This is topic those silly cardboard reel bands 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=002538
Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 08-04-2001, 01:25 PM:
 
what do you guys think of these?

i think they are a wast of time.

plenty of other films come without them with no problems, so why use them?
 

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-04-2001, 02:19 PM:
 
I like them because I can secure the film tightly with the tip of the leader tucked into it without having to resort to tape.

Those new TES plastic/paper (whatever they are) reel bands with the peel off stickers are flimsy, annoying and a horrible design. The theory is nice, but the BONEHEADS that pack the film keep putting the label for the movie and reel number over the seal, thereby rendering them useless for repackaging. When I see them now, I tear them off and throw them into the trash where they belong.
 

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-04-2001, 03:57 PM:
 
And, many new films don't even use the reel bands. Just a hunk of tape is all they have holding it together, if you are lucky.

Paul
 

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-04-2001, 06:25 PM:
 
And the short piece of tape that is used to secure reels only works ONE TIME. When first-run theatres repack a film, they should use a nice LONG piece of new, good quality tape. The original piece will come loose in shipping, especially on TES prints (due to rough Airborne handling).

Same goes for the reel bands. Tape those suckers down if the string is gone (which in my experience, it almost always is).
 

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 08-04-2001, 06:43 PM:
 
...and don't forget to fold over one end of the new tape to form a pull tab. Simple, courteous.

 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-05-2001, 01:21 AM:
 
Personally, I can't understand why the industry still doesn't use reel bands on all films...

Steve

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

Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 08-05-2001, 02:15 AM:
 
I think the answer is pretty obvious. The print should leave the building exactly as you received it (or better if possible).

'Nuff Said

------------------
Chris Duvall
General Manager
Regal Cinemas Colonnade14
Las Vegas, NV
 

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 08-05-2001, 07:35 AM:
 
The stupid paper bands are a holdover from days before tape. They serve no purpose. A couple inches of tape holds better than 10 feet of these paper jokes, though I always use them when supplied It will be good riddance when the last one is gone. Join in the later part of the last century and face it--tape works and it is applied to the leader, a part you are not running thru your machine.


 

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 08-05-2001, 07:59 AM:
 
I agree with those who do not use/like the paper bands. They are outdated and useless. But, (like Chris) if the print came with bands, I use them returning the print.
 
Posted by Joseph Pandolfi (Member # 223) on 08-05-2001, 09:00 AM:
 
I also agree with the ones that do not use them. For me it's just pulling them off and it goes right in the garbage. I reuse the tape that were prevously been used to mark the leaders when the print is built. Then they are put in order with the H1, H2 etc. facing out.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-05-2001, 10:07 AM:
 
For me, the only really useful thing about the paper bands is that they usually have the reel number written in large letters, which is much easier than having to deal with taped reels with longish leaders where the previous theatre didn't bother write the reel number on the tape.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-05-2001, 01:26 PM:
 
Bill:

How on Earth can claim that tape holds better than the paper bands? The number of prints with a disaster of leader in the can as they unravel in shipping from tape giving it up is FAR FAR higher than with the bands where the only problem is with the string coming off and that is a relatively small comparison.

Putting tape on the leader is wholy unnecessary, increases handling and dirt and with the bulk of the masking tape users out there...leaves sticky residue.

In this era of recycling, the paper band wins again in that it can last as long as the print...the tape is a use once (and if you use it again, good luck on it holding until the next booth gets it).

The paper band also is a better way to label the reel, in my opinion and helps keep the print cleaner during shipment.

The collectors that try to keep the prints in the best condition possible for the long run almost all use the paper bands too.

Steve

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

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-05-2001, 01:35 PM:
 
Very nicely put Steve. I think a lot of projectionists don't think of the mess that masking tape makes and how it crusts after it has been applied for a couple of weeks. Even Artist's tape does that given a bit of time in storage. Also, using the paper reel bands keeps dirt not only off of that first wrap of leader, but as the sprockets line up with themselves over the first few rounds on the roll, it keeps the dirt out of the neighboring layers too.

Now if only more projectionists would wrap each reel of film into a small trash liner when they break down prints, they would truly stay clean in those dirty cans. Or at least until they get back to the depot and they remove them to put make way for their "integrity inspected" stickers.
 

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-05-2001, 04:28 PM:
 
Actually Brad,

I think my English was horrible in that earlier post! But thanks for the kind words.

Steve

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

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-05-2001, 09:09 PM:
 
If you are throwing away the reel bands after taking them off, PLEASE STOP. The reason: When the print gets back to TES, they will put on a new set of reel bands...but they WON'T write the film title on the bands.

