Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Film Handling Done Very Very Right

This is topic Film Handling Done Very Very Right 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=002843

Posted by Tao Yue (Member # 836) on 11-29-2001, 01:15 PM:

I was checking two films which came in last night, and I've never felt more thankful to the projectionist(s) who took care of the film before it got to me. The films were both in the best possible condition, and it was the easiest handchecking experience I've ever had. They were both examples of Film Handling Done Very Very Right.

The Score came, probably directly, off a platter at the GCC Framingham 15. Everything properly done -- leader was uncut, plenty of head and tail, exactly one frame cut off for ID, head and tails spliced back on well. Ran reels 1 and 2 to screen and saw no scratches at all. Ran into exactly one mid-reel splice, so whoever had it last also took out a lab splice. Only significant thing wrong with it was that it came heads-out.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail was delivered as I was screening The Score. Again, in the best of conditions. Cues apparently weren't printed in at the lab, and the cues made were clear and expertly done. Reel heads were marked with masking tape, sound format, aspect ratio, etc. all labelled. The print's been traveling directly from theater to theater since it left the depot and has been to the Tivoli in St. Louis, Docfilms at U. Chicago, and The Brattle down the street.

Why can't all prints come this way?!

------------------
Tao Yue
MIT '04: Course VI-2, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Projectionist, MIT Lecture Series Committee

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 11-29-2001, 01:36 PM:

What's wrong with heads out?

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 11-29-2001, 02:00 PM:

I thought that heads out was the correct way.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-29-2001, 02:17 PM:

With new prints, the film is usually printed heads-to-tails (except for bi-directional panel printers). The printed film is then processed, and usually ends up heads out on the processing machine takeup, and is shipped from the lab that way. The film exchange puts the controversial two-part shipping reel flanges on the print, rather than winding it onto a one-piece shipping reel (the way it used to be done). Therefore, unless rewound onto reels, or inspected on a projector, these new prints usually are shipped to theatres heads out.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
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 Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-29-2001, 02:33 PM:

Say ... Isn't there a GCC Framingham projectionist here on Film-Tech? ... Hmmm ...

If it's heads out, a changeover theater has to rewind it twice to get it on house reels.

Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 11-29-2001, 08:26 PM:

Heads out for me every time, please

Michael, there is as such no 'correct' way, you get what you are given, and as you run towers surely the correct way for you, or the best i should say, is Tails out?

The correct way is as you wish your prints to come.

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 11-29-2001, 09:55 PM:

This has always been the topic of heated debate, but I consider no I.D. frames to be Film Done Right.

Posted by Brad Haven (Member # 954) on 11-29-2001, 11:02 PM:

i prefer tail out, so i can check/rewind on the bench and then feed onto the platter. i.d. frames are essential for making sure all leaders are correctly attached, i receive alot of old prints and on many occasions this practise has saved the day!

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 11-29-2001, 11:14 PM:

I cast my vote for heads out! I build everything head-first onto a 6K reel, 3 reels at a time (or trailers and 2 reels), then rewind, and onto the platter. If for some reason a print is all tails out, I'll build it backwards, so it ends up heads out. Otherwise, any tails out reels get rewound first. And when I break down off the platter, they end up heads out.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-29-2001, 11:17 PM:

I am of course with Matt. However, if I get a print that has been assembled many times by unprofessional operators who keeps chopping frames as opposed to peeling the tape and preserving the original cut, then what the hell...mine as well have the extra ID frame to make things a bit quicker. Anyone who leaves more than one ID frame deserves to be kicked out of the projection room for life!

Heads vs. tails? Personally I see the argument for both sides. If I am building a print onto large reels, I want the film to come in tails out so with one pass it will be heads out, after assembling and inspecting, for loading to the platter (or reel to reel projection). However, as a constant user of the platter reel (review on the site), nowadays I hate it when the reels come in tails out. When they come heads up, I wind them directly onto the platter reel and then the entire pancake of film is ready to slide onto the platter, ready for projection.

So the bottom line here is, so long as the projectionist is actually hand inspecting every foot of the print and is not building one reel at a time from the platter MUT, it just depends on the situation. I think everyone is in agreement though that whichever way the reels come in, please make them ALL that way.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-30-2001, 12:07 AM:

quote:
whichever way the reels come in, please make them ALL that way

YES! It frustrates me to no end when every other reel is wound opposite. I mean, really, in the modern days of slap a snap-together reel on it and throw it onto the Airborne pile, does someone just sit around all day inventing this stupidity? I can understand the first or last reel being different for trailer/credit changes, though.

