Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Whatever Happened To 6,000 Foot Reels ?

This is topic Whatever Happened To 6,000 Foot Reels ? 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=002246

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 05-07-2001, 09:48 AM:

It is a disappointment if this project has been completely abandoned when it could have been of enormous benefit to exhibition and distribution. Being a single screen, naturally I find it lucrative to play 2nd run as well, to fit the best product in. Occasionally I am fortunate to be able to do my own crossover (with the consent of the distributor) with a friendly cinema near me.
I was pleased to receive my copy of CASTAWAY, 8 reels - 2 1/2 hours ON 2 SPOOLS.

The transit spools we use are CINEMECCANICA -
made of something much tougher than plastic, strong, lightweight and literally indestructible.

I put it to the Forum that after the initial cost, these type of spools could be used over and over again (as are the transit cases) on releases with minimal replacement.
With the vast improvements in film stocks and projection technology, surely the time of larger reels is long overdue. Digital Cinema could be years away yet, and a costly technical minefield.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-07-2001, 11:22 AM:

In North America, only Warner Bros. (Barry Reardon) and New Line (Al Shapiro) supported Extended Length Reels (ELR) to any significant extent. There were some problems with the design and robustness of the early reels and cases (which departed from the design developed by the Inter-Society Committee and SMPTE), but IMHO, these were solvable. Another problem was that last minute changes to the titles and credits often delayed printing and assembly of the ELR, whereas with normal 2000-foot shipping reels, the labs could print the middle reels while waiting for the final okay on the first and last reels. The cost of implementation (thousands of new reels and cases, new racks at the exchanges, new handling equipment) was also a major deterrent, as distributors and exhibitors could not agree on how the costs would be shared.

------------------
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
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-07-2001, 01:45 PM:

I've never seen anything but projectors made by Cinemeccanica. What are their reels like? Are they metal or plastic or something else?

In the US, the most common type of large reel is made by Goldberg. There are pics of these on this site under "Williamsburg Theatre" and and many others as well. Anyway, they are very well built, but expensive if new.

The Warners 6000' shipping reels (which I've seen but not personally had to handle) are huge blue plastic things that don't fit onto standard rewind benches or makeup tables because the plastic needs to be thick in order to not fall apart. They were shipped in big blue shipping cases, which were made of plastic and weren't as durable as the metal shipping cases used for 2000' reels.

There's also the problem of theatres which can't handle the large reels, which would mean dual-inventory for the exchanges, which would present many problems.

Basically, in the US at least, this was a reasonable idea that was poorly implemented and thus not accepted by the industry.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-07-2001, 02:14 PM:

6000 feet of film is too damn much for a "clip together" reel design. I don't care how wonderful the design is. That coupled with the waffle flange design of the reels was what killed it IMHO.

Another issue that no one seemed to notice was that since the reels were so wide, it took twice the amount of space to store a 2 reel 6000' print as opposed to storing a 2 reel 6000' print on standard Goldberg reels in a standard Goldberg type of canister.

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 05-07-2001, 02:27 PM:

I use 14,000 Cinemeccanica reels. They are either stamped or hydo-formed and are made of very thin aluminum. They are much lighter than Goldbergs but bend easier. The way they are stamped, they come out with ridges which act as stiffeners. I actually kind of like them better because they are lighter. Picking up a 36" reel of film off the floor and sticking it on a spindle at eye level is just not as easy as it was 10 years ago, and every little bit of extra weight hurts. Both brands of reels are getting harder to find everyday (used).
So are these larger shipping reels just 3 or more reels stuck on one big one, with cue marks every 2000 ft or so? Or, are they one continuous reel with no que marks except at the beginning and end?

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-07-2001, 03:14 PM:

Sadly enough, they have cue marks every 15-20 minutes where the regular shipping reels were assembled.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-07-2001, 03:16 PM:

Greg: In most cases, the reels were still printed as 2000-foot lengths, and then spliced together after processing onto the ELR. If ELRs ever became commonplace, the labs would have geared up to print the long lengths without splices between the reels.

