Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: VOTE Safety vs. Polyestar

This is topic VOTE Safety vs. Polyestar 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=001706

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 12-06-2000, 12:05 PM:

I was just wondering how much everyone out there hates the hunk of cheap plastic known as polyestar film! this easily scratched but inbreakable excuse for film has caused more problems than it is worth. But hey! its cheaper for the studios and as long as there getting a break right? Anyways do you prefer the Mess of Staticy Plastic, that'll rip your sprockets to shreads and rip your rollers off your wall? Or do you like the old better looking Tri-Acetate safety film?

------------------
I love to smoke I smoke seventhousand packs a day and I'm never F*&ing quittin!-- Denis Leary

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-06-2000, 01:51 PM:

I like acetate much better. The "look" of the Kodak 5386 stock to my eyes is far superior than the current films I'm seeing. Most of this is due to way too much "green" in the image. This isn't always the case, but I first started noticing the "green syndrome" upon the release of polyester base prints. It also doesn't seem to be tracked down to a specific lab.

Just to clarify, both are "safety" stock.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 12-06-2000, 03:41 PM:

I like that Polyestar is more difficult to damage due to poor film handling. Face it guys, not everybody is as careful as we are.

I dislike the way polyestar behaves in an emergency situation. In the old days acetate would just break if there was a problem. You might loose a frame or two. Now with polyestar, if you have a brain wrap, you may loose two feet of crinkeled film.

I have yet polyestar break a projector, but I have seen it bend rollers.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-06-2000, 04:04 PM:

The strength, toughness, and durability of polyester base film are well known and documented. Kodak has consistently recommended the use of tension-sensing failsafes. All three major film manufacturers have converted to polyester base for motion-picture color print films. Kodak has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to develop and manufacture VISION Color Print Films with greatly improved features that address the static and abrasion issues associated with older polyester base films:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/2383.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr19960509-01.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

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-06-2000, 04:39 PM:

Actually it was NATO that wanted the use of estar based stock

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-06-2000, 07:00 PM:

Well this is a no brainer...

Theatre should still be using acetate, not polyester.

Its foolish that Kodak and other companies have had to spend hundreds of millions on getting polyester to the point where it behave better in conventional theatres.

The recommendation of tension sensing failsafes is all well and good but they are kinda like idiot lights in a car, they tell you when the problem occurrs they don't stop the problem.

NATO was sold a bill of goods on polyester (kinda like the RED LEDs)...show me the percentage of booth personel that prefer polyester to acetate...I'd wager less than 10% would want polyester if acetate was offered to them.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-06-2000, 08:13 PM:

The first major releases on polyester print film were NOT on Kodak film (e.g., "The Fugitive", "Secret Garden", "Free Willy", "The American President"). Kodak participated in a "trade test" of polyester with the Warner Bros. picture "Mr. Wonderful" (using ECP 2386) in cooperation with the Inter-Society Committee for the Enhancement of Theatrical Presentation. I gave a presentation of the results at ShoWest, mentioning concerns regarding the high strength, static, dusting, and need for tension-sensing failsafes for polyester prints. NATO and some distributors felt the advantages of polyester outweighed the concerns, and encouraged rapid conversion. Recognizing these concerns, Kodak began developing the technology now found in the new VISION Color Print Films, which have a transparent scratch-resistant, conductive, anti-static layer on the back side of the film.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 12-06-2000, 08:38 PM:

My understanding is that the studios and distributors wanted polyester- they're the people that buy the stuff. I'm sure this is true, because the change from acetate to polyester happened over the course of less than one year- virtually overnight in the motion picture business. The theaters didn't have a say in the matter.

And, NATO may have voted for it, but I bet if they voted no, we'd still be using polyester.

I simply can not understand why theaters that damage prints are not charged for it. It can't be because the exchanges don't inspect prints between theaters. Simply tell the next theater to inspect the print on arrival, or they will be responsible. While a theater could damage a print on the first day, then try and blame the previous theater, no one would get away with that type of thing for very long.

I have to conclude that, for whatever reason, it's in the studios/distributors best interest *not* to make a big deal out of charging for damages.

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 12-06-2000, 09:00 PM:

Actually, I like Nitrate better than Safety or Polyester!

Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 12-06-2000, 09:47 PM:

I strongly prefer triacetate over polyester. I never had any problems with acetate except for an occasional film-break which was always repaired and back on screen in 30 seconds, with no damage to equipment and no lost footage (except one or two frames).

