Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Kodak's Cinema Notes

This is topic Kodak's Cinema Notes 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=001602

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-24-2000, 05:30 PM:

Anybody else see the new Kodak Cinema Notes? There's an article called "Technicolor Delivers On Time, Every Time." There's an article of the same name, which is a puff piece that was probably written by Technicolor's PR department.

Looks like somebody gave a large wad of cash to somebody...

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-25-2000, 10:29 AM:

John P. How could you let that happen?????? Or did that fund your trip out to Showest?
Mark

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-26-2000, 07:31 AM:

I am NOT the editor of Cinema Notes, only a contributing writer. Cinema Notes invites articles written by various industry suppliers and organizations.

------------------
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 Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-26-2000, 07:56 AM:

Perhaps they should look into things a little deeper before it goes into print. The Technicolor Tom-Foolery is quite widely known to everyone in the industry and I find it quite disheartning that it made it to print.
Mark

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 10-26-2000, 11:16 AM:

Hopefully, the article will be taken as humor by its readers.

I like to think that things that I read from Kodak are industry standards coming from those who know.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-26-2000, 11:34 AM:

I think it WILL be taken as humorous. Anyone in the industry (referring to "in the field" and not a pencil pusher/administrative type) knows better. I got quite a few laughs out of it myself, mostly due to the way it was worded in that fake/policitally correct style of writing.

It's still a great source of information John, and your pointers this month was quite interesting. I commonly find knicks in the film and actual tape within a reel of film that would've caused a wrap, but would've definitely not been a static related issue.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-26-2000, 12:29 AM:

Mark there should have been a smile at the end of your comment as I for one can vouch for John's integrity and I think from the postings most would here as well. That comment should have been clearly marked as in jest (I sincerly hope that was intended) for others lurk here who are not so well informed

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 10-27-2000, 10:15 PM:

I gotta back Gordon up on this one, if that wasn't in jest, it was certainly very rude.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-31-2000, 10:03 AM:

I assumed Mark made the comment in jest, so I was not offended.

The editors of "Cinema Notes" choose articles of topical interest that may be of help to theatres. The article about Technicolor Entertainment Services invited comment to Brad Carroll, Manager of Exhibitor Relations, at (818)562-8372. Please remember that TES only provides services and materials that the
distributors specifically request, so many of the complaints (e.g., lack of full inspection, delivery date) posted on Film-Tech are not under their control.

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 10-31-2000, 11:20 AM:

AFAIK, no distributor is inspecting prints now. It's up to the poor soul that gets the print.

I just opened another of the old prints that I got a few months ago. It has an INSPECTED sticker on it with the following information:

TITLE
Reel 5 of 5
CONDITION: VG--has sprocket marks in the soundtrack--otherwise OK.

Just running the reel on the rewinds through my sound reader was misery. It sounds like a motorboat engine. I cant hear the sound for the noise. My booth is still in limbo The Holmes are still dead.

The print was rejected by a theater after it was inspected, so what good did the inspection do if they just sent it out again?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-31-2000, 11:54 AM:

Speaking of print inspection, does anyone have a roll of smiley-face inspection stickers (see below)? If so, I want some of them...

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-31-2000, 11:55 AM:

Bruce: I recall in the days of National Film Service, if and when a print was inspected by rewinding, they used a five-point rating system, with new unblemished reels rating a "1", and damaged reels to be junked rated a "5". Anything between 1 and 4 stayed on the racks, and could be sent to a theatre, but they tried to send the better rated prints if there was a choice. For many years BC (before computers), the only record for each print at the exchange was a large index card with the handwritten theatre and inspection log.

A reel severely damaged by sprocket "roping" like yours would be rated "5" and junked, with the theatre getting charged.

For a bit of nostalgia, check out the article about Ola McElhinney, an inspectress at Benton Brothers in Atlanta, in the December 1977 "Film Notes for Reel People" H-50-5. Film-Tech has these on line in the "Manuals" section. Ola started in the film industry in 1915, when she was only 19 years old, and was still going strong in 1977 when she was in her 80's! Bless her soul.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-31-2000, 02:26 PM:

Ahhhhh, National Film Service! People who actually knew what film was. Depots around the country. Direct phone numbers to real people. No bs "on hold" announcements. Same day reel replacements (although needing one was a rarity). Solid reels that never fell apart. A real shame. <snif>

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 10-31-2000, 04:53 PM:

John,

You might remember me telling everyone that I knew Ola M. when I lived in Atlanta. She was a very sweet lady and loved talking about the old days of film handling, and just about anything else. I went by the home that she owned the last time that I was in Atlanta, and was told by the young couple living there that they had bought the home from the previous owners estate in 1990.

As for the 1-5 rating system, and the cards, I used this exact system for my 16mm collection. Most of my stuff was a 3 or 4.

My question: If the distributor KNEW that the roping was on R5, then why waste the money shipping it to the theater, and wasting the time of the projectionist inspecting it? The whole print has the same print numbers on the bands, and all head and tail splices are the same. The thing is on LPP stock, and R1-4 are scratch free, as is R5 with the roping.

I dont know why I am asking all these questions. This print has been idle for at least 12 years.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-01-2000, 06:31 AM:

Bruce asked: "If the distributor KNEW that the roping was on R5, then why waste the money shipping it to the theater, and wasting the time of the projectionist inspecting it?"

My guess would be that the person who inspected the reel saw and noted the roping damage, but didn't realize that that kind of damage sounds so BAD. So they didn't rate the reel a "5" and junk it.

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 11-02-2000, 07:49 PM:

John, as usual, you probably hit it right on the nose.

I'm getting another R5 from a collector.

Bruce