Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Fabulous lab work

This is topic Fabulous lab work 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=001630

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-05-2000, 02:58 PM:

This comes from Charlie's Angels and the Deluxe Hollywood lab. Looks like someone's fingerprints that were coated in chemicals around this lab splice that isn't even lined up straight. Don't the lab guys use gloves? Why are there fingerprints all over the image area of the film? Why was the film not handled by the edges? Perhaps our good friend John Pytlak can shed some light as to what causes this and why we are still seeing such quality control.

(Could there possibly have been a worse shot for this to happen in? It's almost completely clear.)

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-05-2000, 06:02 PM:

Okay, so I'm going to play the Devil's advocate here for a second...

The labs use these huge machines that are 100 feet (or some ridiculously large number) long and run at 50 miles an hour (or some ridiculously fast speed). The raw stock film comes in 6,000 foot rolls.

One minute (or some ridiculously small amount of time) before the machine is about to run out of film, the lab guy has to mount a new reel of raw stock, weighing 50 pounds (or something like that) then cut the film in the machine, make a splice and get it all going again before the machine runs out of film.

All of this has to be done in a minute (or whatever time)... you only have ONE shot to get it right AND it all has to be done in the dark! (Or under dim safelights)

I know somebody else here will fill in the details but I think I've gotten across the main points.
(I'd like to visit a film lab someday, or at least see some good close-up pictures.)

My point is that this isn't as easy as splicing-up film on your workbench. I'm willing to cut the lab guys a LITTLE bit of slack.

I'm willing to check for lab splices and fix them.
I'm willing to see a few feet of fogged film. (OCCASIONALLY, like once or twice a YEAR!)
Maybe ONCE IN A BLUE MOON am I wiling to see some other mistakes like what Brad is showing us.

The thing is that this is NOT occasional.
This is NOT once or twice a year.
This is NOT once in a blue moon.
This is something like HALF the time!

We get jumpy pictures from running the machines too fast (and using the wrong pitch for the negative stock)
We get splices that are so far out of alignment that the film is in danger of breaking if you run it. (Or worse, damaging the projector!)
We get reels that are fogged for half their length.
We get soundtracks that won't play right.
We get so many other things I can't count them all!

Why don't those people that run those labs hire some competent help? Is it just sheer stupidity?

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 11-05-2000, 06:23 PM:

I sense Brad's brain working and the chemistry kit coming out...
New advanced Film Guard II! Removes lab fingerprints!

Whoever (whomever?) the culprit is, I've got an idea he would be easy to track.

Seriously, I worked in a still photography darkroom for a couple of years, and you're right, fingrprints like that on any film are either the mark of an undertrained rookie, or someone who just his pulled hands out of the soup to prevent some sort of total disaster.

Now you've started me wondering how much film is lost in the lab to accidents???

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-05-2000, 06:42 PM:

Having spent some of my younger days "in the dark" (film lab) .... the device that allows the film to be stopped to make a spice while the machine continues to run and process film is called an "elevator". It is much like the compensators used for stringing one print thru several projectors except it has many "banks" of rollers to provide more than enough time to make a splice...and time to redo it a couple of times if neccesary.

The example that Brad posted is most likely the result of some slob not washing his hands after gulping down that greasy cheeseburger. There is no excuse.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-06-2000, 07:30 AM:

Brad:

If you can provide the print number, I will be sure the appropriate people at the lab know about this unfortunate incident, so they can work with the person responsible to correct the poor handling practice.

When problems like this occur, you can request a replacement reel, and be specific in describing the problem. Hopefully, word and samples get back to the lab from the film exchange. Or, if you can provide photos like this, along with specifics like the lab, title, reel, and print number, I will be sure the people at the lab know of the problem, so they can eliminate it.