FWIW, most of the 35mm print film raw stock Kodak sells for making release prints comes as either 4000-foot or 6000-foot lengths, packed in a vacuum-sealed tough foil bag:

Catalog of Kodak Print Films

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-07-2001, 03:43 PM:

The Cinemeccanica 6,000ft running spools to which Bernard refers are (if they're the same as ours, which were bought from Sound Associates when this place opened in January last year) solid spools cast from a polycarbonate-like substance. Exactly what this is I couldn't say, but it's very tough. My experience with these spools has been that they are as resilient as steel or aluminium ones if they are handled with care, but I wouldn't feel confident about using them for shipping purposes.

The sides do have a tendency to deform if a fully-loaded spool is rested upright but unevenly, although no more so than any of the metal ones I've used. My only reservation about the whole ELR issue is that shipping film on 6,000 foot rolls must increase the risk of print damage, whatever way they are mounted.

I presume these spools would be shipped in transit cases similar to the ones used for individual reels of 70mm. I can just imagine the spools rattling about as the cases are transferred to and from lorries, or in the lorries themselves. If the 6,000 foot rolls are not wound flat and tight I can imagine cinch scratching and edge damage happening to a far greater degree than with 2,000 foot lengths. If some of the old and bent 6,000 foot spools I've come across are anything to go by, I can also see this worsening the print damage.

If 6,000 foot reels ever do become the norm for distributing release prints, I would much prefer to see them supplied on 4-inch cores packed in tightly-fitting containers (like the ones used for 2,000 foot reels in Europe at the moment, only bigger).

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 05-07-2001, 04:03 PM:

I'm not sure how much truth there is in it, but I heard that shipping charges and product liability contributed to the demise of the idea. The reels and shipping containers were more difficult to stack for transit and shipment (from what I was told) and reportedly were going to be charged at a higher rate. The weight of the reel made the possibility of back injury and muscle strains a possibility as well, especially if two or more full reels were shipped in the same container as was originally anticipated. Again, this is second-hand info, so I don't know how much stock to put in it. (Pun dedicated to Bob Maar.)

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 05-07-2001, 06:51 PM:

Carrying those damn things up a flight of stairs was a bitch. Damn things would bang against the steps on the way up. I personaly am glad they are gone. They were more trouble than they were a benafit. You had to pull film off on house reels and then run the film back onto the blue reels. Of course that is after you drilled the hole for the rewind drive pin and put the reel back together correctly

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-07-2001, 07:01 PM:

I've always hated those reels. They were a pain to work with and did not save me any build up time or wear on the print. At the time they were popular, I had a projectionist who absolutely LOVED them. He would literally get excited on his way to work if he knew he had to deal with them. He called the ELRs "Flying Saucers of Fun". Too bad he didn't stick around to see Brad's Goldberg Platter Reel!

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 05-07-2001, 08:43 PM:

The Warner large reels sucked. They didn't fit standard rewinders or platter makeup tables and I had several of these reels fall apart inside the blue shipping case (kinda wonder if Technicolor had their hands in there somewhere). I too had problems lugging those blue shipping cases up the stairs banging my toes and cussing all the way!

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-07-2001, 09:12 PM:

The bottom line P3 dropped the ball
SMPTE could have made it happen but just like dye tracks waffles on defineing something

Posted by Stephen Jones (Member # 16) on 05-07-2001, 09:41 PM:

I have used the black Cinemeccanica 6000' Spls off and on over the years and find them great,they are strong and light and prefer them to Goldberg.
Stephen

------------------

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-07-2001, 09:52 PM:

Gord:

How can you say P-3 dropped the ball? The SMPTE doesn't not make law nor enforce it therefore there is nothing the SMPTE could have done to implement it. Heck, the SMPTE has standards on the books on how to make existing reels which industry seems to blissfully not follow.

I was always against the 6000' show shipper myself and am glad is has once again gone away (for now).

Steve

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

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 05-08-2001, 05:27 AM:

Thank you for your replies.