</rant>

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 11-30-2001, 12:18 AM:

Then I must apologise to the next person who got my last screening print which is all tails out apart from reels 5&6 of 7. The bookers I was screening it for had me start it 40 mins. then mid-reel 4 told me to skip to the last reel. I guess they didn't like the film.
I could have rewound the two reels but I was late to my next job as it was.

Posted by Tao Yue (Member # 836) on 11-30-2001, 12:23 AM:

Wow ... I hadn't expected so many responses.

I should revise and qualify my statement then -- the print coming heads-out was the only thing non-ideal for a reel-to-reel projectionist.

Other than heads out and the single ID frame, another (possibly) controversial practice done to the print was the splicing on of the heads and tails using tape on only one side. Also non-ideal for reel-to-reel.

But I guess the main point I was making (which got lost in the head/tails out discussion) is that everything was done properly, within the acceptable range of variation. All reels were consistently heads out, ID frame was not chopped off, and prints were in excellent condition.

Many of the prints going into second-run seem to have been treated poorly. Most of the good ones usually are scratched to some degree and dirty around the ends of reels, most likely to letting film drop on the floor while breaking down. As my first post says, "Why can't all prints come this way?" I'd much rather have a print in good condition come heads-out than a film come, in pieces (literally), tails out with scratches all over the place. All the more so since head/tails out is a matter of individual preference.

------------------
Tao Yue
MIT '04: Course VI-2, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Projectionist, MIT Lecture Series Committee

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-30-2001, 12:36 AM:

Sorry, Mathew. I should probably clarify that I frustrates me when "new, unscreened" prints come that way.

My bad. Too much caffeine today.

Back to the original discussion, it's good to hear from a second-run theater about good film work. I hate to think what has happened to some of the prints after they left my theater.

It would never work, but wouldn't it be nice to have Film-Tech prints that only circulated in Film-Tech'ers theaters?!

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 11-30-2001, 01:37 AM:

Adam, I think you're onto something! Instead of THX certified theatres, how about Film-Tech certified theatres?! The worst presentation I've ever seen was in a THX certified theatre. (The U.A. in Vegas - Day 2 of The Matrix).

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 11-30-2001, 02:32 AM:

Again I'd like to wiegh in on the side of ID frame. Perhaps some of you are good at matching up the soundtracks on mystery prints, but I've tried and damned if I can do it. An ID frame is the only other sure fire way to make sure the reels are labeled correctly.

Now, I think a while ago I offered a compromise to this debate and I'll repost it here. Only leave an ID frame on the head of each reel. You don't need an ID frame on both ends of a splice for tearing down and one will work just fine for figuring out which reel is which.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-30-2001, 02:34 AM:

Actually I'm glad you brought that back up Dustin. That is a damned good idea and one that I wish would become more standard. Personally I agree with Dustin that losing the frame on the head of each reel would be preferable to the last frame. This way people who run changeovers would not need to keep re-scratching in the cues and the people breaking down from platters would be matching up head leaders, not tail leaders. Any opinions?
------------------------------------------
Now on to ID frames. Last year I proposed logging the first and last frame of each release on this website and posted an example of "Gone in 60 Seconds". You can see that page here. Open that link and compare the pictures to what I am writing below. The theory here is for everyone to pretend that the two frames on the right are actually the leader (since that part of the optical soundtrack would be duplicated exactly like that anyway).

Reel 2-Reel 1
Notice how the soundtrack is virtually silent. Now compare that to the other reels. The only other POSSIBLE reel that it could be is reel 7, but upon closer examination you will see that reel 7 starts with a bit of background noise whereas the start of reel 2 is almost dead silence. If that isn't enough to match up the leader to the reel, look at the magenta edgeprint and make sure the codes match (see pictures "Reel 3-Reel 2 or Reel 4-Reel 3" for examples). Finally, reel 7 ends in credits, so that's pretty obvious too.

Reel 3-Reel 2
This is a classic example of why people should NOT leave an ID frame on the leaders. Pretend that the frame of audio on either side of that splice is missing and mentally join the far left frame to the far right frame. See a problem with audio continuity? That would sound very bad.

