Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Ali is a bi*ch

This is topic Ali is a bi*ch 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=002934

Posted by Michael Wohlford (Member # 905) on 01-05-2002, 01:39 AM:

Is Ali printed on a new kind of film? Every single fricken showing we have of it, a small bump forms and loads of static come into play. Our booth's humidity is at a normal level because all other prints are fine. Every showing, basically, a brainwrap occurs. We had to get a replacment print because the other one was soo bad with static. When we got our 2nd one in, it was fine, until a few days ago. We flip our prints, we mist anti-static on the platter, our platters are grounded properly, we cleaned the print with film cleaner (no film-guard), we clean our platters. What gives? Anyone have this problem?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-05-2002, 01:48 AM:

Out of curiosity, what kind of platter? Are you running Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings in your complex?

(I've heard of no problems with prints of Ali locally, but everyone in town that I know uses FilmGuard.)

Posted by Michael Wohlford (Member # 905) on 01-05-2002, 02:05 AM:

We have CFS super platters. We do have H.P. and L.O.R. I failed to mention that Ali has been through 3 different projectors, all having static.

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 01-05-2002, 03:03 AM:

Time for question #2: Is the film winding tightly on the platter ring? or is it 'spongy' if you press inwards from the edge? If it is spongy, you have something in the film path (likely a too-tight pad roller or hooked sprocket, or someone misthreaded a show, it only takes once in most cases) that is stretching the film on the edges or the perfs causing very static-looking results.

-Aaron

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 01-05-2002, 03:52 AM:

These problems were also reported among our theatres in the Houston area.
I dont know if all our theatres had this problem, but apparently we were all shipped new prints.
My theatre had NO static problems (thank you, FILMGUARD) so when they came back for it, we just gave them the unused print.

Posted by Michael Wohlford (Member # 905) on 01-05-2002, 12:38 PM:

Aaron,

I don't beleive that anything could be in the way. Like I said, the print has been through 3 projectors. Our platters are pretty well timed and stuff. At this time of year with the static season, sometimes when we pull out the ring, a small bump forms, but nothing really happens. We shouldn't have the print for long, because we are asking our booker to get rid of it. Its a pain to babysit the print every show.

Posted by Neil Hunter (Member # 1005) on 01-05-2002, 01:23 PM:

Michael,

my theater is having a similar problem with LOTR, HP, and our two prints of Ali both threw simultaneously the night they were previewed. We have the all Christie package. We have constant brain wrap problems with one of our LOTR's, but the other runs perfect every show. It is hard to get those AW3's to work properly.

Posted by Michael Wohlford (Member # 905) on 01-05-2002, 01:35 PM:

I am just wondering if they are printed on a new kind of film. If so, I hope that all future prints will not be printed on this.

Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 01-05-2002, 06:00 PM:

Michael, we run CFS platters, and i know very well the bump you are describing, as well as the static problems, etc, that this 'bump' causes. Our solution, in the end, was very simple - get some Filmguard if you dont already have some. Spray some on a cloth, then wipe onto the film, as per the instructions (in an emergency you can do this while it's running). Since adopting this we have never had any problems with static or brainwraps. Trust me this is the answer to your problem! Order a bottle, and keep an eye on your platters til it arrives, once it comes, treat the print once and watch as your problem magically disappears!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-05-2002, 09:11 PM:

Neil, on your AW3 platters, if you open up the side panel and look at the led card, are there 3 (or 5) small trimpots, or just resistors soldered onto the board?

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 01-05-2002, 09:54 PM:

So Neil, do you work at the Tinseltown 14.

Posted by Neil Hunter (Member # 1005) on 01-05-2002, 09:55 PM:

Brad, they have trim pots. We just upgraded our platters to have LED'sif I remember correctly. The problem, is when there is static, the platter stops spinning completely for a second or two, then the film gets pulled through the brain and jerks the feed arm back and thus jerks the platter very quickly, and the print gets moved around. If it weren't for the trailer cores we tape around the prints they would throw almost every show.

Posted by Neil Hunter (Member # 1005) on 01-05-2002, 10:01 PM:

Darryl,

Yes I do.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 01-05-2002, 10:18 PM:

Cool, How is Don M, doing? He ever yak about me...

On those platters Do you have the same problem on both platter decks or just one.....and do you try to run with the soundtrack down.....sometimes this helps with static....

Posted by Paul Harnden (Member # 1034) on 01-06-2002, 12:06 AM:

I've had this same problems, but with other prints. Filmguard is a big help and rewinding with the soundtrack down helps also, just wanted to confirm and offer a second opinion.