Leo has given a very good description of the Cinemeccanica 6,000' spools, and they would be the same that I also purchased from Sound Associates.

As we all know, compared to a 2,000' spool, 6000' is only a mere 4 1/2 inches extra, so perhaps spool and transit problems could still be sorted out. I would be pleased to receive my copy of Pearl Harbor on 3 spools!
I have run many two projector 3D prints which were transported on 5,000' spools, and they were never a problem.

However I do see the arguments against, and maybe 4,000' would be the answer.

------------------

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 05-08-2001, 10:51 AM:

When these were out, I was very disappointed that although they were PRINTED as one continuous reel, they still had the changeover cues where they would have been had they been done the traditional way. I've always found those distracting as I ALWAYS notice them, and often use them to determine how far into the movie it is- if I'm watching a movie and getting bored I'll start counting reels so I'll know when it's going to be over!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-08-2001, 11:27 AM:

Jesse:

AFAIK, very few were actually PRINTED as a continous 6000-foot reel. As I noted previously, most were printed as conventional 2000-foot reels with cue marks, and spliced into an ELR after processing.

I recall that Deluxe (Rank) Labs in the UK did have the capability of printing and processing an entire feature as a single roll! This 4000-metre printing system won an Academy Scientific and Engineering Award in 1982.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-08-2001, 12:20 PM:

There are two major problems with 4000' lengths for shipping purposes. The first is that many theatres can't handle anything larger than 2000' reels anyway and would need new reels arms and rewind benches. The second issue (which is probably more significant) is with theatres that currently can run most complete features off of two 6000' reels. Switching to 4000' shipping lengths would mean either an extra changeover for every feature or the prints would get hacked up anyway to run in 6000' lengths. Neither approach is really desirable.

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 05-09-2001, 02:29 AM:

John:

Does Kodak even have the capability to manufacture a continuous 12,000 foot roll of raw stock? Or would it be guaranteed to have at least one lab splice?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-09-2001, 04:59 AM:

I liked them personally (that is the ones that were one continuous piece of film that had no splices). I never had a reel bust open on me, but then again I only handled half a dozen features on them so the reels were not that old. I didn't like the reel design itself, but they worked fine on a Kelmar rewind table and fine for breaking down directly off of an AW3 with Christie's ELR shaft. It DID save time and it DID save wear on the film. Unfortunately not every theater will have that equipment (or the Christie MUT adaptor shaft), so taking that into effect, I am glad to see they are gone.

In the end, my biggest beef was the fact that the damned cue marks were STILL THERE!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-09-2001, 07:56 AM:

Christopher Seo asked: "Does Kodak even have the capability to manufacture a continuous 12,000 foot roll of raw stock? Or would it be guaranteed to have at least one lab splice?"

It would take some changes in manufacturing, but it could be done. But there are major logistical issues in packaging, shipping and handling such a large and heavy roll. It certainly could not be lifted safely without mechanical assist. The Inter-Society Committee quickly found the idea of shipping a full feature on a single ELR would be impractical.

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 05-09-2001, 01:56 PM:

Hmm,
The "well known" black spools from Cinemeccanica. SOLID!! NOT. Don't shield the spool on the projector (closing the spool holding thingy - shaft) and let it drop on the floor. Then we will see what is stronger. Your projector's gears!! or this spool.

Actually at the cinemas down in Cyprus, these spools are well spread all over. Beyond the jokes if you handle them with care and not just throw them away then they are very reliable. Even if overfilling them with film. BUT. Don't drop them on the floor from high ground and don't let them roll down a set of stairs cause then you will kiss your spools BYE BYE!! One other problem is that the holes in the middle of the spool become deformed after a lot of use (rewinding). Of course, Cinemeccanica made their holes removable!! You can change the size to fit any projector shaft. So. Overall I would give these spools an 8 out of 10. CINEMECCANICA NEVER DIES!!
Ciao for now
Demetris Thoupis

"FOR STRENGTH AND HONOUR"

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 05-09-2001, 04:47 PM:

Last paragraph of Leo's post 05-07-2001.