Kodak has improved their Estar film, but it used to be a nightmare. Around the summer of 1998, for instance, I had many "misbehaving" prints that had to be "baby-sat" for the entire show. And there was equipment damage (mostly broken solar cells), and angry customers, and angry managers who thought the operators were falling down on the job (but you can't be in more then one booth at the same time). It was quite unpleasant. And even though Estar has less static now and Film-Guard is available, there is still a much bigger risk of damaged equipment when unskilled/uncarring people are sent upstairs.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 12-06-2000, 10:34 PM:

Being in second run and getting films after you first run guys have wreaked your havoc, I'll take polyester. Since its introduction I've seen none of the prints with the long sections with all the perfs torn on one or both sides and the 500 splices that were very common with acetate. There are still plenty of stretched and wrinkled perfs though. The difference is the poly will still run and look ok on the screen. Any visible scratches and I call for another print, if it isn't near perfect we don't run it.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-07-2000, 02:33 AM:

John,

What were the reasons FOR switching to polyester? I think Steve hit the nail right on the head with his post above (I wouldn't even give it 10%), but I'm curious as to the studio's motive.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-07-2000, 07:03 AM:

To quote from Agfa's ad for their polyester print film, published on page 7 of the July 1993 issue of Film Journal:

_____________________________________________

"Increased mechanical strength, better dimensional stability, and the inert chemical structure of polyester make it the ideal film base for cinema release prints.

Edge and perforation damage as well as base scratches are reduced to a minimum while invariable perforation pitch ensures the smoothest possible transport in the projector. In other words, less breaks and prolonged high presentation quality.

In addition, polyester base film does not contain solvents, making it less harmful to the environment and easier to recycle."

____________________________________________

All true, but it took years of development effort and hundreds of millions of dollars for a new base-making plant for Kodak to develop VISION Color Print Film, introduced in late 1998, which addresses the unmentioned concerns of static and back-side projector abrasion.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-07-2000, 08:05 AM:

John,

I know you personally nor Kodak "pushed" for polyester use in conventional movie theatres. The foolish part I was referring to was the huge expense you all HAD to go through to accommodate polyester to it's current state.

NATO I think was sold a bill of goods on polyester and the bulk of theatres out there to this day don't want polyester. It only costs the theatre money to have it with little or nothing to show for their money. Sure polyester doesn't break easily but it sure does stretch. Most people have found that they now loose yards/meters of film from stretching instead of frames from a simple break.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-07-2000, 08:14 AM:

Steve:

As I noted, all three major film manufacturers have converted to polyester for all their motion picture color print films. Kodak has decommissioned or reallocated the triacetate base machines to other products, so there's no going back. Polyester DOES have many advantages. Work continues to further improve the already excellent characteristics of Kodak VISION Color Print film.

Proper tension-sensing failsafes will prevent film damage in the event of a jam or tension build-up. Most are simple devices that rely on a spring-loaded or tension-damping roller that trips a microswitch to shut off the projector if tension builds too high.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-07-2000, 11:30 AM:

Sean McKinnon started this thread with: "Anyways do you prefer the Mess of Staticy Plastic, that'll rip your sprockets to shreads and rip your rollers off your wall?"

Okay, let's get down to specifics (it's the only way to understand and hopefully solve your problem):

First, actual wear on sprockets and other equipment components is likely to be LOWER with polyester film. Kodak finds much better "tooling life" on the slitters and perforators that are used to make VISION Color Print Film. How did your "sprockets rip to shreads?" How much film was run to cause the wear? Can you send me the damaged sprockets or close-up photos of the wear?

As far as "ripping rollers off the wall": Yes, polyester film is much stronger than triacetate, and will often stretch rather than break in the event of a jam or "brainwrap". Does your theatre have tension-sensing failsafes as Kodak recommends? What model of failsafe are you using? Where in the film path is it located? In the event of a tension build-up, how does the failsafe work (i.e., what does it turn off?)?

As far as your static concerns:

What is the relative humidity in your projection room, as measured by an accurate digital humidity gauge? (Kodak recommends between 50 and 60 percent RH). Are areas of your projection room especially hot or dry? Does a piece of loose print film seem especially curly or limp, or does it lie flat with a very slight cupping toward the emulsion side (i.e. slight "positive curl")?

