Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: "What the.......Who the hell did this"?

This is topic "What the.......Who the hell did this"? 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=001829

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 01-15-2001, 01:32 PM:

Ok, heres the scoop....
Sunday night I was inspecting a print I bought two days ago. Reel 1 had 12 splices, reel 3 had 19 splices. I wouldn't mind if they were in frame, but almost all of them were diagnal and one even crossed two frames! How the hell can a preson have the film(mylar of all things)break this often? My plea to you is this; If you do not care about how you treat your prints, please for our sake, find another job. Poorly run multiplexes have already taken their tole on whatever pride there was in this buisness. Cause I swear, If I find the punk that did this I'd skin him alive. Also, I am planning to redo all the splices. would ultrasonic splices be better than tape? I really hate using tape because of the gunk it leaves behind. As for the rest of you out there trying to make this media all it can be, my hats off to you

Thank you

Josh

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-15-2001, 02:55 PM:

I suspect someone "spilled" that print on the floor, and had to tear it apart and splice it together again to untangle it.

Read the April 2000 review of Ultrasonic Splicers in the Reviews section. A well-made ultrasonic splice is very reliable, and doesn't have the adhesive problems of tape (sticky splices, stretching, etc.). But the splicers are much more expensive than a tape splicer.

------------------
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 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 01-15-2001, 02:56 PM:

Josh, the (projection) world would be a better place if people listened to you....!

All you can do is fix things and keep going. Ask your manager for a replacement reel, making sure you tell the exchange that you received the bad reel this way. Usually, the sooner the better- if you wait until the run is over, they might not beleive you.

Ultrasonic splices are better than tape, but few places will spend the money for one. I don't think I would pull apart a *properly* made tape splice just to replace it with an ultrasonic splice. The ultrasonic splicer requires the film ends to overlap, which means you would have to cut off part of two frames for each splice. (The previous theater probably tangled up the film somehow and cut it with scissors while untangling it, which is why the diagnal cuts.)

Personally, I don't think ultrasonic splicers are worth buying for use at a regular multiplex theater. They are expensive, require some small skill to use, have a power cord, (a hassle when splicing at the platter). I feel it would be better to buy two or three regular splicers with the same money.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-15-2001, 03:21 PM:

This got me thinking...is there anywhere to _rent_ an ultrasonic splicer? For a product with such limited uses for the average private collector (repairing ESTAR-base prints), these are awfully expensive to buy, but might be useful to rent for a few days a year to make repairs to a bunch of prints at one time.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-15-2001, 03:29 PM:

Are those diagonal splices actually cut that way, or do they just look random?

The reason I ask is that there are some splicers that are made to do that. If I'm not mistaken they are supposed to be for cutting negatives and making splices in soundtracks. Something about the diagonal splice line making less noise or something. I'm not sure I've only read about it.

I've had a print or two come in where the idiot who "fixed" the film just butted the two ragged edges back together again and taped over them! I'd like to get my hands on those people!

I just think people don't even comprehend what they are doing, though. Yelling at them probably wouldn't have an effect.

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 01-15-2001, 04:51 PM:

>Sunday night I was inspecting a print I bought two days ago. Reel 1 had 12 splices, reel 3 had 19 splices.

? Describe "bought"
Maybe I'm reading something here you didn't mean.

Posted by timothy johnson (Member # 83) on 01-15-2001, 05:11 PM:

Josh, not to worry, I am able to hook you up with replacement reels, I sent you a seperate email regarding this.. and speaking of bad cinema presentations, a friend of mine in Red Wing, MN saw "vertical limit" and he said the framing was off so bad they saw microphones,stage props, and film crew holding the mechanical wires for the actors, he complained to the management and they did not know how to fix the framing, I told him to complain directly to the company that runs the movie theater in Red Wing, he said it was the last straw after several complaints...you think for $6.00 you get to see a movie without microphones in the picture..

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 01-15-2001, 07:22 PM:

one of the splices did have green parallel scratches. here, see for yourself....

Yucky, huh?

Josh

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-15-2001, 09:00 PM:

The only use for a diagonal-cut splicer that I am aware of is for splicing fullcoat mag stock when editing film with separate picture and sound on mag track. Straight cuts will "pop" on a dubber, while diagonal cuts won't.

Most of the 16mm tape splicers that I've seen will do both straight and diagonal cuts, since they are commonly used in editing rooms.

I can't imagine why anyone would make diagonal-cut splices on a release print...

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-15-2001, 09:12 PM:

A diagonal cut tape splicer is used on magnetic sound stock and audio tape because the tape cannot cover the oxide, and it can only be taped on the base side. A one-sided tape splice would tend to fold up when bent around a roller, whereas the diagonal cut maintains its stiffness.