>If 6,000 foot spools ever do become the norm for distributing release prints, I would much prefer to see them supplied on 4-inch cores packed in tightly-fitting containers (like the ones used for 2,000 foot reels in Europe at the moment, only bigger).<
.............................................
With the spool problems including wide in structure, Leo's preference might well work. Most cinemas constantly move prints off & onto platters, handling 6,000' on a core should be easy enough. A size of a 2,000' container measures 15". A 6,000' container would only have to measure 23", almost the size of a 5,000' spool.

As for the spool issue again, perhaps the Cinemeccanica make should be taken a serious look at.

Could John Pytlak please tell me if all release prints are always the same thickness - just curious, thanks.

Message for Brad. I would like to submit my photograph but I am extremely camera shy. I was wondering if I could change my head to a spool,...a large one of course!

------------------

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-09-2001, 04:59 PM:

Hey, I put my pic up. YOUR TURN!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-09-2001, 05:03 PM:

And take it from me when I tell you that Brad does NOT like the camera pointing at him! Even if I am casually holding my camera at my side and the lens is pointing in his direction, Brad will get out his gun and threaten my life until I move the lens away! Just kidding, but that would make a great picture!

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 05-09-2001, 05:28 PM:

Hi Joe,

You disappoint me, in one of my posts I mentioned 3D. I was expecting to see another picture of you with 3D specs on (in 3D)!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-09-2001, 05:29 PM:

Well I do have a picture of me with normal 2D specs on, but I don't think I'll submit that quite yet.

I CAN make 3D pictures. The problem is that not everyone's monitor has the color calibrated the same way. So the 3D effect would be lost on most people even if they had the glasses.

Good idea, though!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-09-2001, 09:51 PM:

Bernard asked: "Could John Pytlak please tell me if all release prints are always the same thickness - just curious, thanks."

35mm print film film is all nominally 34.975 mm wide, per standard SMPTE 139. Kodak VISION Color Print film is coated on nominal 4.7 mil (0.0047 inches, 120 micrometres) thick ESTAR polyester support. The emulsion layers are about 0.6 mils (0.0006 inches, 15 micrometres) thick. Kodak VISION Premier (2393) emulsion layers are very slightly thicker than Kodak VISION (2383) emulsion layers.

Kodak 35mm triacetate support was nominally 5.6 mils thick.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 05-09-2001, 10:58 PM:

Brad wrote: "In the end, my biggest beef was the fact that the damned cue marks were STILL THERE!"

Wouldn't it be better for the c/o marks to be left on, in case someone _had_ to run 20min reels? That way, leader could be added to each reel and run c/o style without messy homemade c/o marks. Better to have them and not need them, than to need them and not have them......

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-10-2001, 05:11 AM:

Not in my opinion. My personal feeling is that most of the US has converted to platters anyway, so the only concern is the changeover houses. Since the mere mention of a changeover booth pretty much comes with a "projectionist", I would assume that the projectionist would have a proper cue marker and would know what he was doing. Besides, if the 6000 foot roll of film came without splices, how are the changeover people supposed to find the original changeover cues in the first place to know where to cut the film???

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 05-10-2001, 07:21 AM:

Further to my post yesterday of Leo's - 6,000' reels on 4-inch cores in containers. I forgot to mention that in the UK most films are transported in cardboard boxes. Now I personally don't have a problem (or choice) with this, the boxes are lighter and easier to store. Stronger boxes could easily support two x 6,000' containers. Yes, I have received a couple of films with smashed containers, but the prints have survived.

------------------

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-10-2001, 08:05 AM:

Here's some information on how Kodak packages and ships long rolls of print film raw stock:
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/h1/sizes.shtml

"Some 35mm KODAK color print film is packaged in compression boxes with individual strips up to 6000 feet long. Each roll of film in compression boxes is in an airtight vacuum bag."

