Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: ELR Why not?

This is topic ELR Why not? 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=001445

Posted by Carl King (Member # 398) on 09-18-2000, 12:56 PM:

Who besides me thinks that it is time for the distributors to sart shipping prints to multiplexed on the ELR (extended length reel).

These things hold 5 or 6 thousand feet of film (3 standard reels). Building up and tearing down prints would be a lot faster and with only one splice to be made in most features there is a lot less chance of misframes. I mean who can't make just one splice correctly?

What do you think boys and girls?

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 09-18-2000, 01:11 PM:

I have a feeling that TES and others would have a field-day making bad splices. I dont think the labs would be able to do this easily either.

Can you imagine getting a ELR that is broken by the gorrillas at the depot?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-18-2000, 01:38 PM:

Actually, some of the original Extended Length Reel (ELR) and case designs approved by the Inter-Society Committee for the Enhancement of Theatrical Presentation were pretty sturdy and robust. I also recall someone showed a very durable case and reel used in Scandinavia for shipping large 35 mm reels. Done right, ELRs are still a very good idea.

------------------
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 Dave Cutler (Member # 515) on 09-18-2000, 02:19 PM:

I agree with John, if the ELR's were done correctly, they could be very cool.

Warner Bros. originally just spliced three reels togeather and called it an ELR (I hated that), but once fully inplace I think they would have had the labs start printing the ELR's. Don't the labs buy film from Kodak on 6000' reels anyway? That would transfer to ELR's nicely, any extra film could be used for trailers.

I don't think the shipping companies would be able to damage the ELR's as badly. The cases seemed pretty strong, and the reels were much more robust than the 2000' reels used today.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-18-2000, 02:27 PM:

The problem with printing in 6000-foot segments, though, is that there will still be a need to make some prints in 2000-foot segments for theatres that can't accept the large reels. This, of course, creates the dreaded "dual inventory" problem for theaters, labs, and film exchanges...

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-18-2000, 02:42 PM:

Although Kodak supplies raw stock print film as 6000-foot rolls, printing 6000-foot picture and sound negatives is not a "drop in" for most contact printers at the labs. They do exist, but are not common. ELRs would need to be a preferred format before full 6000-foot ELRs were printed and processed in one operation without splices.

I've heard one reason nominal 2000-foot reel lengths are still used is that the first and last reels of a production are often the last to be delivered to the lab because the titles and credits are being negotiated. With 2000-foot reels, the lab can begin printing reels 2-3-4-5, while waiting for reels 1 and 6. With ELR-length originals, the lab would have to wait until all reels were on hand before they could begin printing.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-18-2000, 02:42 PM:

I'm still all for it. If there is a couple of theaters around somewhere that cannot handle anything more than a 2000 foot reel, they NEED to get new reel arms. If ceiling space is at a premium, they could feed from the backside or even mount the supply arm upside down to the ceiling and feed over to a roller on the front wall (yes, I've seen this done and it works quite nicely).

If the industry is going to change over to cyan dye tracks and say "tough" to those theaters still using exciters, surely they won't be concerned about those very few handful of theaters that cannot handle 6000 footers. It would greatly cut down on print damage through unnecessary handling!

Posted by Dave Cutler (Member # 515) on 09-18-2000, 03:32 PM:

Printing to 2000' foot reels because the credits are still being negotiated seems a bit silly to me. I understand why they do it, but if the labs decided to switch I don't think it would add extra pressure to the labs. The extra pressure would be on the studios to get those credits done in time. I am sure the labs have a time frame they require the studios to get them the negative so it can be released by a certain date. That deadline might just have to be adjusted and if the studios can't handle it, then there movie will just have to be delayed.

If you are running changeovers I agree that you should atleast have the ability to run 6000 changes, even if it is regular practice to do 2000 changes. Upgrading would just be a requirement to keeping with the times.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 09-18-2000, 04:46 PM:

And what about theatres with AA2's the lower magazine is limited to 4000'
4000' rolls would actually make more sense anyway

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-18-2000, 05:04 PM:

Gordon, go to the picture warehouse and check out Bob Leader's AAII projectors.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-18-2000, 06:09 PM:

The problem with 4000' reels is that they would be a huge annoyance for theatres that normally run 6000' reels. Either there would be an extra changeover for most features or the prints would be hacked up anyway to fit everything on two 6000' reels.