Diagonal cuts should NOT be used on picture material, as they will be very visible on the screen.

Posted by John Eickhof (Member # 323) on 01-15-2001, 10:03 PM:

It definitely looks like a scissors job to me! I have never seen a diag cut splicer on that much of an angle!!!

------------------
John Eickhof President, Chief Slave
Northwest Theatre Equipment Co., Inc.
P.O.Box 258
Wendell, ID. 83355-0258
208-536-5489
email: jeickhof@nteequip.com

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-15-2001, 10:37 PM:

I agree John, the mag angle-splice is still only one frame, 4 perfs high. That sample that Josh posted is ridiculous.

>>> Phil

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 01-15-2001, 11:04 PM:

I'm now inspecting reel 6, but so far, here's the stats:
reel 1 12 splices
reel 2 4 splices
reel 3 19 splices
reel 4 14 splices
reel 5 5 splices

boy, if it weren't for the splices, this would be a wonderful print. There is hardly an dirt and no scratches anywhere...till it was thrown off some guys platter, and burned by another's changeover

Josh

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-16-2001, 01:37 AM:

That is a print of Princess Mononoke, right?

I remember it well! I showed a print of that at the college I worked at. It was a good film!

Too bad some chump trashed it. Is it okay except for those splices?

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 01-16-2001, 09:10 AM:

Lets back-up a minute. A few posts back, there were comments made about rips in the film that were butted together and taped.

I bought (and I do MEAN Bought ) 80 features that a guy had. All of the prints had the head and tail of each reel ripped off and the rest of each reel was in 3-4 pieces. All I had to do was sort out all the pieces and join the ripped ends together. So far, all the prints that I have rebuilt are in good shape and there is not one frame missing in the body of any of the reels. Head and tail leaders are an exception.

Maybe it is just me, but we are dealing with USED films here. I personally have no problems with repaired damage that caused no loss of frames.

So you will not think that everything I own is well-used, and splicy, I have several titles that are in excellent condition with no splices in many of the reels. These prints were the exception, but overall, the prints are fine.

Sure, I'd like to own perfect prints, but who has the money to do this?

I used to see $40 features in the Big Reel. Never again!

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 01-16-2001, 11:28 AM:

Ah! You did mean what I thought you meant. I have a guess that the print with all the splices might not be a single print, but a print that was put together from a couple of badly damaged prints by some collector. You can check the edge marks to see if they match up from section to section.

I can see a collector who had only a wet splicer, or no splicer at all, trying to get a runnable print that wouldn't "book" at the splices. A platter dump is still a possibility, but I would expect the cuts to be more haphazard. The cut you show looks as though it was done with a guide.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 01-16-2001, 12:07 PM:

Yea, somebody dumped this print on the floor. The easiest way to sort it our is to grab a section and put it on the platter. If you cut it with sissors then you do a diagnal cut so that you splice it in frame each and every time.

My partner dumped The Big Blue on the floor and we took two and half hours to sort it out. I started out making big diagnal splices like the one pictured, but as I prgressed and thought about it, I started to make diagnal splices on one frame only. The print looked good when we ran it. Yes we ran it with Film-Guard. I confess, I did not "fix" the print after the run. It was running well.

We were able to grab very large sections at first. Sometimes we were able to grab two reels. As we progressed to the more tangled part, we were making splices every 12 feet or so.

We aren't proud of it, but we only missed one show and the we never got a complaint.

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 01-16-2001, 01:49 PM:

Yes Randy, It is Princess Mononoke or Mononoke Hime if you are luky enough to have aquired the japanese print. The charactor you see is Ashitaka, the hero of the storyline. Hurray, reel six has no splices

Josh

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 01-16-2001, 02:33 PM:

>If you cut it with sissors then you do a diagnal cut so that you splice it in frame each and every time.

Huh??? If I cut across a frame line it and tape it back together it will get out of frame? I can't recall a print ever doing that to me. I've gotta be missing something here.

Posted by Bob Minge (Member # 574) on 01-16-2001, 03:10 PM:

Hi Tim Johnson. What was the name of the theater in Red Wing? Just wondering if it was one in our chain. I think we have a new manager down there so they may not know everything (like I do??) If it was Red Wing Cinema 5, then it probably was ours. Let me know so I can tell our general manager to check it out...could have been wrong apature, no apature??? We DO need to find out stuff like that and get new managers on the right track. Thanks for the comments.

------------------
Bob Minge
Manager/Projectionist
Westridge Cinema 5
Fergus Falls, MN
http://geocities.com/lakesandriverscinema/westridge_cinema_5.html

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-16-2001, 08:20 PM:

Just for the record: any print of a movie that is still covered by copyright cannot be shown publicly without agreement of the distributor. The print is still the property of the distributor, even if you "bought" it from someone else.