Reel 4-Reel 3
Notice how the soundtracks follow a pattern, yet each track is different. There is a lot of stereo separation going on here, and there isn't a consistent pattern. This shows there to be a lot of background ambience noise with wide stereo separation. No other reel starts with that.

Reel 5-Reel 4
We've got a loud section of film here, judging by the width of the tracks. Also taking into account the difference between tracks tells us this is most probably more "noise", like the sound of a car racing by. Again, no other reel starts with this pattern.

Reel 6-Reel 5
This could be a musical passage. There is just enough similarity in the tracks to suggest this, as well as the pattern is not random, like the example above. Still, no other reel starts with this pattern.

Reel 7-Reel 6
As discussed above, this *could* be confused with the first reel, but the quality of these pictures is not that good. A good eye can easily tell the difference between this and the picture "Reel 2-Reel 1". Also, there's always the edgeprint code for absolute verification.

So as you see, there really is not a need to leave ID frames on the leaders at all. The only time this *could* get confusing is if there are substantial frames missing on the Reel 3-Reel 2 changeover, but again that's the entire point of NOT leaving ID frames on the leaders.

Also, in addition to the edgecode for absolute identification, almost every reel has a different tint to the film. Some reels have a "fake SRD" track, some reels have a "fake SDDS" track, some reels have a green, grey, purple, etc. tinted SDDS track, and some other reels have various densities of SRD track. So the optical soundtrack is not the only way of identifying prints without ID frames. You've got the optical soundtrack, the SRD (or lack thereof) soundtrack, the SDDS (or lack thereof) soundtrack, as well as the film stock edgeprint id.

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 11-30-2001, 05:03 AM:

I've always been a "no reference frame" kinda guy but when I know I might not be the one breaking the print down, I will then usually leave reference frames. I would agree that if a reference frame is necessary than the one frame off the head is the best.

I should've added before that even though I may have petty differences in opinion on 'film done right', getting a print in the condition Tao got is always welcome!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-30-2001, 08:01 AM:

Today, there's another way to check that the correct leader is on the each reel.

The magenta Kodak edgeprint ID provides another way of positively matching the leader to the proper reel. Each 4000-foot or 6000-foot roll of raw stock Kodak supplies to the labs has a UNIQUE edgeprint identification number, printed about every three feet along the edge of the film (you can see examples in Brad's photos of Reel 3/2 and Reel 4/3 splices). Check the magenta edgeprint of the leader and the reel, and be sure the entire number matches.

Usually, the lab uses only one or two emulsion batches for a release, so the first two sets of numbers will likely remain the same (e.g., 2383 353). But the following numbers refer to the roll, slit and machines used, and will be unique on every roll used by the lab.

BTW, I still really like Brad's idea of posting photos of the frames either side of the reel change, perhaps in the "Feature Info & Trailer Attachments" section of Film-Tech. I discussed it at last January's meeting of the Inter-Society for the Enhancement of Theatrical Presentation, and none of the members objected, but there was some concern that images from the copyrighted films could be misused if posted on the Internet.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-30-2001, 09:30 AM:

I feel the ID frame is very important as it is the only method the next guy knows for sure that each is the correct reel.
If people peeled off the tape there would be no valid reason against it. And as for people who juat chop out frames that is no different than the use of Ultrasonic splicers that require the loss of 2 frames at every remade splice

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 11-30-2001, 09:57 AM:

Matthew,
I understand your argument, but you probably wouldn't think that way if you had ever received a print that had the head and tail leaders no reference frames on them sitting in the bottom of the shipping cans. If you are staring at six unmarked reels of picture, you'll really wish that last guy left a reference frame. I guarantee it.

Matching up a soundtrack might work, but sometimes you can't tell if how many butcher projectionists have cut off how many frames. The print I received in the aforementioned state had a fair amount of damage to the heads (as they were not even taped down) and it would have been even more difficult to discern reel order by the soundtrack.

I like Brad's idea of posting the images at the reel changes, but it would be nice to have the distributor provide those images and information, but that will never happen.

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 11-30-2001, 10:05 AM:

Matching the soundtracks might be one way ,but try doing that on 70mm mag stripe prints

I posted once before that we had a seventy print of Howards End arrive with no heads or tails ,at all. When they did arrive by post after the run they had no id frames. Double bummer.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-30-2001, 10:43 AM:

Maybe we should petition the labs to print an ID frame on the leader where they spell out part of the title and reel number. They take the time to do that ... what's one more frame?