What type of platters are in use? Are they properly leveled and timed? Do they have a non-conductive (anodized, plastic, or painted) platter surface? Are conductive rollers used?

Do you treat the platter and roller surfaces with a conductive anti-stat like Static Guard? Do you treat the film in any way (e.g., Film-Guard)? Do you use on-line film cleaners?

How do you make-up the prints? (e.g., From shipping reels or large house reels? Speed of winding? Soundtrack side up or down?)

How do you restrain the prints on the platter, so they don't slide off? Tail tuck? Suction clips? "Bevan-poos"? TECO Stick-a-poos? Retaining ring or hoop? Anti-slip mat (Stuart AV, Speco, or Kelmar)?

When (what reel) does the static cling usually occur? Only on new prints (fresh from the lab)? Any correlation with the weather outside (e.g., cold, hot, humid, dry, rain, snow)? Does it change for the better or worse as the prints are shown multiple times?

What features have had the static problems lately? Print numbers? Lab (if known)? Complete magenta edge print identification?

Are you sure that the jams and sticking are caused by static? Or might there be sticky splices, sticky cue tapes, damp prints, or contamination from handling?

You can contact me directly if you don't want to share these details in public. Unfortunately, you have not listed an e-mail address or other way of contacting you to get this needed information.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-07-2000, 12:54 PM:

John,

Tension sensing failsafe devices may be what Kodak is recommending, but I've yet to see a theater (except for one 30 plex AMC) that has them. Sometimes it's hard enough just getting the theater to spring for a roll of white artist's tape. "Never going back"???

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-07-2000, 01:29 PM:

AFAIK, many new platters can have tension-sensing failsafes built-in. Usually a weighted roller on a "trolley" that trips a microswitch if the feed tension builds too high.

Here is the listing from the Strong website:

"Platter Accessories and Options

Wrap Detectors sense excessive film tension
during operation, shutting down before damage
to the projection system can occur. Can also
interface directly to the Automation system. Wrap
Detectors can be factory- or field-installed on all
Strong Platter Systems."
http://www.strong-cinema.com/html/platters.html

And from the Christie website:

"A tension failsafe device is also currently available to prevent damage to the projector or platter system should a problem arise. (Christie part number 196270-001)."
http://www.christieinc.com/fldblt/FLDBLT_Static_108.pdf

BTW, these failsafes should be wired into the automation so that they shut off the power to the PROJECTOR motor for the fastest possible shutdown in the event of a jam. The failsafes that use "trolleys" or tension compensators usually allow enough slack for the projector to "coast" to a stop with minimal film damage.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-07-2000, 01:43 PM:

We have a tension sensing device here on my projector in teensy Forsyth Montana, so anybody should be able to afford one. (I figure if you have 30 screens, you're probably doing at least 30x the business we are, so if we can afford it, anybody can!)

quote:
I simply can not understand why theaters that damage prints are not charged for it. It can't be because the exchanges don't inspect prints between theaters.

Yes, that IS the reason.

quote:
Simply tell the next theater to inspect the print on arrival, or they will be responsible.

That would be a nightmare waiting to happen. We're usually the 2nd or 3rd theatre to get a print. If we get a totally clean print, it's unusual...there are always SOME small defects. What if the last theatre got a print with just a few scratches on it, but didn't think it was bad enough to report it? Then if the next theatre, or the next, has a projectionist who will only settle for absolute perfection, then the print gets reported, the previous theatre gets blamed, but they didn't cause the damage!

The only way to stop the damage problem is for the prints to be inspected EVERY time they go into the exchange, and the offending theatres billed. But the studios are not willing to pay the extra costs for the inspection.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 12-07-2000, 01:56 PM:

John,
Im not saying that I ever got sprockets ripped to shreds or anything like that. I have had rollers rip off the wall in my old theatre but then again it was drywall :0 anyways I just dont like the polyestar film. Why should I go out and spend X amount of dollars per screen on a device that I didint NEED a few years ago just so that the film companies can save $$$$. Why should I have to spend X amount of money on aftermarket products to reduce static (Sorry brad). It seems clear to me that the only people making out on this deal are the studios. While us exhibitors are taking on the added cost! But besides this Kodak does a great job and always has.

------------------
I love to smoke I smoke seventhousand packs a day and I'm never F*&ing quittin!-- Denis Leary

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-07-2000, 02:03 PM:

Sean said: "Kodak does a great job and always has."

