Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Brad Miller is "The Postman"!

This is topic Brad Miller is "The Postman"! 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=000940

Posted by Scott Magie (Member # 368) on 05-04-2000, 12:13 AM:

At the time of this posting, there have been a total of 10,482 posts in the different forums... 1,022 of these are Brad's. These are just his postings, which don't account for his time maintaining and expanding this site for us. Two words... wow!
This site has become a daily visit for me since I first stumbled across it during my job-search from Montana this winter. It wasn't what helped me escape the clutches of Carmike, but it HAS been extremely useful/entertaining to me. As I run into new problems at my new theatre you can bet I'll go to my computer long before I ever go to the phone to call my tech-guy.
Thanks Brad, for all your hard work keeping up with the growing needs of us relative "newbies". Also thanks to all the other non-newbies who consistently pass along their hard-earned wisdom. It is appreciated.

Now a rebuke:
How come people aren't getting more into the "Movie Reviews" forum? (Great idea, by the way!) I thought that it would take off like crazy, especially after some of the long Oscar-arguments that took place. Come on, people... I've worked in enough theaters to know that when it's slow, all you do between shows is argue with your fellow employees about which movies rock and which ones bite (this is of course followed by a conversation about all the employees that are dating each other... or would like to be).
But anyway, as I was saying... ranting & raving about movies is one of my favorite pastimes, and I KNOW I'm not the only one. EVERY movie that is released should be reviewed and responded-to on this site (many times over). Especially since I don't get to see them all up here in the sticks. But I AM getting Gladiator, so you can bet that in a day or two, you'll be able to read my rant/rave about it.
So anyway, take a break from all this tech-stuff once in awhile... everybody needs to vent (and some are polite enough to wait for the credits to finish before doing so!)

------------------
Scott A. Magie

scoooot@hotmail.com
"Anybody wanna peanut?"

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-04-2000, 02:04 AM:

Ouch! You compared me to a really bad Costner movie!!!

Posted by Dwayne Caldwell (Member # 417) on 05-04-2000, 03:51 AM:

I want to know why most of the forum isn't getting into the reviews too. Sure we're all film people involved in the techincal aspects of this business but let's not forget why we do it. I'd also like to know why no one's reading my Frequency topic. Tyler? Where are you when I need you to bash my reviews?

------------------
The man with the magic hands.

Posted by Chris Wootten (Member # 283) on 05-04-2000, 06:24 AM:

Brad........I liked "The Postman" ??????

------------------
"I luv the smell of napalm in tha mornin !"

Keep Smiling......Chris

Posted by Colin Wiseley (Member # 247) on 05-04-2000, 06:44 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Chris Wootten:
Brad........I liked "The Postman" ??????

Me too, I love post-apocalyptic movies. Costner just happens to be in a couple of them although the Mad Max series are my favorite. I can't wait for the new one to come out

------------------
Colin Wiseley
Lyric Theatre
Blacksburg, VA
www.thelyric.com

Posted by Bryan Redemske (Member # 354) on 05-04-2000, 07:32 AM:

hey, if Brad's the Postman, does that mean he takes clothes from dead people and watches The Sound of Music every night?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-04-2000, 03:42 PM:

You'll never know.

Posted by Jason R. Weinsteiger (Member # 456) on 05-04-2000, 09:48 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Chris Wootten:
Brad........I liked "The Postman" ??????

yeah, so did i. But as a MSTie, i have a strange attraction to films that noone else usually likes

jasoN

------------------
"That's what life is - a series of down endings. All Jedi had was a bunch of muppets." -Dante Hicks

Posted by Scott Magie (Member # 368) on 05-05-2000, 01:10 AM:

Sorry Brad. Next time I decide to praise you I'll title it "Brad Miller is... Erin Brockovich!" Of course I don't know how your cleavage compares, so maybe I won't.

p.s. The Postman... excellent cinematography! I got to meet the camera crew when they were in Montana filming Steven Segal's straight-to-HBO-then-video epic "The Patriot" (also good cinematography). I got to try out Steve "Steady" Campanelli's Steadi-Cam. He said I was a natural. Don't you wish you were me? Please feel free to send any fan-mail this posting may inspire to my hotmail address.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-05-2000, 05:24 AM:

How about "Brad Miller is the Gladiator"??? I could be in an arena with the inventor of PTR rollers and we could battle it out to the death and see which one of us came out cleaner.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-05-2000, 06:22 AM:

Brad your mission if you choose to accept it is to brave the arena with the DLP projector armed only with film guard and estar film
This tape will self destruct

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-05-2000, 06:23 AM:

"Et tu, Brade? Quo usque tandem abutere, Brade, patientia nostra?"
"And you too, Brad? How far then, Brad, will you abuse our patience?"