If they would bring back the old style bands, which were made with thick string instead of the "thread" type line that TES uses, I'd be all in favor of bands. The TES bands are crap.
 

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 08-05-2001, 10:08 PM:
 
If the print comes with bands, it should leave your theatre with them.

From a collector POV:

When a print arrives as the latest addition to the collection, it is always a pleasant surprise to find original 40 year old bands with the print. This makes the print all the more valuable to me.

These bands managed to stay with the print all those years.

These new TES bands do suck, and dont get replaced when the string breaks.

I think that if they would simply put a THICKER STRING on the bands, there would be much less growling about them from the neglected souls here that have to deal with them every week.

Unfortunately for me, I rarely get prints with bands, anyway.

I have a load of bands here that I replace the strings on before they get labeled for the collection. Kite string from the grocery store works great.

Is decent string too much to ask for?


 

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 08-06-2001, 12:52 AM:
 
Paper bands! HA! I'll bet the damned things carry and hold securely to the film as much crap as would be picked up anyway. I haven't seen a band with string in more than a year. An old retired projectionist I spoke with on the phone a few years ago (he was in the booth at this theatre on opening night Dec. 24 '28) asked whether they were still using the little paper bands and commented that they seemed redundant once tape became cheap and that used properly held much better in shipping than the strings that seemed to usually be loose on half the reels.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-06-2001, 02:06 PM:
 
When I first started projecting, in 1976, every print came with bands. To have one "come unwrapped" was rare. I don't know if this is because people cared more about repacking film, or the shipping was less rough, or what...probably a combination.

I do know that the old style of string was "softer" and tended to "stretch" or "give" a little (kind of like comparing a soft nylon rope to a stiff fiber rope), therefore the strings tended to stay tied better.

I think it's amazing that even NEW prints from TES come with broken or missing strings on the bands. What's up with that??!
 

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-06-2001, 02:10 PM:
 
I weigh in on the side of using the traditional cardboard bands with the string ties. Most people using tape don't bother to get the "Artists/Architects/Drafting Tape" that can easily be removed without leaving a residue -- regular masking or adhesive tape is hard to remove without leaving a sticky residue behind.

------------------
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 Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-06-2001, 02:51 PM:
 
Beware, some kinds of drafting tape do not have enough stick to keep the film taped down during periods of print shuffling and heat. The traditional paper band with elactic string really is the best solution. Of course not when the TES people place their label OVER the string catch, but that's a whole different rant.
 
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 08-07-2001, 12:26 AM:
 
I once got a print of "Turbulence" (MGM from Technicolor) and the reel bands all said "Hotel De Love" on them, but the reels were all the correct ones for "Turbulence". I crossed out "Hotel de Love" before sending the print back.
 
Posted by John Schulien (Member # 215) on 08-07-2001, 03:17 PM:
 
On the other hand, from a collector's POV, are those old reel bands made up of acid-free paper, or do they contain acids? If so, they might have the potential to trigger vinegar syndrome. I have a 16mm print from 1946 that was apparently properly stored, yet has early-stage VS. It was packaged in its original shipping bands, which exhibited strong acid paper deterioration.
 
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 04-07-2003, 09:27 AM:
 
Over in the Notes in film cans thread, Manny expressed his concern and frustration with reel bands. I think they're better discussed here. *bump*:

"As for the reel bands -- Every single booth I've ever been inside I have seen those bands in the trash."
Then, respectfully, I do not think you have been in enough booths.

Furthermore, fundamentally, please remember that it is not your print that you are handling. It belongs to the studio and is leased through the exchange, and it is their policies that need to dictate how you treat the print, within reason. If the print comes with reel bands, it is appropriate for you to return the print with reel bands. This is an ethical obligation, not a technical one, and you may feel free to disagree. Certainly technical opinions may outweigh ethical opinions, though I think it's clear that there's no "strong technical reason" against reel bands that applies here; quite the reverse, there are many good reasons for reel bands, please read through this thread.

"And I fail to see what purpose they serve in the first place."
To summarize:
"ETS and its clients don't think reel bands are important so why is TES so "up" on using them?"
ETS and TES each have their pros and cons. Some do one thing better than the other. For each potentially good thing that one does, you can point to the other and ask why they do not use them...that gets silly. E.g.: "ETS and its non-Sony clients don't think a 24x7 800 number for reel replacements and delivery information is important, so why is TES so ``up'' on having one?"