Thank you. We're here to help.

FWIW, when Kodak sold color print film on both triacetate and ESTAR base, they were essentially the same price. As I said, NATO and the distributors felt the advantages of polyester outweighed the concerns, and not that "they could make out on this deal".

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 12-07-2000, 04:30 PM:

John P., could I ask: Was the push to polyester distributor-driven or was it NATO-driven?

I beleive it was distributor-driven, because as much as I hate to admit it, theaters trash prints. A lot. Distributors know this, and got tired of waiting for uncaring theaters to clean up their act, and just took matters into their own hands. "We have met the enemy, and it is us." I know no one here treats prints poorly, because the fact people post here shows they care about their craft. But we are in the minority here. I don't know what theaters you go to, but many of the ones I visit suck, plain and simple.

I would rather have projectionists who know what they are doing- running acetate. But, that not going to happen. So I prefer polyester. (As someone else joked, they'd like to have poor projectionists running nitrate- that way, they would be self-elminating!)

Note to Mike B: I know there will always be some minor scratches, etc. on used prints. No one can get that picky. The damage I'm talking about is when there are platter scratches for an entire reel; more then 30 sec. of film are cut out; an entire print that looks like it was soaked in oil. That level of damage.

I agree that no one will pay to inspect between theaters. So, some other method must be found to stop damage. Your point about the projectionist who wants absolute perfection is valid, but generally people will find out who is reasonable and who "cries wolf." And which theaters just always seem to get damaged prints from "somewhere else" all the time.....

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-08-2000, 05:07 AM:

Personally, I'm all for starting Film-Tech Inspection Services for the film depots. Yes, ex-projectionists and other people who CARE about film presentation would be thouroughly trained by the most picky people on the planet and paid top dollar to go through every print with a microscope and see to it that any mark on a print was properly billed for. Scratch? BILL! Masking tape to join the leaders on breakdown? BILL! More than one ID frame on the leaders? BILL! Mysterious splice with 5 feet missing? BILL! Tail end of the rating band is dirty? BILL! We would be quite profitable to hire AND would eliminate poor presentations everywhere! (This would of course be quite an undertaking, but if any studio is willing to give it a shot at one particular ETS depot, such an intensive inspection service could be set up with the possibility of expanding later.)

Of course, theater owners would probably send hitmen after us.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 12-08-2000, 07:33 AM:

This BILLING system looks great, but, if you've been in the business for a while, no matter how careful you try to be things happen. I doubt that there is any body who can honestly claim to have never put a scratch, or in any way damaged a print. 95% of the prints we get are completely undamaged. I request for a replacement print if there is ANY damage so maybe they do inspect prints going to theatres that bitch at the slightest provocation.

Posted by Carl King (Member # 398) on 12-08-2000, 01:19 PM:

Boys, boys, boys. What is all the fuss about?. Polysester base film is here to stay. We just need to deal with it like we've dealt with all the other changes.

Personally speaking, I like the fact that I've had very few actual film breaks over the last few years. I use tension sensing devices on all 7 of my projectors. Also in use on all 7 machines are static brushes to chase away any nasty static that does find it's way on to the film. I spray the platters, in cold dry weather, with static spray that can be bought from any supermarket.

Using these devices and static spray as well as taking care to thread the projector properly with the right size loops and CLEANING THE FILM PATH AT EACH AND EVERY THREAD UP I have very few problems.

Who cares who pushed who to use or not use a particular type of film. I get paid to put on good presentations not indulge in conspiracy theories,

Carl King

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-08-2000, 03:53 PM:

Oh not to worry Bill, each theater would get allotted one screwup a year.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-08-2000, 05:12 PM:

John sez >>"AFAIK, many new platters can have tension-sensing failsafes built-in. Usually a weighted roller on a "trolley" that trips a microswitch if the feed tension builds too high."<<

I think just about all of them do have the option of tension failsafes, of some sort, installed from the factory. I am surprised you list the Strong platter since while they most certainly have a tension sensing failsafe, it doesn't have a "trolly" just a simple switch (like Christie). It is a bit flawed in that it primarily shuts off the take up platter in the hopes that the film will continue to spill and cause the regular failsafes to trip.

In any event, this sort of tension sensing failsafe is next to worthless in the prevention damage since most projectors have good flywheel systems that will continue to pull the film even after they are turned off for several seconds.