PTRs do a fine job in cleaning film. Many labs use them to clean the printing negative (one of the reasons today's prints have much less "white" dirt than years ago), and they are widely and successfully used on special venue projectors like IMAX systems. PTRs lose effectiveness if the dirt level on them is allowed to build up to the point where it completely covers the tacky surface. They were not able to cope with the severe "flaking" caused by some projectors with unlubricated prints.

Cleaning and lubricating film during each projection with FilmGuard and a Christie or Kelmar web cleaner is also very effective in keeping prints clean. The lubrication provided by FilmGuard reduces projector abrasion, and reduces the risk of scratching the print that existed when using a "dry" web cleaner. But it does leave a thin coating of oily material on the print, which can be problematic.

In many applications, PTRs have proven to be a safe and effective way of cleaning even delicate negative film, and they leave no chemical residue on the film.

FilmGuard is an effective cleaner, and has the advantage of also lubricating the film, but it can leave an oily residue.

Each cleaning method works, and each has its proponents. I wish they were compatible with each other.

"Quot homines, tot sententiae".
"There are as many opinions as there are men".

A "thumbs up" to theatres that use either method to keep film cleaner.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

Posted by Tom Ferreira (Member # 70) on 05-05-2000, 06:54 AM:

After all of these CAP Code posts, a more suitable headline would be....

Brad Miller IS Ready To Rumble

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-05-2000, 02:18 PM:

John,

So long as people follow the directions, using FilmGuard does not leave any problematic coating on the film. But then again, if people couldn't follow directions then NO product would be effective and would be misused. Kodak has made liquid film cleaners in the past and there were repercussions if the directions were not followed. That is not a very good reason against FilmGuard.

Anyone serious enough about wanting a good presentation certainly has enough brain cells to read instructions. "More" is not always better in many things. So long as people are not dunking their prints in a bath, the results will be far above what any PTR roller is capable of, plus with static and shedding elimination to boot! I will challenge the PTR people any day to a public match in the arena. (Let's make it in the desert with high winds.)

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-05-2000, 03:51 PM:

What problems would there be with the "oily residue" that FilmGuard leaves on the print? I have had no problems using FilmGuard. It only does good things. PTR's, on the other hand, cannot keep up. My trailers will get clean after about 30 runs, but then the print just gets dirtier and dirtier because the dirt is being "transferred" back onto later parts of the print. PTRs suck, unless you only have a very light amount of dirt-----VERY light! Plus, who the hell wants to wash all of those rollers? PTRs are a dumbass idea.

Windex can be misused as well. Say that you are cleaning a window. What if you forget to follow the instructions and don't wipe the glass? There will be blobs and streaks! Uh-oh. That means that Windex must be problematic, right? If you use that argument against FilmGuard, then you MUST use that same argument towards everything else on the planet.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 05-05-2000, 07:21 PM:

Question: Those of you knocking PTR's, do you leave the same rollers on all the way through a cleaning, or do you change them mid show? I don't use ours any more becuase they been used so much the the rollers are no longer tacky, and therefore no longer effective. But when I did they're worked fine. You just need to change the cleaners mid show. If your cleaner isn't designed to do this it isn't good

Anyhow, we have had very little dirt problems with our film-and currently we aren't using any cleaners of any sort. The trick I think is to merely keep your equipment very clean and SWEEP AND MOP THE BOOTH WEEKLY. I think this is the secret.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-06-2000, 10:56 AM:

How are you cleaning the PTR's
the best method is to put a strip of packing tape tacky side up on the bench and then roll the roller down in and the dirt is lifted off and the tacky surface is restored
Also the SanLab (blue) ptrs have better tackyness (shamless plug since that is the ones we sell)
All in all the end result is what counts no product that the instructions are not implicetly followed can be properely used. Film guard is by far the best solution outthere for day to day film cleaning

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-08-2000, 01:40 PM:

Most liquid film cleaners (including Kodak's) used a fast evaporating solvent that left no residue on the film. Those that contained a lubricant usually used an inert hard wax like paraffin, carnauba or PET wax.