As for the "everyone should have 6000' capability"--I tend to agree with this, but there are lots of places that have AA-IIs and such. Also, some of the larger carbon-arc lamphouses burn carbons that only last for 1/2 hour or so (the big Ashcrafts come to mind...the smallish Peerless lamps that I've worked with would be fine for 6000' reels, but using up the stubs would be difficult).

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 09-18-2000, 06:36 PM:

We've talked about this before..... ELR won't happen anytime soon, because it does not help the studios (read: put or even save them money.)

Even if/when the labs can print 6000ft reels continuously, they should leave on the c/o marks just in case someone needs them...

Of course, no one wants to make life difficult for those people who can only run 2000 or 4000 ft reels, but there would be a _huge_ labor and money savings for theaters if ELR's became common- not to mention less handling of the print. There's just too many to be ignored.

If you take the magazine covers off a AA-II, you can put a slightly larger reel on. I know purists will think that sacrilegious, but it may be just enough to fit many films (although not all.) The way that pedestal is designed, you will never get a full 6000 reel on there.

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 09-18-2000, 07:18 PM:

Let's think about it - in the grand scheme of things, who still uses changeovers? I would say probably 10% or less of the screens in the United States are run by a changeover. If it would make life easier for the MAJORITY of people that use platters - by all means - go ahead with it.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 09-19-2000, 01:52 AM:

Brad said:>>If the industry is going to change over to cyan dye tracks and say "tough" to those theaters still using exciters, surely they won't be concerned about those very few handful of theaters that cannot handle 6000 footers. It would greatly cut down on print damage through unnecessary handling!<<

...and he said it very well. Bring 'em on (and leave off the changeover cues while you're at it.)

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-19-2000, 04:26 AM:

Yes. Please drop the changeover cues on ELRs! They are useless. Besides, if someone just absolutely HAS to chop up the print to run on smaller reels, surely they have their own cue scriber. The labs shouldn't punish the 6000 footer changeover houses and platter jockeys just because of those couple of theaters that can't run 6000 foot reels. Think about it anyway. Are those projectionists going to actually slowly wind through the entire reel looking for those cue dots to know where to cut the reels apart? HELL NO! That would take forever! They would just chop the film wherever the reel got full and "at best" at a scene change and then just scribe their own cues on to effectively DOUBLE the amount of annoying cues on the prints. Leaving the cues in tact is a horrible idea in my opinion. Surely others can see my logic here.

Posted by Tom Sauter (Member # 616) on 09-19-2000, 09:58 AM:

I wouldn't mind if labs spliced for us between 2000' reels after printing is done and just ship on ELRs. Changes to processing would be minimal and 2000' houses could be easily accomodated. If they or the distributors can't make a decent splice they shouldn't be handling film in the first place.

I'd like to see the TES version of the plastic ELR reel!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-19-2000, 10:11 AM:

Actually, TES designed a very durable ELR and shipping case, that they presented to the Inter-Society Committee. Goldberg's design was likewise very robust.

The ELRs and cases being used by Warner Bros. and New Line are from a different vendor, however.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-19-2000, 02:55 PM:

I don't like the "dirt traps" on the inside flanges of Warner and New Line's ELR reels. It makes it incredibly difficult to wipe clean the inside flanges and the dirt trapped in that little waffle design clings to the print as it is unrolled.

I think the fact that no one can seem to properly splice on an "attached trailer" after the reel 1s have been printed is proof enough the labs and depots should NOT be allowed to "build up" the prints to ELRs.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 09-20-2000, 11:27 AM:

If the cues are included on 6000 foot reels, the editor still "controls" where the break will be. Hopefuly, the editor has given some thought as to where a good break(s) should be, and if the c/o marks are kept, a good projectionist (although stuck running 2000ft reels) will follow that example. There will always be people who will just cut the film any place (some do that now!) but it would be better to let the editor decide where, rather than an uncaring dope who would just cut it in the middle of a scene because his 2000ft reel is full.

