the end of the reels. It adds up to wasted footage. Everybody has to cut costs sometimes,but please,not on good splice tape. An old pro once told me,good splices not only hold your film together,but also your reputation as a good projectionist!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-13-1999, 07:57 PM:

John, Joe is definitely explaining those processing splices. I see it ALL THE TIME in prints. However, I've never paid too much attention as to what lab they are coming from. I will start checking for patterns.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-13-1999, 09:16 PM:

Ummm yeah, what Brad said!

Anyway John, I'll send you a splice when I find another one, but it sounds like we're talking about the same thing.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-14-1999, 08:14 AM:

If the tape splice was made by the lab prior to processing the print, there will be undeveloped emulsion (no image, purple color) under the splice. As I noted, the labs are pretty good in removing these necessary but ugly splices during inspection and "positive assembly", but some do get out.

The other commonly used pre-process lab splice is an ultrasonic splice, which will have some discoloration immediately around the splice, and unfortunately, has only slightly better than one chance in four of being on the frameline. (Remember, these splices are made under darkroom conditions before the image is actually printed on the film). If an ultrasonic splice is on the frameline, it can usually be left in the print, as they are quite reliable. Reinforce it with one layer of clear splicing tape if in doubt. If the splice is not on the frameline, remove it and remake it with clear tape.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-14-1999, 03:26 PM:

John,

I bought an ultrasonic splicer from "Metric Splicer" (there's a link on the site) and it is FANTASTIC! It is MUCH better than the splices being used at the labs. (I should note here I cannot stand the 8 perf lab tape splices as they are horribly made.) What kind of ultrasonic splicers are the labs using that make these horrible splices? Perhaps they should switch to the Metric unit? Also, I've never had a splice break and reinforcing it with a tape splice will only make it extra thick which will cause the picture to jump in the gate as well as in most instances being able to visually see the edges of the tape project onto the screen. I'm not for that. Everything must be perfect.

Which leads me to a Kodak recommendation. In the old days, film stocks used to have little marks every 4 perfs on the film's edge. This would make it extremely easy for the labs to make their splices on the frame line. Why oh why was this practice stopped??? Can it be reinstated??? It was also GREAT for credits and such. Even if the frame lines weren't printed in accordance to the marks, if you knew the frame lines was 1 perf to the left of the mark, making a splice on a dark reel change or in credits was effortless. And do I even need to mention how nice it would make building up trailers?

So how about it? Who would be in charge of making such a decision? I would really like to see this back.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-14-1999, 03:29 PM:

Lab splices are ultrasonic? Those are really bad splices! They should get a better ultrasonic splicer. Brad, doesn't your splicer produce much better results that the average lab splice?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-14-1999, 03:35 PM:

Yes, my splicer makes virtually perfect splices. It's like they aren't even there! Anyone who's seen a reel change of mine can attest to that.

Come to think of it, I would really like to know what model splicers the labs are using so I can add it to my list of things to stay away from (like SDDS).

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-14-1999, 06:56 PM:

Brad,

Which model of Metric splicer did you get, and what did it cost?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-15-1999, 03:43 AM:

Metric splicer model 3001. Cost was about $3200 by the time I got it shipped in. All theaters should have these as standard items. Also, Kodak's ScreenCheck should require them! Nothing but the best, right John?

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-15-1999, 09:58 AM:

The only problem with Ultra Sonic splices is like wet splicers there is a loss of 2 frames every time it is respliced

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-15-1999, 01:56 PM:

Most labs also use Metric Model 3001 splicers to make ultrasonic splices. The reason the lab splices aren't as neat or strong as yours is that they are usually made on the print film raw stock BEFORE it is processed. Therefore, the undeveloped emulsion is embedded in the ultrasonic weld. The added material in the raw film (silver halide plus couplers) usually results in a more visible and weaker splice than with processed film. Finally, there is some discoloration around the splice caused by the heat of the weld exposing the emulsion immediately adjacent to the weld.