SMPTE Recommended Practice RP151, "Lubrication of 35-mm Motion-Picture Prints for Projection", specifically cautions about the use of oily materials as film lubricants:

4.2 Unsuitable Lubricants.
The lubricant and solvent used should have no adverse effect on the film, and should be effective in prolonging the projection life of the print. Mineral oils (motor oil, projector oil) may dissolve and leach out the oil-soluble dyes in the film, and should not be used. Non volatile oils (mineral or silicone) may cause mottle or undesirable sticking together of the film surfaces, which may cause dirt particles to adhere to the film. Some materials may attack the film base or emulsion, or have an adverse effect on image stability or projection life. Avoid using solvents that are flammable or explosive, or that pose a health or environmental hazard (e.g., benzine or carbon tetrachloride).

Many have found FilmGuard to be an excellent film cleaner and lubricant. When used in accordance with Brad's instructions, the minute amount of oily residue on the print has evidently caused no problems on release prints. But excessive or incorrect application can be problematic with this class of lubricants.

As Brad and Joe note, any good thing (e.g., Windex, Kodak film cleaner, FilmGuard, beer, etc.) shouldn't be used in excess.

Posted by Scott Magie (Member # 368) on 05-08-2000, 11:38 PM:

What's wrong with using Windex in excess? I started by having one with every meal, but I don't know... it just helps me relax I guess. And I never spray more than a bottle or two if I'm driving home...

------------------
Scott A. Magie

scoooot@hotmail.com
"Anybody wanna peanut?"

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-11-2000, 02:53 PM:

John,

Quad liquidus solutus purgatio semper superior modus esse.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-11-2000, 03:30 PM:

Suum cuique! (To each his own!)

Posted by Dwayne Caldwell (Member # 417) on 05-11-2000, 04:24 PM:

E Pluribus Unum!

Hey John. Can you really speak, read, and write Latin? Or are you using a software program like Global Office Competitive Upgrade? I know that package has a Latin Transliteration option. I only took two years in high school and the only use me and the guys ever had for it was to use the phase "Delicatus immanis mamma habeo" all the time. And I never got slapped.

------------------
The man with the magic hands.

Posted by Dwayne Caldwell (Member # 417) on 05-11-2000, 04:44 PM:

Would have liked to use "Meus amoris antlia lambere" but I wasn't sure if the phrasing was right, and I was too afraid to ask the teacher. Maybe you John, or you Brad, can tell me if I got it right.

------------------
Vir cum magicus manus.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-12-2000, 05:34 AM:

I took four years of Latin in high school, but that was decades ago. So I'm pretty rusty. But I always liked the opening line in Cicero's oration against Catiline. A Latin/English dictionary helps refresh my aging mind, but as far as my grammar: "fronti nulla fides". ("No reliance can be based on appearance.")

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-12-2000, 06:41 AM:

Even better line from Cicero's first oration: "O, tempora! O, mores!"

(Yes, I took five years of Latin..."Rident stolidi verba Latina!")

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-12-2000, 10:44 AM:

Based on what people post on the Film-Tech Film Handler's Forum and elsewhere (including their personal websites) I think I can make the following generalizations about projectionists:

1. A surprising number have taken Latin and participated in "toga parties".
2. They understand and like electronics.
3. They know and like film, and its rich history.
4. They are photography and/or video hobbyists.
5. They are into computers and the Internet in a big way, and know the trials and tribulations of digital technology.
6. They can't tolerate poor quality images or sound.
7. They try to do the best job they can with what they have to work with, and are sometimes frustrated, and usually underpaid.
8. They like beer.
9. They like to "talk shop" with other projectionists.
10. Projection is "in their blood".