Is there anything wrong with just winding 3 reels onto one ELR? I mean, what if that became the "standard" delivery method? The labs would just wind three seperate 2000ft reels onto one ELR. The end of each reel would be taped down so it doesn't fly off when the end of the previous reel is reached. When making up, the operator cuts off the tail/head as usual, then keeps going. He stores the heads/tails the same way as now. When it's time to ship back the print, he just winds it onto the two ELR's. The next platter operator who gets the print has some work already done for him. If it's reels, that next operator has to put it back together (either for a 20 or 40 min reel) but he has the heads and tails to do so. The reel-running operator probably already has house reels, so he does not need the 20min reels that usually come in the cans.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-20-2000, 11:43 AM:

That would not really solve much. If that was the case, I'd prefer to keep things on 2000 foot reels. I can just see reel #2 coming in tails out anyway!

As to my argument on removing reel changes, how is the 2000 foot capacity theater supposed to find the cue marks? Really, is he supposed to somehow force the reel to fit in a space that can not accommodate a 6000 foot reel so he can screen it once to look for cues? The whole point of ELRs to me is to have only ONE splice (two for Costner flicks) within the feature. That's where the majority of damage comes from in an otherwise nice booth, from poor handling during buildup.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-20-2000, 12:18 PM:

I agree with Brad. Although you could put three complete reels (including head and tail leaders) on an ELR "as is", you would not gain the advantages of eliminating the time and extra handling needed to remove the leaders, make splices, and then reattach the leaders after the run. Industry conversion to ELRs will require considerable investment by the labs, the exchanges, and the theatres, and is only justified by the reduced handling and improved quality allowed by not having to continually splice and unsplice leaders.

I also agree that changeover cues should continue to be printed for those few theatres that continue to need them. Where to change reels should be the decision of the film editor, and not at the whim of the theatre. But to fully utilize the advantages of ELRs, ALL theatres need to be equipped to handle ELRs. "Dual inventories" of ELR and 2000-foot reels are impractical for the long term, and would lose the cost/quality advantage.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-20-2000, 01:43 PM:

What I find confusing about this discussion is that the whole argument in favor of ELRs is that they reduce handling and the potential for mis-handling. Doesn't anyone else think that this is the wrong way to go about solving the problem of mis-handled prints? Wouldn't it be easier to charge theatres for print damage and thus force them to hire and train people so that they will not damage prints (or at least force them to pay for a new print for the next theatre)? It seems like this would be the better way to solve the problem, unless I'm missing something here.

Don't misunderstand--I'm not really against the ELR concept (though I have worked in a booth that would need new reel arms, a new rewind bench, and a bunch of 6000' reels in order to deal with ELRs); I'm just suggesting that there may be better ways to solve the problem at hand.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-20-2000, 02:04 PM:

I totally agree that holding theatres responsible for careless damage would help improve print quality. A better mechanism is needed to "catch" chronic offenders, to make them change their ways.

The justification for ELRs is that they eliminate the lost frames and dirt/scratch buildup resulting from having to make and unmake the leader splices through the life of the print. And ELRs will save some time (i.e., money) by simplifying the "make-up" process. Multiply those savings by thousands of prints per week, and ELRs have a good "business case".

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 09-20-2000, 04:52 PM:

Yeah, I realize my "3-reels-on-an-ELR" idea isn't a great one, but I'm just looking for ways to get the concept going, if only partially.

Brad is probably right; not only would the labs put a reel on tails out, but also put reel 3 on the outside!

This whole ELR thing gives me an upset stomach. It's one thing when you have a problem with no solution; but here, we have the solution, but no studio wants to implement it. And theaters are the losers.

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 09-21-2000, 08:21 AM:

The other problems that I had experienced with ELR is the Christie MUT. Once the reel starts getting full the "rubber band" belt can't very well start turning the reel AND get the platter running also.

Speco MUTs never really had this problem as they use real belts.

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 09-21-2000, 05:25 PM:

Shame on you brad! Cueblips on 6k's aren't useless. what about the people running 6k xovers? Huh, Huh, betcha didn't think of that!

Josh

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-22-2000, 04:08 AM:

Josh, I never said eliminate the cues on the end of what would've been reel 3. Shame on you.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-22-2000, 09:31 AM:

What's wrong with the Christie MUT? I've never actually handled a film shipped on ELRs, but I've never had any problems with make up/breakdown onto 6000' reels (the good floating-hub Goldberg ones) from AW-3 platters.