It's difficult to speculate on exactly what combination of market/business forces, technical issues, experience, and compromise go into making these decisions. I bet it would be hard for an insider to tell you. But what I have learned the more I interact with this industry is that presuming "things are the way they are for a [good] reason" is never a good idea, and is quite frequently wrong.

"Furthermore, if they don't arrive intact then why the heck should they go back intact?"
The golden rule of projection: that a print should leave better than it arrives. But I'm not quite sure what you mean by "intact" -- perhaps you refer to the string catch having failed/broken? I'm not advocating you go out and purchase little paper discs+string and rivet them to your reel bands. In the event that the reel band no longer self-secures, then using tape is appropriate. It's not as good, and will not last as long (tape will secure better to paper than film, but is even harder to remove without damaging the paper), but is superior to tape-on-film.

--jhawk
 
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-07-2003, 09:57 AM:
 
Let's clarify one thing here:

I am not a film handler. When I was a film handler, I was damn good at it. So there is no need to lecture me on what is good form. If it came with bands I returned it with bands, even though I think they're a waste of time.

My comments are based on what I have seen in the field.

If projectionists can't be trusted to securely tape down the heads of reels then I'd have to doubt their ability or inclination to monkey around with those paper bands.

[ 04-08-2003, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: Manny Knowles ]
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-07-2003, 02:48 PM:
 
I wonder if the talk here on F-T had anything to do with TES switching to bands with heavier string? TES prints are now arriving here in better shape, thanks to the better string.

Now if we could only get rid of the thin plastic DTS disk cases, and switch to plastic film cans. (Yes, I dream a lot.)
 
Posted by Gordon Bachlund (Member # 124) on 04-07-2003, 03:14 PM:
 
Perhaps because I am a curmudgeon, I too prefer reel bands over tape. Not so many years ago the exchange's inspectors placed gummed inspection seals over the string, so that one could be certain of receiving an inspected, playable print if the seal was unbroken. Back then I never experienced a problem with playing a new print right out of the can without first inspecting it. "Those WERE the days...." [Smile]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-07-2003, 06:24 PM:
 
It is an absolute fact that a banded reel holds together better than one that is just taped down. Also of interest is that in my experience even a band which is taped down to itself (because some moron cut the string) has better integrity than film taped down. The paper tape simply sticks better to paper than film. I used to reuse bands only if they had strings; sans strings I'd roll them up and toss them back in the can figuring if I have to use tape I might as well just tape the film down. But upon realizing the latter fact I now use them whether taped or with string.
 
Posted by Daniel Burns (Member # 1549) on 04-08-2003, 04:50 AM:
 
I just recently trained a man that used to work for ETS here in dallas and he was surprised when he saw prints come in from ETS that did not have those cardboard wraps. He worked there about seven years ago and he told me they used to use those wraps back in the day. Of course I wasn't around any projection booth seven years ago to know if that was really the case. Thought it was interesting though.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-08-2003, 10:22 PM:
 
I've gotten some older prints from ETS with good reel bands still in use, so they still "use" them to the extent that prints that had them originally still do, unless someone removed them along the way. Obviously they aren't using them for new prints, however. [Frown]

Reel Easy also uses reel bands (the good, thick cardboard ones with good-quality string). They also use solid reels (not those plastic split-reel things). Too bad their shipping charges are insane, though.

Does anyone make good reel bands for 16mm prints? I've only seen the plastic things which Swank uses which, as far as I can tell, are utterly useless.
 
Posted by Jacob Huber (Member # 1138) on 04-09-2003, 12:20 AM:
 
I've asked others why they don't use them at my place. Granted, most of them are due to sheer and complete laziness and apathy of what happens to a print once it leaves the theatre, that is, if they even care that long. One reason is that the bands clearly state "Do Not Rewind After Use", which they assume means that the bands are not supposed to go back on the film. If they took these words off, maybe more people would put them back on (ya, right, but you never know).
 
Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 04-09-2003, 06:55 AM:
 
"DO NOT REWIND AFTER USE"

In the early days, when films were projected by reels and changeovers, it was possible to straighten the bent metal shipping reels enough to place them in the bottom magazine of the projector. For the last run of the film the shipping reels were used as takeups. The paper bands were placed around the outside of the film pack and wound in the opposite direction of the film so that the pack would be kept from unwinding. A spool of string was kept handy for replacing tattered strings when needed.

The exchange, upon receiving the film, would inspect it and it would then be in the "heads out" position on the reel for shipping to the next user. The reason for "not rewinding" is it saved the exchange from having to rewind the film. This was an extra and costly in time step for the exchange. In these times, it was possible to load and project the first showing of a film directly from the metal (if not bent too badly) shipping reels.