For more information on Kodak's innovative film packaging, see the paper "Packaging Innovations for Motion-Picture Films" by Ann P. Griffen, published in the March 1989 SMPTE Journal.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-10-2001, 07:50 PM:

Hmmm... not really sure about the idea of a 6,000 foot roll supported only by a plastic 'can' in a cardboard box. I think you'd need a properly rigid outer container of some sort, but polyeurathane (sp?) might well do. I've noticed that with some prints transported in cardboard boxes the sides of the cans get crushed or damaged (especially if the cans are aluminum). What I had in mind was the 6,000 foot roll on a core and in a can, with that can shipped in a rigid outer case. However, given that the stock is polyester, the total diameter would only be about 17-18 inches so metal might not be necessary.

And there's absoutely no way more than one of these reels should go in a single outer container. Carrying that kind of weight unevenly distributed on one side of your body would be a massive manual handling hazard and risk back injury to everyone having to work with the things, especially the van drivers who spend their whole working lives moving films around. Working on the basis of one 6,000 foot reel per case, the weight of an average feature film print would be evenly distributed - i.e. you'd carry one package with each hand. That would certainly be a health and safety improvement on the current arrangements.

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 05-10-2001, 07:54 PM:

Get one of those long sticks and put a reel on either end and carry them around like the Chinese do.

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 05-11-2001, 09:08 AM:

I see your point Leo, weight is an important issue, although 2 x 6,000' reels in a single case might be easier to manage two handed than lifting 6 x 2,000' reels in a cardboard box.
.............................................

Strange thing this morning, rewound (Westrex Tower) Captain Corelli's Mandolin (Deluxe London print), and it is not completely evenly flat throughout therefore forcing the spool wider than normal. Seem to remember this happening two years ago. Large well ventilated projection room with plenty of access to the open air which it was last night. Weather conditions cool evening, rain earlier.
.............................................

Greg: Wonderful idea, so much better than on top of the head!

------------------

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-11-2001, 02:00 PM:

Bernard:

If the print wound evenly before, and now tends to dish on rewinding, it's possible that the film has stretched slightly along one side (check for excessive tension), has sprocket tooth "roping" or perf damage that prevents it from winding evenly, or has excessive film curl caused by improper humidity. Even a slight difference in curl or film thickness adds up with the hundreds of convolutions in winding a large roll.

Any chance the cool rainy weather has produced humidity much higher than 60%RH?

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 05-11-2001, 03:58 PM:

(Reply to Kodak)

Hello John,

Running 90 minutes now and everything appears to be satisfactory with perferations & perfectly smooth take-up. Will let you know on Monday how things are.

Many thanks for your help.

Bernard.

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 05-13-2001, 01:55 PM:

It seems that ELR prints would *have* to be double-inventory. On the one hand, you could leave 20 min. c/o cues in the 6k reel but the projectionist would not be able to find them; on the other hand you could take out the cues and the projectionist wouldn't have any clue whatsoever as to where to divide up the 6k reel! Plus you wouldn't have the soundtrack lead-in on each 2k reel and would have to practice switching sound over 21 frames after picture.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-13-2001, 02:48 PM:

With 6000' shipping configurations, I'd vote for leaving in the cue marks at the end of each 6000' reel, permitting reel-to-reel operation with 6000' house reels, and removing the other cue marks, so that the audience would see only one set of cues (and one splices) during a typical feature. Then, a separate inventory of prints could be kept for 2000' changeover houses, so that the 6000' lengths could stay uncut and the 2000' lengths would not have to have the leaders and tails cut off and reattached. This might be an ideal system, actually, except for the double-inventory problem.

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 05-14-2001, 07:42 AM:

Reply to John Pytlak, (& those interested with Towers)

Further to your Questions: posting 05-11-2001
[1] Check for excessive tension.
[2] Sprocket tooth "roping" or perf damage.
[3] Humidity higher than 60%RH? (unable to answer).
.............................................
I am extremely relieved to say that there is no sign of any damage to the print,-which is now taking-up & rewinding perfectly smooth (again!). Reel 4 however is a slight exception on rewinding only.