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-30-2001, 10:46 AM:

I proposed that at one of the P3 meetings and it was decided that was too expensive

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-30-2001, 11:03 AM:

Adam Martin said: "Maybe we should petition the labs to print an ID frame on the leader where they spell out part of the title and reel number. They take the time to do that ... what's one more frame?"

As Gordon notes, that was suggested, but would involve the cost and complexity of having to make a duplicate negative of the film to get that "reference frame" to insert into the leader.

Likewise, printing the title and reel number along the edge of the print 6 to 8 feet after the head leader and 6 to 8 feet before the tail leader is already an SMPTE Recommended Practice (RP 152), but is usually not being done because of potential interference with the SDDS tracks.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-30-2001, 11:45 AM:

If Kodak can edgeprint in magenta without interfering with SDDS, how come labs can't put magenta print information or a solid magenta stripe on the edge at FFP and LFP?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-30-2001, 12:12 PM:

To put title and reel information along the edge, the lab would normally have to write the information along the edge of the sound negative, so it would be printed along with the SDDS track as cyan dye. You would need an additional printer head to print a different color like magenta.

The green laser printers Kodak uses would be prohibitively expensive to put on all release printers at the labs.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-30-2001, 01:24 PM:

Bummer.

Well, if they won't print anything on the film, and we all know they won't send out a technical notice with every print, then I'm fresh out of brilliant ideas.

I guess I'll just have to continue with the one-ID-frame-at-the-leader and none-at-the-tail method for now.

Posted by John Schulien (Member # 215) on 11-30-2001, 01:27 PM:

The space between the sprockets on the non-dolby side is still unused. How about printing the title and reel number there, one letter per sprocket.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-30-2001, 01:52 PM:

Printing information between the perfs on the side opposite the Dolby Digital track would require an additional printing head on every printer. Unlikely to fly.

I recall someone also suggested replacing the Dolby "Double D" trademark symbol in some of the Dolby data blocks with the reel number. You would need a magnifier to read it, but it would be printed through the entire length of the reel.

Maybe one of the Film-Tech participants from Dolby could see if this was feasible? Lonny Jennings? Ken Jacquart?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-30-2001, 02:08 PM:

I really like John P.'s suggestion to check the edge ID numbers. I didn't realize that these were unique to each lab roll. This could be a very useful fact to know in the future.

Unfortunately, this doesn't help with features printed on non-Kodak stock, nor does it help with older prints, which, sadly, are the ones which are most likely to have been abused.

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 11-30-2001, 02:49 PM:

Brad,

I think your idea could possibly work if everyone in the booth is as anal as most people here. But let's face it, most aren't. Unfortunately, at most theaters is just wouldn't fly. No one at my theater cares about film that much, as made evident by the fact that they still use whiteout on the film even though I told them not to and threw all the whiteout away!! (I guess they have a stash someewhere.) So do you think they're going to take the time to match up soundtracks when breaking down?

J.P.: I don't understand why it would cost more to print one more frame.

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 11-30-2001, 02:51 PM:

Mathew,

I absolutely agree with you! When I became a projectionist I was teached to keep 2 black frames for each side of reel to "preserve" the print.
However I didn't want that my customers saw 4 black frames between reels so that other projectionist can freely chop away up to 4 frames without damaging the print.
So I decided for HALF frame for reel: in this way I have ONE black frame where I put a little sticker with number of reels.

I saw a movie in a theater with at least 20/30 black frames between reels...

Bye
Antonio

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-30-2001, 03:08 PM:

Ken, you might want to go back and re-read this thread over the last 24 hours, for you seem to have skimmed over some of the details of my post and John's post. My advice above was not to be used when breaking down a print. Why anyone would actually need to do that is beyond me, for whoever built the print SHOULD have labeled the leader/reels properly. That being taken into account, so long as the projectionists can count backwards, they can break a print down without the need for ID frames. The only time a possible need for ID frames comes into play would be for the next person building it, and that's what my tips above were for. As to your careless operators, put a stop to their practices or fire them. There is no excuse for such poor film handling and since you are a booth trainer, there is no excuse for you not having enough authority to be able to get them to do things right.

Why does it cost more to print one extra frame? Because the lab has to make a duplicate of that frame. It's not just a matter of 4 extra perforations of raw stock. John explained it earlier.

Hey John, what a great idea looking for the edgecode. Wish I would've thought of that about 2:34AM earlier today.

