Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Watcher and Factory splices

This is topic Watcher and Factory splices 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=001403

Posted by Robb Johnston (Member # 239) on 09-09-2000, 10:38 PM:

I supervise Booth ops at three locations in Southeast PA, two of which opened the Watcher this week. On Thursday one of my projectionists asked for advice on a chemical splice 8 frames from the end of one of the reels. (The number of the reel escapes me) Tonight I found out at the other location that they too had a factory splice 8 frames from the end of the reel. In both cases we opted to remove the entire 7 frames to avoid having two splices in less than a second.

2 questions, did anyone else run into this problem. I didn't do anything after the first one but with both prints having the same flaw, I am considering sending a formal complaint.

Second, if this happens again, should we go with the two splices, or remove the 8 frames.

Robb Johnston

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-10-2000, 01:26 AM:

OUCH! I'd have to cast my vote for leaving the splice "as is" and preserving the frames. Once the print has been screened, if it is determined there is no crucial audio or something going on in the picture, then it should be broken back down to a large reel up to that splice and the frames chopped out...but screen it first.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 09-10-2000, 09:29 AM:

I love people who remove 8 frames from the end of the reel that just does wonders for theatre running changeovers.
2 we have been over this point adnasuem they are no chemical splices estar film can be spliced only in 2 ways tape and ultrasonic
what you have is an ultrasonic splice

Posted by Dave Cutler (Member # 515) on 09-10-2000, 10:12 AM:

The Watcher is flat so if the splice happend to be on the frame line I would have left it, since you wouldn't see it on screen anyway.

Removing all 8 frames isn't a good idea, I would have either left it or remade the splice. If when it was screened, and it was really distracting, call TES and get a new reel.

Posted by Robb Johnston (Member # 239) on 09-12-2000, 03:24 PM:

For the record the Ultra Sonic Splice (Sorry just the old vocab) was smack in the middle of the frame in both cases. Also, I made sure after the fact that no frames were discarded, they all remained on the tail leader.

Thanks for the advice for future reference though.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-13-2000, 05:44 AM:

As noted in previous threads, "lab splices" on polyester film are made using an ultrasonic splicer that actually "welds" the film by melting the polyester support with ultrasonic energy. Since the splices are made on the unprocessed raw stock in a darkroom prior to the film being printed, the splices are often not on the frameline, and are randomly located in the reel. Undeveloped emulsion trapped in the weld sometimes makes for an discolored splice, that should be removed and remade when making up the print.

"Lab Splices" are an economic necessity, as few reels are exact increments of the 4000-foot or 6000-foot lengths film manufacturers supply. For example, if splices weren't used, printing three 1800-foot reels on a 6000-foot roll of raw stock would leave a 600-foot "short end" worth about $50, greatly increasing the cost of prints.

------------------
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 Wayne Cope (Member # 437) on 09-13-2000, 10:57 AM:

I am radically in favor of conserving as much film as possible. My current practice is to leave mid-frame factory (the people who taught me called them "factory" splices) splices alone unless a corner is starting to separate or it's showing signs of loss of emulsion. In the latter case, I take my reliable black Sharpie marker and paint the lapped area where the emulsion is coming off. I find that the dark gray streak is not very noticeable.

I know some film handlers will think this is shoddy work because they can spot the gray streak, but I've tried getting friends and other audience members to spot the streaks and they can't, or if they can, they don't think it's a big deal. My tape splices jump a wee bit more than factory splices (which jump almost imperceptibly) so I like this approach.

A main reason I prefer this method is that I have seen projectionists who will routinely replace others' splices by lopping off the frame on either side. People who work like this often can't even find a factory splice, however. I like to slow down the deterioration that happens over the years. Some of these films are good enough to be shown for a long time. Okay, a few of these films, anyway (:

Posted by Ari Nordström (Member # 288) on 09-13-2000, 11:39 AM:

Since I work at a theatre without platters, automation of any kind, or any other modernities designed to replace the projectionist, I've got to wholeheartedly thank Gordon for his comment above. Wayne, too. I'm in favor of keeping every frame I possibly can.

Posted by Wayne Cope (Member # 437) on 09-13-2000, 01:01 PM:

Thanks, Ari.

Another thought: Years ago, I knew a film handler who was adamant about putting splicing tape on the emulsion side of any mid-frame factory splices, on new prints, to PREVENT the otherwise inevitable removal of emulsion where the splice laps.

(By the way, I love you people. Sometimes it gets pretty lonely in the booth, trying to patch up mistakes made at some other cinemas. I can do a lot with dirt, gum, stray tape, some scratches, mismatched heads and tails, and other problems, but I've yet to figure out how to materialize missing frames or replace lost emulsion.)

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-13-2000, 03:19 PM:

I agree Wayne. Unless the splice is physically going to break (rare), I recommend they be left intact. Laying splicing tape over the splice stirs up dirt around it and removing it makes a more annoying jump in the picture and action. It also guarantees the person breaking it down won't think that the splice was at a reel change. The only real solution is to remake them with an ultrasonic splicer, which I now do.

Posted by Wayne Cope (Member # 437) on 09-15-2000, 02:45 AM:

In days of old (okay, for me that's the 1980's) I saw glue splicers and splices. I ran into a lot of those splices that were starting to separate, and I was trained on tape splicers, so I didn't think about going with glue. Reading Brad's post just now makes me very interested in ultrasonic splicers. Are they all about $3,000.00, like the Metric unit? Are the prices going to come down?