Is this "top ten" list a good profile?

BTW, I've gone back in this thread and added an English translation of what I thought I said in Latin, for those not fortunate enough to have spent a few years with the original writings of Julius Caesar and Cicero. I won't even attempt to translate the other Latin postings in a public forum.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-12-2000, 03:09 PM:

John,

That's not quite the translation I pulled from it, but no matter. My point is as always that PTRs are generally only effective in preventing dirt accumulation on new prints in a clean environment whereas FilmGuard can even remove embedded dirt down the road on old prints in dirty environments. Also, PTRs don't do too good of a job in "typical" booths. Very few people have white glove room quality booths and that is why PTRs are best suited for applications such as labs. Also in a multiplex, there's just no time to keep cleaning the rollers between shows. In the end, they really don't save any money over media type cleaners because they lose their "sticky" very quickly and fail to continue to perform the job they do when brand new. It's a neat idea, but anyone who has done direct comparisons between the two in real world environments can easily back me up on what I've stated here.

...and no, I do not like beer.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-13-2000, 02:38 AM:

Quo Vadis.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 05-13-2000, 11:40 AM:

John P:
#8 should be #1

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-13-2000, 12:35 PM:

My theatre has a PTR cleaner. I have found that it's useful mostly when running a previously-used print (that we received from another theatre). Some of the prints we get are SO FILTHY that you wouldn't believe it, and these are prints that are only about 3-4 weeks after the national break! Luckily the "bad" ones are not the rule, but the exception.

I look at the first 10 - 15 feet of the first reel, and then I look at the "edges" of the film on the reels, and if there's a lot of dust evident, then the PTRs get used for the first night only. This system works pretty well for me, at least till we can afford a media-cleaner and a supply of FG.

Mike

Posted by Bryan Redemske (Member # 354) on 05-15-2000, 11:29 AM:

hey, i don't know Latin or anything, but i'm underpaid and i like beer!

hey brad - tshirt? should i just give up?

Posted by Ethan Harper (Member # 472) on 05-16-2000, 09:09 PM:

i know a little latin from i learned through many great years i was in school. but going back to johns stereotypes about proj. these are some normal characteristics i have noticed.

1. proj either have real sloppy handwriting and dont know how to spell, or they write really nice in all caps letttering.

2. as far as high school. thaey are either drama freaks and are very competitve and stubborn about the drama world, or want to do something inthe field of computer engineering or the internet(film-tech.com)

3. all have really bad dry humor!!!

these are just some that i have noticed.

either way, i personally like to consume the potpurri flavored windex (it goes great woth the ladies ). i know this might sound dumb but i am new here and want bcome a master film handler.

Fight Brad! Fight!

Posted by Ethan Harper (Member # 472) on 05-16-2000, 09:16 PM:

oh yeah one last thing. I could not really understand PTR's anyways. The past theater i worked at, we had to run an iwerks inertia ride. this projector consisted of 70mm film with one feature on each half of the film split down the middle. we had to use PTR's on that stupid thing. Question i always wondered was, why would you want to run film continuously on something that has dirt on it from a previous revolution. to me that seems like it would just carry the dirt that it picked up and embedded it into another various part of the film or even worse, depending on what it picked up,(god forbid) scratch the print. oh well just curious.

Posted by Scott Magie (Member # 368) on 05-17-2000, 01:09 AM:

Okay, let's be specific here. Cheap beer or good beer. I can't even whiff cheap beer, but I can enjoy a nice dark beer that costs more than 8cents a bottle. If you like your image and sound pristine, you've gotta like your beer to be pure as well, right? Don't tell me we have some participants in this forum who go for QUANTITY as opposed to QUALITY?
Nice call on the handwriting, though. I have very nice ALL CAPS that is oft-complimented. Yet my lower-case (and most other projectionists' that I've met) is horrid.
One other shared quality: most projectionists I have met desire to make the films themselves and are usually good storytellers (and sometimes habitual liars).

p.s. this is what happens when you start a thread that really can't go anywhere... it goes EVERYWHERE!

------------------
Scott A. Magie

scoooot@hotmail.com
"Anybody wanna peanut?"