Could the problem last Wednesday have been a curl caused by humidity, and it has 'ironed'
itself out ? I have had these problems before and some shedding. A new copy of Billy Elliot, replacement reel 2 (unsteady) shedded, the other reels didn't, WHY ? Good 2nd hand USA rejuvenated copies (last one was Chocolat) never seem to be a problem, I suppose due to the treatment and cleaning process ?

With Pearl Harbor soon I am considering a humidifier, I would be grateful for any advice as to the efficient size for a projection room measuring 26' x 13'.

Many thanks John for your time and comments.

------------------

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-14-2001, 08:29 AM:

Bernard:

Kodak recommends maintaining an ideal relative humidity of 50-60 percent in film handling areas. In this humidity range, processed print film will lie flat, or have just a bit of benficial positive curl. Very dry conditions lead to excessive positive curl, and more static. Very damp conditons lead to negative curl, and the gelatin emulsion becomes softer and easier to scratch and build up hardened deposits in the hot projector gate. Sometimes freshly processed "green" prints have higher moisture content, leading to more focus flutter and "stickiness" until the gelatin emulsion dries out and hardens after a few times through the projector. You may find that you need to use an evaporative humidifier in the winter, and a refrigerated dehumidifier or air conditioning in the wet spring or humid summer.

For your relatively small projection room, any of the larger units sold for household use should be sufficient. But the amount of air drawn up the stack to cool the lamp can be a factor. Providing a separate source of air to cool lamps and power supplies would make maintaining the proper humidity an easier task.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-15-2001, 01:04 PM:

Bernard: RS Components sell a range of air conditioning equipment, including humidifiers and split units. These range from small portable units to heavy-duty plant which really needs to be installed by a contractor. Very roughly speaking, be prepared to spend £700 - £1 grand for something that would have any effect in a projection box. They also consume quite a bit of power, too.

The RS website is searchable: see http://www.rswww.com

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 05-16-2001, 06:27 AM:

John & Leo:

Thank you both for your kind advice. I’m relieved and pleased to say that the copy is still behaving and taking-up & rewinding smoothly. I have installed around the projection box three 15” fans, and a bucket of water in front of the Tower (with a grill cover on I must mention). I didn’t realize RS stocked humidifiers and will look into today, as I do have an account for my electrical needs.

There is no noticeable evaporation of the water so humidity must be zero, weather is cool & wet here anyway at the moment. Perhaps I should check weather reports daily for any humidity levels ?
.
Thanks.

------------------

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-16-2001, 06:43 AM:

Bernard:

Accurate digital humidity gauges are relatively inexpensive, and should be used to monitor the relative humidity in the projection room. Again, the ideal is between 50 and 60 percent RH.

The amount of moisture added to the air by a "bucket of water in front of the Tower" is insignificant. Evaporative humidifiers blow air through a moist foam or paper pad, and can add many litres of moisture per day. Do NOT use a humidifier or vaporizer that SPRAYS water mist into the air --- the minerals in the water will deposit as a white powder throughout the projection room (salts are not good for film or electronics).

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 05-16-2001, 10:24 AM:

John:

Understand what you are saying. I have removed the bucket of water idea, which I remember stems from the days of static. My findings so far.

RS Components stock a Dehumidifier for UK£260. – ‘This unit will lower the humidity to a comfortable level and collect the condensation in an internal tank, or pipe discharge’.

The Viking catalogue lists a Honeywell Dehumidifier for UK£190. – ‘One unit will collect all the excess moisture from every room in any size home up to 4 bedrooms’.

Thanks.

------------------

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-16-2001, 11:10 AM:

Most dehumidifiers condense the excess moisture on a refrigerated coil. Air conditioners generally do the same function, as warm/moist air is passed over a refrigerated coil or fins, with excess moisture condensing. Again, try to keep the humidity in the ideal range of 50 to 60 percent RH. During really rainy/damp/humid weather, keep doors and windows closed and the dehumidifier running.