Sorry for putting you on the spot, Brad, but what do you think?
 

Cheers,

Mitch D.
 

Long live 35.
 

By the way our local Cinema, The Durant Twin Cinema, has four screens. The owner started with a twin. When it became successful, the other two screens were added!

------------------
F. Wayne Coston
 

I worked forever in TV editing 16mm.
I worked for two years total in a drive-in... The first summer I played Star Wars every night....

When I finally wised-up and got rid of the 25 year 16mm collection, and moved on up to 35mm, I got two of the worst examples of 35mm portables to run the films. I like the remarks made about the Holmes 8's here on Film-Tech... good and (funnier) bad.

But, I dont think a forum here is a good idea either.

 

The concept of a private forum is interesting, but who do you register and how can you positively ensure that a studio lawyer isn't allowed in?

I respect Brad's wishes and think Film-Tech is terrific by itself. For those of us not in the film business, film collecting is our only avenue of getting in on the fun of projecting and working with film. You guys and gals higher up on the food chain, have pity on us collectors and wannabees.
 

There are plenty of people out there who would pay $1500 - $2000 for a good movie and it would allow the film companies to recoup the cost of making the print. It been said many times before that private collectors take better care of prints then film companies do, what's the harm in allowing private individuals to own a copy and thus preserve it?

Just my 2 cents.
 

Collectors are honest (and of course, fanatics) people who are not harming the studios in any way whatsoever. None of them I've ever known charge for any exhibitions they may do in the privacy of their own home, and that would only be for a couple of close friends anyway.

I think the real problem here is bootleggers. There is a BIG difference between a bootlegger and a collector. Collectors patiently wait until past the video release date to add a title to their collection, whereas bootleggers will actually break into a depot or theater to steal a print so they can transfer it to video and make a profit. They are two completely different things, yet collectors always seem to be made out to be criminals. It truly is sad.
 

I read a newspaper article where Robert A. Harris was talking about the restoration of "Rear Window". Seems that the preservation elements had been kept in a warehouse where the temperature often went above 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

Joe Caporiccio has worked with 20th Century Fox and has told me that one time he went to inspect the film elements for "South Pacific". Once they could find the picture but not the sound. The next time it was the other way around.

The studios would have better luck if they distributed prints to dedicated collectors rather than destroying them with the buzz saw.
 

Now technically, I know this isn't "Fox's" fault for "losing" the negative, but GEESCH people!

 

Josh
 

Vinegar Syndrome is a form of film deterioration noted for its strong vinegar smell when you open the film can. It renders films un-runable and it can spread to other films in your collection.

 

I feel pretty much as Scott Balko feels that I'm just wasting the time of the folks here for some of my questions when HIAC is a lot more "forgiving" of the newbie question -- that is, I'd say that many of the lurkers and users of HIAC are fairly new to 35mm, are collectors and not 35mm professionals, and are thrilled to help others using the knowledge that they had only recent gained.

But Film-Tech is great for me when I have a question that only the pro's can answer, like what's the difference between a Cat 280T and a Cat 350 card, for instance. (Thanks, Brad, for that answer )

I'm hopeful that the 35mm forum on HIAC will continue and even more hopeful that some of the folks here that have never visited that site will start to do so (in their spare time, of course) to help with the really difficult questions.
 

The best way to prevent vinegar syndrome is to store the film properly. SMPTE Recommended Practice RP131 recommends cool and dry storage for long-term film storage. Low humidity storage reduces the amount of the moisture that initiates hydrolysis. Cool storage greatly reduces the rate of any chemical degradation reaction. Using vented storage (acid-free boxes or vented cans, NOT sealed cans) prevents the accumulation of acid vapors. It is good practice to inspect and "exercise" (carefully rewind or project)stored film periodically, which also helps release any buildup of acid vapors. The presence of iron (e.g., from magnetic striping or rusted film cans/reels) tends to accelerate vinegar syndrome.

Kodak developed "Molecular Sieves" which are packets of a special material that adsorb moisture and acid. Placing molecular sieves in sealed film cans adsorbs excess moisture and any acids, greatly retarding vinegar syndrome. Kodak recently won an Academy award citation for the invention of Molecular Sieves.

For more information on Molecular Sieves, see Kodak's FPC website:
http://www.fpcfilm.com/US/en/motion/FPC/fpc/mole.html

For information on the storage and preservation of motion picture film, see the Kodak web site:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/care.shtml

------------------
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
 

I'm using molecular sieves on a feature that has Vinegar Syndrome. The feature is very runnable but does not wind tightly on the reel. Anyway, I've had this feature in sealed cans since August (with the sieves, of course). I've opened reel 1 just twice since then to run it. What should I expect from the sieves. The odor is still there, no worse, no better. While I know the sieves won't cure VS, I had hoped that the smell would be alleviated to some extent. What's normal?
 

For films that have already begun to deteriorate with vinegar syndrome, the molecular sieves adsorb moisture and acid, thereby reducing the level of the two things that accelerate the reaction. The amount of odor is not a reliable indicator of how much acid is present.

As the molecular sieves adsorb moisture and acid, they gain weight. The weight gain can be used as an indicator of how much they have adsorbed, and when to replace them as they become saturated. It may be that film had so much acid that the molecular sieves quickly became saturated. To find out the amount of weight gain you might expect to see with saturated molecular sieves, compare the weight of a fresh packet, and one that has been exposed to a humid environment (e.g., damp basement or steamy shower) for about a week.

Since you know your film already has vinegar syndrome, it is especially important to store it in a cool place, and periodically wind/project it to "exercise" it.

------------------
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
 

My understanding is that when the studios tried to make a case against actor Roddy McDowall for having a private film collection, his defense was that the studios often let prints go into private hands. For example, directors have often given prints away to friends. With such common use proven typical, the studios couldn't make their case.
 

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

 

jasoN

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

------------------
Better Projection Pays!