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 11-30-2001, 03:13 PM:

Brad,

Unfortunately, some of the operators at my theater also use zebra tape when reparing mid-reel damage. Grrrr..... You can only imagine my frustration when breaking down, and thus my need for ID frames. I'm pretty sure I have ranted about this on another thread.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-30-2001, 03:14 PM:

Zebra tape is not necessary for anything in a professional booth. Why do they even have it? A much better solution is for you to train them so that they do not need it.

And why are you having mid-reel damage?

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 11-30-2001, 03:18 PM:

Hey Brad, am I going crazy, or did you ad to your last post since you originally posted it? I agree that I SHOULD have enough authority to have final say as to what goes on in the booth, but unfortunately I don't. I certainly can't fire anyone. (No assistant manager, which I am, can) Sometimes I don't even feel like a booth manager, and it really pisses me off, but I'm not going to rant about that here.

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 11-30-2001, 03:20 PM:

Why do I have mid reel damage? Did you ever hear of lab splices and brainwraps?

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 11-30-2001, 03:23 PM:

One more note: they don't listen to me and my GM seems to think floor operations take precidence (spelling?) over the booth. One more reason I hate the idea of manager operators. I'm working on it, though. It's gonna take some time, but eventually I am going to get things the way they are supposed to be.

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 11-30-2001, 04:13 PM:

What exactly IS the purpose of zebra-tape (I really don't know)? I ordered splicing tape once, and that's what I got, a whole stack of it! Obviously, film needs to be spliced straight, but all I can think that the lines are any good for is CENTREING the tape over the splice, and really, who needs help with that? Or is there another function?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-30-2001, 05:00 PM:

Judging by the timing of our posts, it appears we were both on the forums replying to each other at the same time. If after I post I realize that my wording was unclear, or I feel I needed to elaborate, I just edit the post instead of keep making post after post as followups. It's easy, just click the "edit" icon.

Lab splices? Of course, we all see them. Personally I HATE it when theaters cut them out with a tape splice, for there will always be a noticeable splice and jump there. Removing them with an ultrasonic splice is the only acceptable way in my book, but very few theaters are going to have access to one. In that instance, I would say just leave them in. They are NOT going to break and a quick flash (to me) is better than having a jump with an obvious tape splice. However, for those who absolutely insist that they must come out for whatever reason, there is no excuse for not using clear tape. Your situation sounds like a managerial problem of which you will just have to work through.

What is a brainwrap? I don't have those.

Dave, zebra tape is *supposed* to make breaking down a print easier because there are yellow lines at the splice. I've never been able to see a zebra splice come flying off of a platter during breakdown, but I've never missed *feeling* for a tape splice, clear or not. The ridiculous part is that most people who use zebra tape use the alternating section where the yellow line goes across the frameline. While this may be fine for flat films, it looks horrible on scope films and will disrupt at least one of the audio tracks. It's just a stupid idea in my book. Every professional operator I know uses clear tape exclusively.

Posted by Nic Margherio (Member # 273) on 11-30-2001, 05:14 PM:

John Pytlak said:

"I recall someone also suggested replacing the Dolby "Double D" trademark symbol in some of the Dolby data blocks with the reel number. You would need a magnifier to read it, but it would be printed through the entire length of the reel."

Why not use the "interperfs" on the other side of the film? Is it because current printing/developing equipment cannot print there without modification? It seems to me to be the best solution to this; printing the reel number four times per frame throughout the entire reel, heads and tails included. It would also be large enough for most people to read without a magnifier.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-30-2001, 05:40 PM:

If that is ever done, I would hope the reel number would be printed once every 4 perforations, so as to help give a guide with respect to framelines. For example, if the reel number happened to fall 2 perforations off of a known frame line nearby, then the operator could safely cut 2 perforations off and be in frame.

John, I'm sure the labs wouldn't want to keep stashes of specific film stock marked with specific reel numbers, but would such a thing be a possibility alongside the Kodak edgeprint?

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-01-2001, 12:12 AM:

Just thinking about this... Yes, it's a high tech solution to a low tech problem but just for sake of scientific discussion...

But, aren't the reel numbers coded into the DTS and SDDS tracks on the film? (I don't know if they are in Dolby Digital.)
Wouldn't it be neat if a reader/decoder could be made and mounted to the workbench so that when the question of, "Which reel is this?", comes up all you have to do is pull a few feet of film through the thing and the reel number would be displayed?