Chances are that prints without identifying leaders and cut into several pieces were destined for recycling, and "found" their way into collectors' hands.

Posted by Pete Lawrence (Member # 130) on 01-16-2001, 08:49 PM:

I agree with John's statement about this print cannot be shown publicly. I do believe that once the content is released to video tape or DVD those rules now apply regardless of the medium. There is no question that the performance for a fee rights remain the property of the copyright holder. But lets say a print is cut into several pieces and then discarded in a dumpster. The new owner, the garbage disposal company, now owns that copy of the print and can further dispose of it any way they want (baring any special agreements). Usually it's just buried, but maybe it's recycled into the hands of a collector. Is that such a bad thing? I no lawyer (thank goodness), that's just my opinion.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-16-2001, 10:08 PM:

This has been discussed before and the bottom line is so long as the collectors do not charge admission nor make a profit in any way whatsoever (like selling popcorn and soda), they may exhibit the movie in any format they choose perfectly legally once the flick has been released (and licensed) for home use via videotape/DVD. Whether it is presented on VHS, DVD, satellite broadcast, local tv, Betamax, 3/4inch video, or 35mm film does not matter.

I know of no collector who would ever even consider charging for a show. I have heard many a time where someone with a big fancy video setup will charge for admission and concessions, though. Regardless of the format (film or video), no one but the STUDIO may profit from the exhibition of a given movie. I think all collectors understand and abide by that. If anything, it is the collectors who "may" ultimately do the studio a favor by having a print years and years down the road that has survived where the studio copy has deteriorated beyond useability.

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 01-17-2001, 06:49 AM:

I was informed by a "non-theatrical" distributor, that here in Canada at least, I could show movies to persons in my home without a licence. However, if my "home-theatre" just happened to be in the hayfield out back, my own personal drive-in so to speak, even if only guests watched, and even though it would not be visible anywhere but my property, I would require a "non-theatrical licence" because it was literally "outside the home". Didn't make much sense to me, as these things are more for community groups who DO charge nominal admissions, but there it is......

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 01-17-2001, 08:47 AM:

Just for the record, I do not run anything for the public, and have never charged admission of any kind.

OWNING the print itself is much different from owning the film. I would never try to gyp the studios. Even collectors have some morals, even ones that drink FilmGuard!

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-17-2001, 09:30 AM:

Let's also say for the record that the prints that end up in private hands almost always were on their way to be destroyed anyway, and are essentially considered to be "trash" by the distributor. I am not a lawyer, but I don't see any ethical issues with what amounts to the same thing as dumpster diving. As long as the film is either PD or has been released in some home format (videotape, DVD, etc.), I don't see any ethical issues with running a print of the same film at home for a few friends any more than I see any problems with doing the same thing with a videotape, provided that no advertising is done and no admission is charged.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who steals a print out of a theatre or delivery truck or warehouse (which is not intended for destruction) should be drawn, quartered, shot, and then _really_ hurt.

(Note, too, that there are cases where 35mm prints have been sold to the public in the past. Of course, film producers and directors often have prints of their own work, too. There are definitely legitimate ways for private individuals to acquire prints of feature films.)

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 01-17-2001, 01:40 PM:

**UPDATE**

I finished checking the print on tuesday night. turns out reels 6, 7, and 8 have no splices in them

reel 9 had only one!
Hurray

Josh

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-17-2001, 07:45 PM:

Most of those prints that I ran, back at the college had one or two splices in each reel. It was pretty rare to get a "clean" reel.

From what I remember of P.M., if you lose one or two frames from a splice it will probably go unnoticed. (The animation/artistic style or "anime" films is rather jerky to begin with.) However if there are a lot of splices, or if they cost you more than a couple frames it will get noticed.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 01-19-2001, 08:09 PM:

In the case of Princess Mononoke (Mononoke Hime in Japan), it does depend where you lose those frames. Some short segments of PM were rendered in full animation, so one would definitely notice a discontinuity in those shots. But you're right in that most of the time Studio Ghibli (along with most other animation studios) does animation on 2's or 3's, 3's being the standard in Japan resulting in somewhat-less-than-flowing animation. Still a very beautiful film to watch though. Absolutely stunning Japanese watercolor background art! Kazuo Oga has been art director or backgrounds supervisor on most of Studio Ghibli's films including PM. He is the master of light and shadow!

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-19-2001, 10:36 PM:

I enjoyed the film very much. It was one of my favorite films we showed in the college's film series.

Most of the people who came to these films were older (OR should that be "more experienced") people. They just didn't appreciate the style of the art form.

On the other hand, we DID draw a lot of younger, college-aged fans of Anime films. They all loved it.