When the large reels and then the platters came into popular use, the films were returned "heads out" and made the inspection process more time consuming, costly and, because the inspection machines which inspected for sprocket hole damage had to see the film from the tails out direction, every reel had to be rewound before inspection. Either technique, machine or manual, needs to sense the damage to the head edge of the sprocket holes.

Please note that the feed sprocket, intermittent, first and second sound sprockets all engage the edge of the sprocket holes on the same, heads, edge. The hold back or last sprocket uses the tails edge of the sprocket holes. Damage is more likely to appear on the many feed sprockets than on the takeup holdback sprocket.

The deterioration of the inspection process was, in part, caused by the booth operators who did not rewind the films to the "tails out" format. Now the films will be further degraded by operators who do not band the films so we can expect to see lots of damaged leaders and cinched prints.

KEN

[ 04-09-2003, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: Kenneth Wuepper ]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-09-2003, 08:56 AM:
 
because the inspection machines which inspected for sprocket hole damage had to see the film from the tails out direction, every reel had to be rewound before inspection.

Why would a machine looking at a mechanical characteristic like sprocket hole damage care about orientation which is purely a photographic detail? Are you saying such a machine could not be used to check a roll of blank leader?
 
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 04-09-2003, 09:33 AM:
 
It's hard to fathom that there were inspection machines to check for sprocket damage, and that they no longer exist now. Wow.

I always assumed the "do not rewind" was a combination of:
a) Acetate prints should be stored emulsion-in (tail out, or head-out with a half-twist) for optimum focus stability.
b) Not so that prints could inspected at the exchange (oh, happy day if it were so!), but so that they could be inspected at the next theatre and then be head-out ready to project.

--jhawk
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 04-09-2003, 10:12 AM:
 
Probably the inspection machines did not care for the film direction, but I figure they fed the reel in foot first so that it would come out head first, ready for storage.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-09-2003, 02:27 PM:
 
quote:
When the large reels and then the platters came into popular use, the films were returned "heads out" and made the inspection process more time consuming, costly and, because the inspection machines which inspected for sprocket hole damage had to see the film from the tails out direction, every reel had to be rewound before inspection.

The deterioration of the inspection process was, in part, caused by the booth operators who did not rewind the films to the "tails out" format.
I am fairly certain none of this is accurate. I made many trips to the Dallas NFS depot back in the days and there was no such machine. I would think a major depot like Dallas would have had one if they were used. I think Ken is mistaking the NFS 35mm depots with the 16mm depots like Swank and Films Inc, for they used RTI inspection machines. Regardless, the inspection machines I worked with briefly did not care whether the film was heads or tails out.

At NFS, there was a specific "film handling and inspection" room where they had a couple of dozen rewind tables and a conveyor belt, as employees wound the film curled through a cupped hand (with a dirty white glove) at full throttle. I inquired about this and if the film broke, then they knew they had to cut out a part and repair the sprocket damage. If it didn't break, then the sprockets were fine. There would only be a quick spot check at the beginning or end of the reel for objectionable scratching. Their splicers were atrocious and they were using some unknown brand of splicing tape for the longest time that together made some of the worst splices I have ever seen. Later they changed to Hudson Photographic tape (which at the time was decent), but that couldn't save their horrid splicers.

NFS had a firm policy of winding emulsion in if the films arrived heads out and would ship tails out. The reverse was true if the films arrived tails out, that the film would be wound emulsion out for shipment heads out. They didn't think projectionists could figure it out otherwise. Actual emulsion orientation for the best interest of the film (regardless of your opinion on the matter) held no water there.

I do not know the reasoning behind ETS dropping the reel bands.

The inspection process was killed by the TES depot. They were the ones who introduced the clip together reel and the elimination of film inspection as a means to save time when preparing new prints for shipment or junking old films. This way it was no longer necessary to kill the minute or so it took to wind the reel at full speed. All they had to do was clip the reels together or take them apart and the film was instantly on a core. When ETS opened up, they followed the timesaver. Of course we all know that once a few films were shipped after skipping that step and theaters still got their shows on screen (no matter how much more time and hassle it took on the part of the theaters), that the clip together reel was instantly deemed a success and killed regular inspections right then and there. The elimination of inspection had nothing to do with people rewinding or not rewinding their films. Nowadays I have been told by both depots that they want the films back all heads out.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-09-2003, 02:33 PM:
 
quote:
Probably the inspection machines did not care for the film direction, but I figure they fed the reel in foot first so that it would come out head first, ready for storage.
Right. We used to get circuited films via the bus quite often, and our westbound bus arrived at 5:35 PM. Often that bus would be up to an hour late, so many's the time I would get the film and have to run it right off of the shipping reels. Every now and then the film would race in the door about 5 minutes before show time (or, occasionally, 5 minutes AFTER show time), and we used to royally cuss if a late delivery arrived with tails-out reels!
 
Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 04-09-2003, 06:12 PM:
 
I've mentioned this before. Please forgive me.

I used to go to Benton Brothers Exchange in Atlanta and watch inspector Ola McElhinny at work. She worked there for 40+ years, and was one of the sweetest people that I have ever known.

I seem to remember that she had an electric rewind that ran at medium speed. She used cotton gloves and was known for catching damage better than anybody there. A little pressure with the fingers... just enough to make the film curl slightly... is all she did.

She was featured at work in one of the Kodak booklets. I want to say it was Reelnotes #50. I may be wrong.

She was the best in her field.

Benton Bros. used reel bands with heavy string. I still have some of them on my older prints.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-09-2003, 07:55 PM:
 
Brad--if the depots don't inspect prints anyway, then why would they care if they come in heads-out or tails-out? Just curious.

Personally, I like to receive prints tails-out for inspection purposes, although I always return them heads-out (regardless of whether I am shipping them out from a platter house or a changeover house).
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-09-2003, 08:29 PM:
 
I've always presumed that Do Not Rewind was simply to save unnecessary winding / rewinding. If the theatre rewinds and the exchange inspection puts it back to tails then that's an unnecessary rewinding at both theatres.

It could also be that perhaps in the old days if you got a print heads out you knew it had been inspected and was ready to go and if you got it tails out you knew it had not been but you could conveniently check it yourself with a single wind.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-09-2003, 09:23 PM:
 
When I did my comprehensive study of the causes of film damage in the early 1980's for the SMPTE, all the exchanges I visited had manual inspection done by people, rather than automated machines. Some distributors even paid for full inspection after each booking.
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-10-2003, 03:15 AM:
 
I am assuming that the DO NOT REWIND is a holdover from earlier practice when the exhanges actually did inspect and shipped prints Heads Up and "ready for projection." Which of course was actually NOT ready for projection because no one in their right mind would trust bent sheet metal reels to feed or takeup in magazines. So you always had to double rewind anyway; most of us did it/do it without whining about it. But nowadays, I see no consistancy in how I get prints. They can be shipped Tails Out as many times as they are shipped Heads Up.

And I don't quite understand the "problem" with using reel bands if the print comes with them, even if one cannot see that they do serve a valid function. For decades reel bands came on every single print, no matter who the distributor, and projectionists didn't seem to have any particuar trouble figuring out how to replace them on the reel for ship-out. I never heard of a projectionist throwing them in the trash. Has the "dumbing down of America" reached that far into the projection booths? You would think even the concessions kid could understand how to replace a reel band. Yes, string breaks -- I have seen plenty of repairs that projectionists made to string as well as to tears in the bands themselves so that they could send the band back with the print. We are not talking about rocket science here.

And as has already been said, even if one personally cannot see the purpose of using reel bands....even if one thinks they are "useless," it would seem totally inappropriate to just toss them out if they are supplied with the print.

Frank
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-10-2003, 04:46 AM:
 
Scott, the answer I was told was that it makes it quick and easy to grab another print if needed for comparison purposes of whatever reason if all films were wound the same direction. I know that sounds like a lame reason (it isn't a very strong one), but that's what I was told by a couple of different people upon asking (ETS and TES). I think it's more of a situation where most theaters already return heads up via platter breakdown and it is easier to standardize to the majority.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-10-2003, 02:12 PM:
 
quote:
I used to go to Benton Brothers Exchange in Atlanta and watch inspector Ola McElhinny at work. She worked there for 40+ years, and was one of the sweetest people that I have ever known.

I seem to remember that she had an electric rewind that ran at medium speed. She used cotton gloves and was known for catching damage better than anybody there. A little pressure with the fingers... just enough to make the film curl slightly... is all she did.

She was featured at work in one of the Kodak booklets. I want to say it was Reelnotes #50. I may be wrong.
The issue is H-50-5 of Kodak's "Film Notes for Reel People", and it's in the Manuals section of Film Tech:

http://www.film-tech.com/manuals/H5005.pdf

I met many dedicated people like Ola when I visited NFS exchanges for my SMPTE Film Damage Study in the early 1980's. [Smile]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-10-2003, 08:17 PM:
 
Has the "dumbing down of America" reached that far into the projection booths?

Frank, Frank, Frank...do you really have to ask?
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2