OK, who's going to tell me that they already have those...

Posted by Paul Harnden (Member # 1034) on 12-01-2001, 09:18 AM:

Ken,

In regards to your letter about your GM and managers not listening to you, I can tell you that I've been in the same boat. If stuff is messing up and the GM thinks the floor is more important, let stuff mess up. Let it get to the point where they're going to finally notice and that should help your argument on keeping people in the booth and off the floor.
As for the projectionists that you're having problems with threaten to kick them out or just go talk to the management. I was an assistant too and even though I had very little authority, I had authority nonetheless. If your management has a problem with it have a talk with them to straighten any conflicts there might be, also bring evidence of foul-ups and any breaches of company booth policies that the employees have commited. If your GM still won't listen, just one-up him and talk to your tech.

Paul

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 12-01-2001, 10:37 AM:

Randy, you may have been close to an answer. There are chemicals the will glow under ultraviolet light that are invisible under natural light, such as fluorescein. It is entirely possible to write on the film at the reel ends, writing the reel number directly onto the image in big bold numbers. You might want to replace the platter lights with cool ultraviolet lights and the ends of reels would be plainly visible.

Invisible marking pens

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 12-01-2001, 11:38 AM:

Paul, I can't kick anyone out. Our company poilcy is that we have Manager-Operators, and that all managers do projection. I hate that, but I have to deal with it. I have talked to the GM, and asked him if we can have a booth meeting really soon. He said yes, so I'll see how that goes. I want to try everything possible before going over his head!

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 12-01-2001, 02:44 PM:

Brad,

In a first time I agreed with you: a quick "flash" is better than a splice. Then I decided to remove all lab splices because the splices are often "out of perforation". I retreathed my copy of Hannibal many times before understand that the lab splice at the middle of last reel had two perforation too near.
Moreover, I had just few Film Stop during my work: all of them due to broken lab splices.

So, I prefer to add a splice and, just for fun, I collect all cut frames!!

If you are lucky and the lab splice is not in a very bright scene, and the movie is DTS encoded, the splice cannot be seen.

Bye
Antonio

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-01-2001, 02:49 PM:

Lab splices are ultrasonic splices and as such are virtually impossible to break. The only way I have found is one must put a hard fold in the splice

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 12-01-2001, 02:55 PM:

Gordon,

What can I say? Perhaps Italian splices are not good as US one!!

I can assure that in both theaters of my chain we started to cut off lab splices because they often break themself.

Bye
Antonio

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-01-2001, 04:15 PM:

Jerry,

Cool idea! Not only that, but it would virtually eliminate the (perceived) need for Zebra Tape. Now, if we could only figure out a way to get this applied to film, standard, from the lab.

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 12-01-2001, 05:00 PM:

Randy, Uhhhh, is this something you really want to trust to Technicolor?

UV stuff IS cool. Some tickets have UV inks embedded as a security measure, and I think Kodak was even working on some UV barcoding ideas. The only thing I'm afraid of is that now some company will apply a UV digital soundtrack covering the entire picture area. There are more soundtracks now than sprocket holes.

Think of the fun you can have with one of those markers and a film. The front of reel one or the credit roll at the end could be extensive notes to the next projectionist that would never get seperated or lost.

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 12-01-2001, 05:06 PM:

I'm a big fan of clear tape myself, but when you work in an arthouse running rep. prints that are pretty much spliced all to hell, then Zebra tape has a place.

I've been working for the same company for 7 years now and I can't believe what I'm reading about the problems some of you guys have in the booth and dealing with management. My first reaction, if I were to be in your position, would be to find another job. However, I think it would eat at me knowing I didn't do my part, as projectionist, to improve a previously flawed presentation and to give people a product worth paying $9+ for.

But I'm sure it's like trying to tell the management at Pizza Hut you think they should go back to making their large pizzas large again.

Posted by Paul Harnden (Member # 1034) on 12-01-2001, 05:30 PM:

Ken,

What company do you work for? I was an assistant/operator myself for Regal, like i said i had little authority too but if someone was screwing something up and not dealing with it I would have a talk with them, if still nothing, I would go to the GM and have them scheduled for floor.
As for going over their head, i guess I wasn't clear sorry. What I meant is to get everything straightened out with your GM, if they don't listen and everything is still going wrong, then talk to your tech. It's always good to talk to your GM, but if they're not listening to you like you said in one of your posts, your tech is always a good way to go.