Furthermore, some automations have anti bobble delays to ensure sticky splices won't false trip (another issue entirely, I know)

To be effective, the tension sensing failsafe should have enough range in it's trolly to allow even a Simplex to wind down without deforming the perforations.

Big Sky and Neumade have a bit of a run-out range. SPECO just shortened theirs, no doubt to combat poor splicing technique(s)by putting a mechanical delay on the switch thereby making theirs little better than the Potts/Strong or Christie style.

What is really needed to make the tension sensing failsafes effective in their job is to take a film accumulator and put it in the payout thread up path and put a switch so that if the shuttle ever leaves the bottom the automation is told to shut down....then the film NEVER over tensions to the point of damage.

The only damage the above mentioned detectors seem to be any good at is forgetting to turn the payout platter on or leaving the platter in the "make-up" mode.

In short, polyester is bad for the industry at the moment. Even if ideal wrap detectors are designed (depending on one's vision of ideal), polyester is STILL a problem since the wraps still happen...the detector does just that...it detects a PROBLEM that will interrupt a show and to some degree downgrade the movie experience for those in the audience.

Again, I don't fault Kodak or any of the other fine film manufactures on this one...this the fault of those that pushed for it when it offered very few benefits compared to it's ever present harm. Like RED leds, it was poorly thought out, rushed, and the industry is paying for it to this day.

You take a survey of booth personel (lets face it they are the ones that have to really deal with film) I have no doubt that some would want polyester film but 90%+ (and Brad gives you even worse estimates) would want acetate back tomorrow if they could have it.

Your wrap detectors may be necessary but certainly not sufficient. The industry has been degraded by polyester prints being used in conventional theatres when one looks at the big picture.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 12-08-2000, 10:27 PM:

Ok this week at my theatre we are showing "Bon Voyage Charlie Brown (And Dont Come Back!)" and it is printed on Acetate Stock. This print has 100,000,000 splices in it (which I remade all of them cause they were horrible) looks great on screen. We got this print from ETS and it is starting to smell a bit like VS but it looks great! The colors just look better. you can really feel the difference in the film. It doesnt twist together and feels a lot more like... well for lack of a better word FILM! The only problem is that the other operators at my theatre "forget" that when you have Polyestar (Trailers, Policy) and Acetate (feature) you have to refocus once the Acetate hits the screen becuase its thicker!

and as to the platter tension failsafes I prefer the component engineering FM-35 Cue detector because if the film stops moving it shuts down the projector so if theres a brainwrap the minute the tension becomes too much and the film cant be pulled through the projector anymore it shuts down!

------------------
I love to smoke I smoke seventhousand packs a day and I'm never F*&ing quittin!-- Denis Leary

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-09-2000, 12:36 AM:

If I may ask, could it be that ONE reason polyester film clings more is because it's thinner? Just like when you try to separate two layers of tissue paper? Cohesion between the layers (attraction between like molecules?) could be just as much the culprit, couldn't it?

Since it is thinner it would take less "force" to hold the layers together, thus "amplifying" the appearent influence of static cling as well

Some kind of "non-polar" substance could cure that if it were incorporated into the mix, couldn't it?
Nylon and Teflon are substances that don't stick to almost anything but the plastic that those vegetable bags from the grocery store are made of makes it nearly impossible to open the bag even if there is no static.

Also, what about somehow "under engineering" polyester film to make it weaker? ... just a touch...

The reason I say this is because I see film clinging even during the summer months when the humididy is naturally right in the 50% range

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-09-2000, 01:57 AM:

I'm all for "under engineering"! In fact, I'd prefer that Kodak make a real inexpensive film stock that is only good for 200-300 runs and then it will fall apart. It would prevent people from having to deal with breaking down prints and dealing with couriers on Thursday nights. Instead, the print could be chunked into the dumpster at the end of the run and all second run theaters would get a nice, fresh new print.

Never mind, I'm awake now. Still though, a slightly less durable stock would be preferable.

Posted by Dwayne Caldwell (Member # 417) on 12-09-2000, 03:16 AM:

You prefer Nitrate Ken? I hope you're well stocked on fire extinguishers

Is it just me, or does the film image on Polyestar base have more jitter than Tri-acetate?