BTW, even simple sweat on the fingers can cause these fingerprints if unprocessed print film is mishandled. Gloves would usually be impractical and unsafe in this darkroom environment, so it's a matter of properly handling the film by the edges only that needs to be emphasized. The fingerprints are magenta because that's the topmost imaging layer on print film.

------------------
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 Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-06-2000, 09:46 AM:

I'll get the print number, but we all know TES doesn't really keep track of what print goes in what can.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-07-2000, 05:44 AM:

If the print has CAP Code with the four digit man-readable numbers along the edge, that number can be tracked to the production run too.

Posted by Rick Fowler (Member # 605) on 11-08-2000, 04:15 PM:

John & Brad
I guess the question is what can be done about some labs that continue to put out horrible prints. Yes I can understand that sometimes these things happen and why we are supposed to check the print. It certainly appears to me that Deluxe labs doesn't seem to care about the quality of the prints they are producing. bad labs splices, mis-aligned SRD tracks, etc... It seems almost 100% of the time when there is a problem print it has come from Deluxe. I guess just pray that film goes away and is replaced by digital in the mean time just have to put up with this crap.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-09-2000, 08:08 AM:

Rick said: "I guess just pray that film goes away, and is replaced by digital in the mean time just have to put up with this crap."

I agree that we need to work together to improve the quality of prints and how they are distributed and shown. Most of the time, the system works well, but "shit happens" occasionally, and these unfortunate incidents need to be addressed. This particular "fingerprint" incident is obviously a simple matter of a personal lapse in proper film handling practice that can easily be addressed by the lab.

But as far as digital being better, be careful what you pray for! Digital Cinema still has alot of serious questions that haven't been answered -- that's why it is still in only about 35 theatres (out of over 100,000) in the world, and hundreds of people working on the SMPTE DC28 committees, and at Kodak, Technicolor, TI, JVC, Sony, Christie, Barco, Qualcomm and other companies. Digital Cinema will happen, but IMHO, it has a long way to go before it becomes widespread and cost-effective, and maybe as good as "film done right".

Posted by Stefan Scholz (Member # 147) on 11-09-2000, 02:06 PM:

This not a very bad example, I have one which is worse. Look at the tape used to splice both sides of the film. This was in the middle of a reel...
I kept this lab splice, cause I'd seen nothing like it before.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-10-2000, 06:47 AM:

Stefan:

Your photo of the tape splice isn't posted yet, but it is probably an example of a tape splice some labs used to use to splice the unprocessed film prior to printing and processing. Because the emulsion of the unprocessed film was covered by the tape, it never got developed. In most cases, these unsightly splices were removed by the lab before shipping the print. A few did get into theatres, where they had to be remade.

Today, most labs making release prints use an ultrasonic splicer to splice the unprocessed film. We've discussed these "lab splices" in previous threads, as they are often discolored and not on the frameline, since they are made in the darkroom on unprocessed film. Unfortunately, they are an economic necessity, as labs cannot afford to discard "short ends" of raw stock without dramatically increasing print prices.

When projectionists find these lab splices during print inspection, they should be remade if they are discolored or in the middle of a frame.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-10-2000, 04:27 PM:

Stefan, email me a picture of your splice sample and I will post it here.

Posted by Martin Frandsen (Member # 74) on 11-12-2000, 01:58 PM:

At least they got the lab splice with-in the frame line on the photo!

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-12-2000, 08:46 PM:

At one of my last jobs I used to keep what I called "The Hall of Shame". Whenever I found a bad splice or other mistake in a print I would cut it our and tape it to the wall above the projector.

Just a little reminder to do good work, lest one of YOUR splices get pasted up!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-13-2000, 06:56 AM:

"Shit Happens" sometimes, and we (film manufacturers, labs, distributors, exchanges, theatres) need to work together to fix the cause of these problems. It is a tribute to the film industry that only a small percentage of prints have problems and most of the problems are fixable, given that over 10,000 prints (100 million feet or about 30 million metres) of new feature films are sent out on a weekly basis around the world.