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 09-22-2000, 11:09 AM:

But what about my "beer-every-cue" idea? Aren't more cues better

? Sorry.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-22-2000, 11:31 AM:

Re: Beer cues.

One every 20 minutes is about my pace.
(Not if I'm in the booth or driving, of course).

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-22-2000, 03:42 PM:

The Christie MUTs only strain when the film is being pulled off too slowly. Keep the speed at least 1:00 position on the control and you should be fine.

Posted by Dave Cutler (Member # 515) on 09-22-2000, 03:42 PM:

Paul, if you are having trouble with your Christie MUT not being able to pull the platter with an almost full 6000' reel, try this. Insert a pencil (or something) between the motor mount and the platter support arm, effectively disengaging the motor from the platter. This way there is no back tension on the platter so the MUT doesn't have to work as hard. Just be careful not to go to fast, the platter won't slow down. You have to use your hand and this can be very dangerous if the platter isn't smooth.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-22-2000, 04:16 PM:

NO NO NO NO NO! Do NOT disengate that motor. Breaking down in that manner does not provide constant backtension. That causes cinch mark scratches on the film during breakdown as well as a very poor wind which can cause perforation damage during transit. Never do that.

Posted by Dave Cutler (Member # 515) on 09-22-2000, 06:17 PM:

<-- Brad after reading my comment

I have to disagree with you again Brad, and I will defend myself. I think that the motor on the Christie platter adds way too much backtension on a print during breakdown. You risk stretching the film when the motor in engaged.

You end up with a terribly sloppy reel when the motor is engaged, and the print will be damaged during shipping because it isn't smooth (flat).

You don't let the platter spin completly free. I add a little (and I stress little) backtension by holding on to the platter with my hand. Yes you have to be careful, you have to be careful with a lot of things in a booth. Yes, I end up with a perfectly smooth (flat) reel. No, it is not loose, and it will not shift during shipping. No, there are not cinch marks on the print. You will not damage the print if it is done properly.

Obviously you don't agree (strongly), but I know that I have not damaged a print in this manner. I get much better results doing this, than when I tried to leave the motor engaged.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-22-2000, 06:28 PM:

Dave,

Yes, I horribly disagree with you on this. How many times have you broken down a print in this manner and then rebuilt it up a couple of times? You haven't, have you? 99.9% of the time the booth that breaks down a print never sees it on screen again and has no idea what damage they are doing. I understood you are trying to brake with your hand, but no human is going to exert constantly even tension. Also, I don't know what kind of film stocks you run in your booth, but I've never had a problem with even acetate film breaking on an AW3 during breakdown. If acetate stocks break down perfectly, there is no way that polyester stocks are going to "stretch". I'm sure John Pytlak can back me up on that one, at least in reference to the durability and strength of Kodak stocks.

Your problem is clearly that your rollers are not aligned properly, which will ALWAYS result in a dished or otherwise warped wind. Correct those problems, don't alter the design of the platter. If the rollers are aligned properly, you will get a perfectly flat, smooth and tightly wound roll. The only other problem you may be having is perhaps your operators are forgetting to punch the "makeup" button on the AW3 before they break down. Many people seem confused by that as you don't HAVE to punch that button in to actually break a print down, but if you don't, the backtension WILL be too much.

Posted by Paul Cunningham (Member # 501) on 09-23-2000, 07:50 AM:

I think that ELR's make it easier to train the monkeys.

According to the monkey training manual the easier it is to train one the less intelligent they need to be.

With less intelligent monkeys the opportunities for other forms of monkey business (read - severe print damage) increase considerably.

Also less intelligent monkeys require fewer bananas at feeding (read - pay) time.

Cheers Paul

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 09-23-2000, 05:51 PM:

On most AW3's I do disengage the motor for braking down a print as the back tension is really high especially at the last three reels or so. If breaking a film from an AW3 with the motor disengaged is 'guaranteed' to cause such problems, then why is disengaging the motors the proper way to do it with Strong, Potts, CFS, Neumade/Xetron, Norelco/Kinoton, and others? If you have a rough edge you use a rag to apply the back-tension to the platter disc and you can vary the tension as opposed to the Christie where its fixed unproportionally to the diameter of the film wind on the disc...