Personally I like Tri-acetate because, as Ian mentioned, it makes a clean break and you only have to cut a frame to two as opposed to grinding up two to three feet worth of film and you have to realign the rollers on the projector. And I swear the image is steadier on Tri-acetate. But maybe that's just me.

------------------
The man with the magic hands.

Posted by Stefan Scholz (Member # 147) on 12-09-2000, 05:59 AM:

Come on, Polyestar was there for some 15 years or so. When we screened XXX Porn in late nights back in 1985/86 it was on "unbreakable Agfa Polyester". As there is no new XXX made on film anymore, the few XXX theatres still run the same prints they used to do in 1985. There are scratches, but no film breaks. And those theatres were never known to employ highly motivated (and well paid) personal. At that time we had to encounter all the problems you are discribing. But we had to find workarounds, and with a little will it worked.

Today I am running 12000 ft reel-to-reel, and never encountered a film transport problem. All the stuff we get today is Estar based.
Of course with the crappy Kinotone platter technology, and the old microswitch center payout control there was always trouble. That's why we converted back to reels. But that's easy, as we're running single screens.

Posted by Chris Erwin (Member # 176) on 12-09-2000, 10:56 AM:

And everything comes full circle. When safety film came about, projectionist had gripes about it. (being less fire prone was not one of them

)

The concern was that it (safety film)wouldn't bond well with certain formulations of film cement (ok..we're going back a ways) So, projectionist would have to spice a frame of nitrate in with the safety splice to make it hold better. In time, things changed, splicing methods and supplies changed.

I'm not doing anything but making an observation here. It's funny how the new stuff is accepted by the old school .

For the record, I agree with the majority on the problems of the polyester stock in the hands less than experienced. The new stuff takes a bit more watching which some people just won't do. (but those people aren't here at film-tech!)

--Chris

Posted by Rory Burke (Member # 512) on 12-09-2000, 11:16 AM:

Tension sensing failsafes???? So we are stuck buying more equipment to solve a problem someone else introduced????
Actually i hate tension sensing failsafes. If you want to effectvely combat the problems that polyester indroduces use tension sensing film cutters.....Tension sensing failsafes tell you only when there is a problem. Cutters will prevent from damaging you projector and protect the film itself. It the bestway to go... Soome of the problems ive seen include the film wrapping itself among the gears in a tight fashion onlyu a knife helps out. Film cutters precent damaged film and unwanted repairs to your equipment. Failsafes cant do that.

Polyester film is sooooo strong....it WILL pull a car out of the snow.....Rental car in Toronto last year got stuck and we pulled it out using a 4x4 truck attached to the rear axel of the rental with a trailer loop about40 ft long. It WORKED GREAT!!!!

Rory

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-09-2000, 12:48 PM:

Theatres burnt down from the use of nitrate film.

What was the big damage or, more importantly, the public safety issue with triacetate?

The comparision of Nitrate to acetate doesn't hold.

With respect to the image quality, just about anyone that has seen nitrate projected finds that it looks somewhat better than acetate or polyester....mind you, there are many factors going on here beyond the base itself...including silver content.

FWIW....I believe that nitrate was used in the binder layer of acetate films...John P. would have more information on that.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-09-2000, 02:57 PM:

I've got to disagree with the tension sensing "cutters". If I've already got some mangled film, I don't need yet another splice in the film. I know the argument is that once the film is mangled, what difference does it make...well in the event of a disaster, I'd like to keep the damage to a minimum. Steve's preference of an accumulator that could handle the slow stop of an XL is THE way to go. Besides, I can just see something or another tripping the cutter blade and chopping a perfectly good film due to some outside interference or stickiness! At that point, I've now got a splice with a jump cut (don't tell me the cutters cut on the frame-line) and several feet of scratched film from where it runs through the projector and drags across the floor.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-09-2000, 04:24 PM:

And you wonder why I qualified my statement with a "depending on ones vision of ideal"

;-)

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Chris Erwin (Member # 176) on 12-10-2000, 11:03 AM:

>Theatres burnt down from the use of nitrate >film.
>What was the big damage or, more >importantly, the public safety issue with >triacetate?

>The comparision of Nitrate to acetate >doesn't hold.

Steve, that's a good point. I know of a death that occured (within driving distance) over a nitrate fire. I wasn't really trying to compare nitrate to acetate.

I just thought it was an observation on how new stuff gets introduced (for whatever reason) and how the field must adapt to it.

--Chris