Unfortunately, lab splices are an economic necessity for release prints. The film manufacturers usually supply the raw film as 4000-foot or 6000-foot bulk rolls, and most reels are not integral portions of these lengths. For example, if a reel is 1800 feet long, there would be 600 feet of "short end" waste when printing three reels on a 6000-foot roll. So the lab splices the raw stock to use it efficiently.

You are correct that Kodak used to print an ink mark or punch a small round hole every four perforations on some print stocks. Putting frameline marks every four perforations is probably impractical now, as the digital soundtracks are now printed in that area.

Some labs used to file a "V" mark into the printer sprocket root circumference every fourth tooth as a frameline marker. Not sure if this could be done on modern high speed printers, and whether it might interfere with reading the digital tracks.

Posted by Rick Long (Member # 213) on 10-15-1999, 03:15 PM:

What about the space between the sprocket-holes on the non-soundtrack side? I don't know of any digital technology that uses that space - yet.

Of course, you must remember that I go back (almost) to the days when you could tell nitrate film (the dashes were horizontal) from "safety" film (the dashes were vertical). Appearing every fourth sprocket-space, it was easy to find framelines.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-15-1999, 04:04 PM:

I've occasionally seen 35mm film that as a small hole in between perfs, repeated at 4-frame intervals. This is just like the "registration hole" in 70mm prints that is supposed to line up with the framelines. Oddly, I've never seen a feature printed on this stock...usually, it's just the "Kit Parker" logo tag and a couple of trailers and dater tags. What is/was this stock and why isn't/wasn't it used for features? Does the extra hole weaken the film and make torn perfs more likely (or stretched perfs on ESTAR-base film)?

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 10-15-1999, 04:11 PM:

I have run a few 70mm prints that have a small hole punched every 5th sprocket hole. Sadly these holes never lined up with the frame lines. Frame lines are not hard to see on 70mm film. I suspect that if 35mm had such a system, the labs would mess that up too. Then we would have a lot of inatentive projectionists (not anyone here in Film-Tech land) saying to their managers, "I cut it at the mark!"

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-15-1999, 06:39 PM:

Interesting on the ultrasonic splices before processing. I'd never thought of that.

As to the economic necessity, it seems as whoever is deciding where to cut the reels to make changeovers isn't taking too much time there, so why not cut each reel between 1950-1980 feet...or somewhere around there and just forget lab splices (except that last reel) alltogether? Personally, if there's a bit of extra raw stock at the ends of the reels, GOOD.

Rick has a good point of the inboard sprockets as a marking place. Then again, if all that film stock code in the SDDS area is there, what difference would some marks make? I've often wondered if those markings are actually the cause of all the SDDS dropouts on that format. Hmmmmmm...

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 10-16-1999, 12:39 AM:

The little holes on 70mm film were originally put there so the projectionist could tell which side was the outside edge. They were also on the frame line. In a very short time the labs decided not to be bothered. While the holes may or may not line up on the frame line, they will be on the same side for all the reels of the print.
I think holes on 35mm would be a great idea; just look where you can see the hole/frame lines offset and apply that to the all black area you need to splice.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-16-1999, 04:59 PM:

The frame line identifier on 70mm film was an excellent idea that was followed by some labs and not by others.

Technicolor-London seemed to always follow it. The frame-line identifier was to be on the inboard side and on the frame line. This would be helpful for both striped and unstriped 70mm prints (or 35mm for that matter).

When rock-n-roll printing came into vogue, you could guarantee that at least half of the reels printed would have the identifier on the wrong side The argument DeLuxe gave me was that they didn't want to put the wear on the interneg by rewinding it between each printing and they simply ignored putting the identifier on the frame line.

Steve

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-16-1999, 05:00 PM:

The frame line identifier on 70mm film was an excellent idea that was followed by some labs and not by others.

Steve

Posted by Mike Bianchi (Member # 271) on 10-26-1999, 02:21 AM:

I can remember the days before Zebra tape became widely used in our area and opague tape was the norm...

"que mark... que mark... flash... BANG!"

I hate the stuff. Zebra tape may make break-down more difficult, especially if you run your MUT at full throttle and expect "the force" to guide you to the tape, but otherwise I've never had a problem finding it.