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 12-01-2001, 07:30 PM:

Apropos ultra-violet, a UA tech once insisted company policy forbade
the use of any visible splicing medium and supplied my booth with
rolls of ultra-violet sensitive splicing tape which was transparent
and not visible in ordinary light, but glowed in ultra violet. I installed a 3-foot UV flourescent lamp over the makeup bench, and
a portable battery lamp was supplied with a six-inch UV tube for
use at the platter and makeup feeder table. Unfortunately, it worked best when the booth was insemi-darkness, and the UV light gave eyestrain and headaches. [I believe it should be banned by OSHA] That experiment soon ended in failure. Another drawback of the UV tape is that when removed it left a sticky residue.

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 12-01-2001, 08:31 PM:

Gerard, I've noted that eyestrain thing with UV and thought it was just me. Does anyone besides Gerard and me have that strange feeling that somehow a UV lit room is bright but you just can't see it, or that things aren't focusing right?

I think if the UV light were over the platters and there was other light in the booth it wouldn't be as strange. Tape adhesive is of course unrelated to the effect.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-01-2001, 09:35 PM:

Well, I may have an explanation for that. The way I understand it, your eyes aren't sensitive to UV and your pupils don't respond to is by constricting, as they do with visible wavelengths, only UV does hurt the eyes just the same. Your eyes are, in essence, defenseless against UV. That's why you get eyestrain when exposed to a lot of UV for a long time.

This is why wearing the wrong kind of dark sunglasses can be bad for our eyes. The reduced intensity of light causes the pupils to dialate, thus allowing MORE UV to enter the eye. If the sunglasses you wear aren't the kind that filters out (a substantial portion of) the UV spectrum you are actually causing even MORE damage to your eyes than you would if you wore none.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-03-2001, 01:01 PM:

Gerard is correct: Excessive exposure to ultraviolet energy can cause eye damage, and any ultraviolet lamp would need to meet appropriate safety requirements. UV-absorbing glasses may offer some eye protection (e.g., like people wear in tanning booths).

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 12-03-2001, 10:52 PM:

I came across this when I was browsing Kodak's site today. Anybody ever hear of it?
Technicolor Offers User's Guide

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-04-2001, 01:01 AM:

Yeah, they sent those out to most theaters last year. It was nothing more than publicity fluff.

I just love the way those check frames turned up not too long after I proposed them here on Film-Tech.

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 12-04-2001, 09:01 AM:

John, consumer UV sources are all long-wave. The damaging UV is short-wave. This is the type used in tanning booths, mineral identification, electronics etching with xenon short arcs, etc. The "blacklight" fluorescent tubes have the protection built in as a property of the cobalt blue tube itself.

Link

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-04-2001, 12:42 PM:

Jerry --- thanks. Certainly short wavelength UV is more dangerous. But I still would limit my exposure, especially for the eyes, as even a "safe" source may have some short wavelength UV.

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 12-04-2001, 02:26 PM:

I guess that is prudent. I wear glasses that protect against this anyway.

One theatre that Wometco had used 300watt UV mercury lamps with built-in filters to illuminate a hallway where the rug had day-glo threads. There must have been a dozen lights and the effect was striking. I don't recall the employees getting tanned or complaining of eye problems.

The kind of light I'm thinking about would be one of the four or eight inch fluorescent tubes, with a shield against direct viewing. Given that it would only be used for short periods of time, and the level would be low, I doubt there would be much of a problem.

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 12-04-2001, 08:08 PM:

Well, I never heard of check frames. Are they provided by Technicolor?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-04-2001, 09:11 PM:

They are now. If you ask, they will fax them to you. I still think my idea is better, for it would be available in color, on the internet and would cover all studios, not just the ones that TES ships for.

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 12-04-2001, 09:41 PM:

Brad, just as we post information in the Feature Info forum, why don't we have a section somewhere on this site for check frames? Members could submit the pictures to you and you could complie a list of films with a link to the pics of the frames. Or, we could even have a forum for it. The only problem is that many people, myself included, don't have digital cameras or scanners. Heck, I don't even own a regular camera, so I wouldn't be able to take a picture at all. But surely someone would be able to get a picture of every print's check frames.

Posted by Paul Harnden (Member # 1034) on 12-04-2001, 10:44 PM:

hmmmmm.......