Now that I think about it, in recent years, I don't find many "factory" splices that are starting to separate. I was not conscious of the transition between glue and ultrasonic. (I wonder how much of the quality is the technology and equipment and how much is the quality of attention and training of the person.)

Also, I'd like to note I just received a print (of The Five Senses) which has a couple of mid-frame "factory" splices. I did my usual black out of the lap area where the emulsion had come off. When screening, on the one splice that is super smooth, I could not even see the gray streak where I had blacked it out. The other splice jumped badly and the grey streak was super visible to me. That was educational. I'll take another look at that one soon!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-15-2000, 06:29 AM:

Ultrasonic splices (on either raw or processed film) work only with polyester base, since the thermoplastic polyester plastic can be "welded" with the localized heating of the ultrasonic transducer. Here is information on the Metric 3001 Ultrasonic Splicer that most labs use, and that Brad uses:
CLICK HERE FOR METRIC SPLICER

There is also a review in the "Reviews" section of Film-Tech.

Cement splices (not "glue") used solvent to dissolve nitrate or triacetate base to make the splice. The formulae also included a small percentage of "binder", often cellulose nitrate. Cement splices do NOT work on polyester base film, which is impervious to solvent. Here is the MSDS for Kodak Fast Drying Film Cement:
CLICK HERE

Posted by John Hope (Member # 597) on 09-15-2000, 04:37 PM:

Just got home from making up for a charity pre-release preview. Brand new print, and I found a lab splice in just the position described by colleagues. Decided to leave it because it was on the frame line; relieved to discover that those more expert than myself would have done the same!
Interested to hear about pens that render lab splices invisible (well, almost). Have never come across one. Any suggestions from colleagues who work in the UK (I don't fancy trying to import from the US!)

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-15-2000, 05:17 PM:

You don't have Sanford Sharpies in the UK?

Does anyone still sell blooping ink? My 1934 Neumade catalog (which is on Brad's manual downloads page, in case anyone cares) has assorted types of "Movietone Ink" listed for sale.

Personally, I really dislike lab splices and will remove them if they aren't on a frameline--a good tape splice made with a properly aligned Neumade splicer won't jump at all in most projector gates. I've never seen a lab splice so close to the end of a reel, though, but I have seen them in trailers (?!?!) and countdown leaders.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-18-2000, 04:57 AM:

The position of a "lab splice" made on the unprocessed print film to use "short ends" is usually random. Having multiple prints with a splice in the same location ("8 frames from the end of the reel" originally reported by Robb Johnson on two prints, and also by John Hope in the UK) would be an unusual coincidence, so it may have been a deliberate decision to remove something after the prints were made.

Posted by Wayne Cope (Member # 437) on 09-18-2000, 06:04 AM:

More thoughts on the Sharpie marker and factory splices: I think if the splice jumps badly, then any missing emulsion or attempt to cover it up will be very visible. Jumpiness needs to be taken care of regardless. Also, it's probably much smarter to use the Sharpie marker to fill in missing emulsion where it is continuous with medium and dark areas and to cover the soundtrack. Where the missing emulsion is continuous with a light area of the image, it's probably best to leave it alone. This is a crude process, don't spend a lot of time on it. If it works for you, then fine, otherwise you'll want to cut the splice out. Note that Sharpie makes a fine point marker now. I like to have the fine point and the regular on hand.

John Hope, as for finding a Sharpie marker in the UK, they are used in the States by photographers for marking negatives, prints, etc. because they are quite permanent on those materials. You could just see what your neighborhood photographer is using.

John Pytlak, thanks for the update on different forms of overlapping splices, and it was great to read the walk-thru of using the Metric splicer, in the Film-Tech "reviews" section by Joe Redifer.

I'm still having trouble with the idea of loosing a frame as seems to be necessary with an ultrasonic splicer. I could see there would be some situations where it would be worth it, but I wouldn't do it for reel change splices, especially because being a calendar house, I turn a print over every week. Art house films would suffer badly if they lost a frame at each splice at each theatre. In extreme cases, like Pacific Film Archives, they only show a film once and then it's off to another venue (or storage).

Do ultrasonic splices made in the booth loose their emulsion at the overlap area, like "factory" splices do, and if so, how long does it take? I have the impression that around a few weeks or months of screening, factory splices are missing the emulsion where the film overlaps.

Scott, thanks for turning me on to the term "bloop". I hadn't heard that before, but I get it. If there's a little gap at the soundtrack, I use my Sharpie on the outside of the splicing tape. The ink looks unchanged a week later at breakdown.

I know what you're saying about how smooth a tape splice can be. I've seen some run thru a projector like regular film. Mine aren't quite that good. Maybe we could get into that. Obviously the edges need to not have any overhang and the film needs to be butted well. I've heard some opinion in favor of staggering the tape by one sprocket hole from one side to the other. If this is helpful, does it matter which side is towards the head and which towards the tail? I also have the impression one type of projector may do better with one technique versus another. Can anyone share some trial and error or conventional wisdom on any of this?

It seems to me bulkiness may be the big issue. I've seen some jumpy lab splices, with trimmed edges, and it seemed that those were bulkier than the average lab splice.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-18-2000, 06:37 AM:

John, F.Y.I. my print of The Watcher did not have a single lab splice in it.

Wayne, check out the splicing tips in the "tips" section of this website. If you modify your splicer and make splices in the manner described, you can toss that marker and forget blooping.