Agenda items include the new SMPTE Projection Manual, a new test film to evaluate screen contrast, the working group on electronic projection, cyan dye track implementation, extended length reels (ELR), and a progress update on solutions to polyester film issues.

These SMPTE technology committee meeting are open to all interested parties, who are encouraged to become participating members of the committee by attending meetings and replying to committee ballots. More information is on the SMPTE web site at:
http://www.smpte.org

Bobby Pinkston of Dolby Laboratories is the current chair of the committee.

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

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

 

These are my choices.

1. Lack of standardization in the film shipping industry. i.e. Heads out or tails out, dirty film cans, old film cans and all of the troubles with Technicolor.
2. High-speed, low-quality film printing.
3. The problems with extended length reels.

I have deliberately picked items that need to be addressed outside of the theatres. I am interested in what you guys come up with.

This letter can be from Film-Tech as an organization and I will post it for review before sending it to Bobby Pinkston. We need to be quick, ShowEast starts Monday.

Theatres should be able to pick the film stock their films are printed on. Wouldn't that be great? It would be interesting to see which film brands and stocks were chosen by the people who run the prints and not the paper pushers.

The prints should always be delivered on Mondays for Wednesday openings and on Wednesday for Friday openings. There should be no exceptions except for circuited prints after the break.

ELR's should be used but only on Goldberg split reels. Those plastic things don't stay together any better than Technicolor's small reels.

 

2. Get all of the "film threaders" ie, ushers, managers, and popcorn poppers out of booth.

3. Have the labs calibrate their ultrasonic splicers, if they are using them for polyester/estar prints, to prevent the splices in those prints from coming apart.
 

2. Get the studios to stop screwing around and get ELR's going. Theaters can
save many $$. Also, I think there will be less mistakes to be made by
inexperienced people during make up / break down (who are not going to go away,
so we might as well deal with them.) Not surprisingly, this includes ELR's
that don't fall apart and fit on regular spindles.

3. Standardize the two holes for the platter take up ring.
 

The most important issue, I beleive, is one of image quality on the film, as pointed out by Ian. This is paramount to the results on the screen. No matter how expensive the lenses, how steady the intermittent, how perfect the light, if the image on the film is lousy, the result will also be lousy. This must be addressed if we are to stave off digital projection for as long as possible.

It is encouraging to see polyester film issues being addressed. Kodak has made great improvements in this area. Service calls to repair damaged equipment (bent roller shafts, damaged stereo solar-cells in Cinemeccanica projectors, ect.) are down considerably from what they were two years ago. However, all film stock is not Kodak.

Unfortunately, I doubt whether the film exchanges will pay much attenton to any S.M.P.T.E. recommendations. Their main criteria for selection of equipment will be based on a dollar issue, not a presentation one.
 

Let's concentrate on getting the films in earlier so they can be inspected.

Also, my biggest gripe right now is the labs - the shakey images, the wavey horizontal lines that show up from time to time, spilled dye, white specks, ect...
 

1. Troubles with Technicolor (especially reels).

2. PRINTING!!!!

3. Health issues regarding polyestar dust.

Thanks Ian for your concern. And thanks John for telling about this important meeting in A.C.
 

#1 Lab splices must be stopped! At least put them on the frame lines. Having more than half of the reels in a print containing a lab splice midframe is just unacceptable.

#2 Lab printing needs to be slowed down! When I can run a loop of PA-35 target and get an absolutely perfectly steady image and the prints (mostly from Deluxe CA) shake all to hell, then there is something wrong.

#3 Please, please, please process the film so the "curl" is on the emulsion side instead of the base side. I can't remember what John Pytlak called it in the last Film Notes publication, but I believe that currently prints are processed with a "positive" curl and I want to see exactly the opposite, or "negative" curl. This will substantially help in static, payout, winding, registration and overall focus on screen.
 

#2 -- Printing. Many people have suggested that the printing speeds be slowed down. This is good however, I question the labs willingness to go along with this. Maybe they can only be required to do this on flat films where the problem is more prevelant. Hey, at least it is a start.

#3 -- Wednesday deliveries. This could save a lot of embarassmanet that is shared by theaters and labs. This way we could gaurantee a perfect show Friday morning without having to explain why we are presenting a print with lab defects.
 

Imagine that the letter below is properly formatted in Word. There is a nice Film-Tech logo at the top of the page. The subject headings are in Bold and underlined.
 

The SMPTE Committee on Projection Technology (P3)
Bobby Pinkston Chairman

Dear Mr. Pinkston

There are many problems that face the modern presenter of film today. From staff shortages to the low quality training of Film Handlers (Projectionists) in the theatres today. The job of the projectionist is more difficult than it has been in the past. The problems that are faced in the field are many. We know that SMPTE isn’t responsible for any of them. But we ask for your help in addressing some issues that you may be able to bring to the attention of the film industry.