Aaron

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-24-2000, 01:32 AM:

That's precisely the #1 reason why I do not install those platters you just listed. It is a thoughtless design flaw in respect to film care. I did not realize the Kinoton/Norelco platters were that way as well, as I've never installed or worked with one. I guess that shoots those down too. I prefer Christies and SPECOs. Anyway, I've been in many positions where I've had to build up and break down the same print a couple of dozen times and on an AW3 with the motor engaged and the makeup button depressed, there is no damage. There IS damage when the decks spin freely with only human intervention to provide backtension. Again, this does not start to show up for a couple of breakdowns in the typical theater...but it is noticeable damage in a screening room type of application where light is a plenty and any damage to the film is a horrible distraction. Most people don't really seem to give much of a shit about what happens to that print after they are finished running it, or they simply do not realize the damage they are doing by various breakdown procedures. Very few of them have ever actually even re-built up a print they have broken down. Most people just look out the window on that last show and see a nice print and believe that the print left "perfect", when in reality, damage could very well have happened during breakdown, and frequently does!

Are you engaging the "makeup" button before you try to break down when you are getting such tension? Remember, this button MUST be depressed for breakdown as well as makeup. If you are still getting too much tension, I'd be interested in knowing the vintage of the platters.

Hey Bevan, when are you going to start participating? I know you're reading this. Now would be an excellent time to chime in.

By the way, I've found some Christie takeup rings will collapse slightly during breakdown (yet some others do not...must've been a change in material). If this is happening to you, one of those plastic DTS cases the feature discs come in fits perfectly in the opening to essentially "lock" the center ring during breakdown.

Posted by Dave Cutler (Member # 515) on 09-24-2000, 11:09 AM:

But, like I said in a different topic, the Strong MUT has the tension roller/spring assembly on it. It doesn't take much speed to make sure it is always slightly 'engaged.' You will end up with a perfect reel every time and it won't be damaged. This is one of the reasons I think the Strong platter is best, but I know Brad doesn't like the small rollers.

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 09-24-2000, 11:44 AM:

Yes Brad... The make-up button was in for the platter being broken down from. Still awfully tight... These vary in vintage from 1979 '50th Anniversary' models to 1980s vintage AW3Rs... Not all of them exhibit this anomaly, but most of the ones I have worked with have.

Never worked with a Speco, so i can't say anything about them.

Aaron

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-24-2000, 01:43 PM:

Dave,

I'll give you that spring roller does help immensely in respect to "hand braking", but I still have been less than pleased with the results.

Aaron,

I've not ran into that problem you are describing. Once however I did find that someone had replaced the stock motor spring with something that was too large and too strong. It was tearing up the motor drive wheel and causing incredible amounts of drag on the platter during breakdown, but it was not a design flaw. Just for kicks, you might want to investigate that. Also, if the motor drive belt is worn down a lot, the motor will have to spin significantly faster and that could be causing the excess drag on those certain models.

Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 09-24-2000, 01:59 PM:

Aaron breaks down from an AW3 like once in a blue moon.

Although I will agree with him... around reel 3 it gets difficult... but I think that's more related to the age and condition of the motor on the spindle of the MUT.

But that's just me. I'm going to go mind my desk now.

Scott Neff
Confections Auditor Pro-Tem
Century Theatres

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-26-2000, 12:48 PM:

SMPTE Recommended Practice RP 106 specifies maximum 35-mm film tension to be less than 16 ozf., primarily to prevent sprocket teeth from damaging perfs. In systems without sprockets (breaking down from a platter to a MUT), back tension of one or two pounds should not harm or stretch polyester film. The only real risk I see with too much tension in this situation is stretching tape splices, or winding a roll so tight that it "spokes". The wound roll should never be "loose", such that the film convolutions shift or the roll dishes easily --- a loose roll is much more prone to cinch. Manually holding back tension is hard to do consistently.

Posted by Stefan Scholz (Member # 147) on 09-30-2000, 03:20 AM:

I remember someone saying at a convention, "ELR is like sex in High School, everybody talks about it, but noone has ever tried it". --
There is some truth in this. Tension related problems could be overcome with electronic controls in winding devices, that's certainly not the point. The point is investments to change existing structures, special in film warehouses and transport Co.'s. There infrastructure is based on 2000 ft (16") reels.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 09-30-2000, 04:21 AM:

Kinoton's don't disengage the motor..at least, not the newer models, I'm not sure about the older ones.