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-04-2001, 11:03 PM:

Getting the frames taken could NOT be done by members submitting them. It would take me forever to go through everyone's submission and properly crop and resize the shots, for no two people's pictures would be the same. Plus, who's to say that they are submitting the proper frames? Sad as this may seem, only a few of the people who submit pictures for the warehouse actually READ the submission guidelines (much like people 99% of the time fail to read the FAQ page before asking the same questions over and over). Most people send in pictures with their original camera file names and a bunch of unlabeled captions. Somehow we are supposed to know where the caption "Bob in the north booth" is supposed to go when there are 3 shots with male people in the submission package as we try to assemble the pages. It just won't work. The only way would be if myself and perhaps one other specific person took the shots every week. This is easily enough done, but to make it a true value to the projectionist community, the frames need to be online by the day BEFORE the prints open to the public. In other words, if I was to update the site and add the pictures every week on a Friday...a whole lot of good that would do for people trying to assemble their used screener prints Thursday night. I would need a small amount of cooperation from the studios to make it work, and not a one of them seemed to give a flip about it when I approached them before. Heck, it's not their problem, right?

If the studios did care, I could easily see to it that every film had it's ID frames online for anyone to download by the day before the film opens. I just don't see it happening.

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 12-05-2001, 07:31 AM:

The problem with ID frames is an issue with used prints, not new ones, right? So we wouldn't need them the week a film opens, because all the prints would be new (except for the rare occasion you may get a print that was previously screened by someone - I don't think I ever have). By the time those prints start circulating to other theatres, the ID frames would be online.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-05-2001, 01:52 PM:

Actually I see a LOT of used prints circulate on first run. No doubt most of this is due to TES shipping a brand new print to each screening, instead of re-circulating the same couple of prints from screening to screening. Also, if it cannot be online for first run, it's not worth the hassle to me.

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 12-05-2001, 03:35 PM:

Melanoma
Causes, Risk Factors, and Prevention
Ultraviolet (UV) radiation--Experts believe that much of the worldwide increase in melanoma is related to an increase in the amount of time people spend in the sun. This disease is also more common in people who live in areas that get large amounts of UV radiation from the sun. In the United States, for example, melanoma is more common in Texas than it is in Minnesota, where the sun is not as strong. UV radiation from the sun causes premature aging of the skin and skin damage that can lead to melanoma. (Two types of ultraviolet radiation--UVA and UVB--are explained in the Dictionary.) Artificial sources of UV radiation, such as sunlamps and tanning booths, also can cause skin damage and probably an increased risk of melanoma.

Ultraviolet radiation
(ul-tra- VYE-o-let ray-dee-AY-shun): UV radiation. Invisible rays that are part of the energy that comes from the sun. UV radiation can damage the skin and cause melanoma and other types of skin cancer. UV radiation that reaches the earth's surface is made up of two types of rays, called UVA and UVB rays. UVB rays are more likely than UVA rays to cause sunburn, but UVA rays pass deeper into the skin. Scientists have long thought that UVB radiation can cause melanoma and other types of skin cancer. They now think that UVA radiation also may add to skin damage that can lead to skin cancer and cause premature aging. For this reason, skin specialists recommend that people use sunscreens that reflect, adsorb, or scatter both kinds of UV radiation.

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 12-05-2001, 06:05 PM:

Jeffry, I appreciate your posting the links, and I am one who often researches what I post, but I'll have to admit that I myself am overdosed... to the point of being sick... on claims of what is good for us and what isn't.

I think of this warning on one hand, and I think of my father who was an avid boater on the other, often coming back with beet red skin and a nose more glowing than Rudolph's . He died of heart problems in his 80s. Others in my family were farmers toiling in the sun most summer days. None had problems with skin cancers and most lived similar persiods, and many are still kicking.

We live. Eventually we die. In between, we have to figure out what we want to do, and what might seriously cut our life short or impare it. I am not about to consider long wave UV as a determining factor in my life. The scientists who have a hunch and want to make me live in fear can make strong lip contact with my glutious maximumus.

(Nothing personal, and I appreciate your bringing it to my attention that yet another group wants to limit us to play-dough and styrofoam.)

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 12-05-2001, 07:36 PM:

The reason for my previous post was to point out that both types of ultraviolet light may damage the skin.

I don't want to stray too far off topic, so I won't post further on skin damage.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-05-2001, 11:13 PM:

We were *on* topic?

George Carlin: Scientists have found that saliva causes cancer. But only when ingested in small amounts over long periods of time.