We, the members of the Film Handler’s Forum on Film-Tech.com ask you to bring the following to the attention of the Committee on Projection Technology.

1. High-speed, low-quality film printing.

You and I work the Telluride Film Festival. We know how well properly printed film can look. The images are crisp, clear and free of bob and weave. We notice that many films today come to the theatres hard to focus, with poor registration and with various defects from the printing process. There are dye marks on the film, parts that appear water-spotted, mid-frame and out of frame lab-splices, excessive negative dirt and other such problems. We believe that printing the film too fast causes this. We understand that there are many prints to get out to many theatres, but this is messing with quality that the projectionist cannot control.

Today there is much talk about Digital Cinema. You and I know that film can look much better when properly printed and presented. It is low quality prints and low quality presentation that is driving many in the industry to get on the Digital Cinema bandwagon.

We have noticed that prints that come from English or Canadian film labs are of much higher quality. We have found this to be very consistent. So we know it can be done.

We ask that the printing labs do a better job with the film printing. Perhaps they can print slower, clean the machines more and find the defects with the prints before they ship.

2. Lack of standardization in the film shipping industry. i.e. Heads out or tails out, dirty film cans, old film cans and all of the troubles with Technicolor.

As we understand it, in the past, films were shipped out “tails out.” There are notes in the old film cans that tell us this. We have noticed that, today films are shipped, heads out, tails out, emulsion in and emulsion out. We ask that the film labs and the film shipping industry adopt one standard and stick to it. Our proposal is to have all film ship tails out, emulsion out.

We also ask that the film shipping industry replace old, damaged film cans on a regular basis.

Technicolor Entertainment Services has taken over much of the film shipping business lately. There have been problems. We have attempted to deal with these problems directly with Technicolor, but with little success.

Technicolor ships prints to arrive on Thursday afternoon and Friday morning. Sometimes films do not arrive until after the first posted show time. We believe that Technicolor’s insistence on this late shipping practice is bringing the average film quality down. Projectionists have to build up their prints too fast and they don’t get to perform the quality control on the prints that we would like to do. Technicolor claims they inspect each print but we see no evidence of this in the field. Technicolor also demands that they pick up prints on Friday by noon instead of the customary Monday morning. Technicolor demands that we break down prints by late Thursday night so they can deliver them to the sub-run theatre down the street. We know who gets the print. They know where the print is coming from but Technicolor demands to do the transport so they can make the pick-up and delivery fee. This is unnecessary wear on the prints and extra work for the operators on an already busy Thursday night, due to the late arrival of prints.

We propose that Technicolor deliver prints to the primary theatres by Wednesday afternoon so we can check the prints for damage and call Technicolor on Thursday for replacement reels. We also ask the film industry set guidelines as to the proper procedure to place film back in cans. i.e. splicing the heads and tails back on and properly labeling the reels. We are getting too many prints with making tape splices and no labels or worse, no leaders.

Lastly, Technicolor’s reels tend to come apart in the film cans. We ask that they go back to the one-piece plastic reel or find a design that will stay together, like ETS’s reels.

3. The problems with Extended Length Reels.

We are still having problems with Extended Length Reels. We have found that ELRs are coming apart. This can be fun with 6,000 feet of film spilling onto the floor. The reels need to be redesigned. The center spindle shaft needs to be 5/16” like the standard 2000’ shipping reels are, as many platters simply cannot accommodate the ½” design. We have had good luck with the standard Goldberg 6,000 foot reel and wonder why that couldn’t be adapted to the ELR program. Goldberg also makes a metal 6000’ split reel. If a “split design” is a mandatory item, then it is these reels which should be implemented. We have also heard from a few reel to reel houses that have spent up to 3 hours breaking down ELRs onto standard 2,000-foot reels. (Luci/Nugget) Also, many of these ELRs do not have a drive pin hole (as the 2000’ New Line reels do not either) which is mandatory for most platters.

We ask that the program be reevaluated and the reels be redesigned.

This is our short list of problems that the SMPTE working group may be able to address with the film companies. We thank the Chairman for his time and understanding.

Brad Miller, Ian Price
And the rest of the members of the Film Handler’s Forum at Film-Tech

The scope of the committee he chairs doesn't cover the topics that we addressed. He has passed on our letter to the committee that is in charge of setting standards for film exchanges and film shipping. (I didn't know they had one.)

He is also passing our letter on to the NATO committee that may be able to address these concerns.

He stated that he would write an official response when he gets out of ShowEast and has a moment to breathe. He did state that NATO would be the best organization to address our concerns. I wonder whom we can send our concerns to, there?

 

By the way, I did print out a stack of threads from this forum with examples of all the shipping problems with TES. Anyone know whatever happened to that whole thing? I never got a response.