Posted by Neil Hunter (Member # 1005) on 01-06-2002, 12:44 AM:

Darryl,

What a small world it is! Don used to be an assistant manager at my theater two years ago, and then he went to Kentucky, and I moved up north. Then he came back and shortly after that I came back. We run soundtrack up. I will try running soundtrack down. The static problems are pretty much on all platters, but it gets worse with the longer prints.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-06-2002, 12:49 AM:

Your platters are not timed properly then. Throw the Christie manual in the trash and use the technique outlined in the tips section here and much of your problems will go away. If you can operate a multimeter, you can do the timing yourself.

Oh and DON'T let your tech put in the "new" led retrofit speed control kit that Christie is passing off as "superior". There are still some serious issues with it.

Posted by Brent Mahaney (Member # 1090) on 01-06-2002, 01:13 AM:

I am having similar problems with one print of LOTR and one print of Ali. I have had absolutely no trouble with static since this theatre has been open. I'm sure Film Guard would be a good solution (pun intended). Wish me luck on trying to get somebody to make the investment! I'll give it a go right after I make a few more fruitless attempts to get my useless economy splicers replaced...

Posted by Josh Kirkhart (Member # 1046) on 01-06-2002, 02:38 AM:

As to the AW3's and static causing the feed arm to accelerate the platter and wrapping or throughing. If filmguard is not a solution available to you and cannot get the platter speeds correct try this.
Place a D-Cell battery on the brain in the path of the feed arm, this will stop the arm from flinging as far and speeding up. The battery should be placed past the top speed line on the platter and secured so as not to fly around itself and be the cause of its very own brainwrap.
My real advice is to time your platters even if its just with your watch according to specs and order some filmguard out of petty cash and impress your boss with less film stops and better presentation. Filmguard is not always the solution (in fact, one of the assistants ata previous theatre used filmguard as a platter cleaner, oh boy did those prints fly, that was a crazy time and not fun to fix), but in this case it should solve these problems even used in the minimal way.

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 01-06-2002, 03:07 AM:

I second Brad's suggestion to time the platters his way. Try to take a bit of the spring tension off the feed arm as well, to avoid any 'dragging' troubles after the timiing is changed. It makes an AW3 run sooooo nicely.

-Aaron

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-06-2002, 03:33 AM:

Oh geez. So I guess the bottles now need to say "not for use as a platter cleaner". Kind of like the hairdryer that has the disclaimer "do not use while sleeping".

Foolish sounding disclaimers like that always happen because someone has actually DONE it.

Posted by Josh Kirkhart (Member # 1046) on 01-06-2002, 05:27 AM:

The whole thing was just bad! I was on vacation and somebody thought itwas a good idea to let a new hire manager into the booth. The way he told it, he was supposed to clean up the booth, vacuuming etc. He was overjoyed 'to use his words' to be off the floor he wanted to keep busy so he decided to clean the platters. He read 'film cleaner' on the bottle and assumed MULTI-PURPOSE. Next round cometh and film was a flying. I was called in an hourlater and was screamed at by the General manager and anyone else that wasn't busy doing something including customers. He had not fessed up about the filmguard and I walked in, slid my finger across a platter and about had a heart attack at about the same time he pronounced that he'cleaned the platters'. Heavy cleaning and everything was back to normal. He was positioned in box office and never lived it down. My most horrible experience in the booth.

Instead of disclaimersmon the bottle, people themselves should come labeled 'not booth trained' on thier forehead.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-06-2002, 07:58 AM:

AFAIK, all prints of "Lord of the Rings" were on Fujicolor print film.
I believe that "Ali" and "Harry Potter" were on Kodak VISION Color Print film, at least in North America.

Winter is usually the worst time of year for "static cling" problems, because of the change in humidity caused by indoor heating. Even though Kodak VISION Color Print film has a conductive backside layer to help discharge static, "static cling" can still be an issue in some theatres, especially if the platter surface and rollers are non-conductive. As mentioned, platter timing and leveling also play an important role. Long movies (like LOTR and HP) also tend to be more sensitive to static cling, as the outer laps of film on the platter are pulled away at such a small angle, that even very slight static attraction between film surfaces can pull extra laps of film.

For additional protection against static cling, Kodak recommends an antistatic process additive that is used by most of the labs. We have had cases where the additive had not been used at the correct concentration, giving inadequate static protection. Post-process treatments that provide additional conductivity or change the charge balance (like FilmGuard) can also help.

If you provide the title and print number, the lab name (if known), and the full magenta edge-print numbers from the affected reels, we can track the film batch and lab records to see if there is anything out of the ordinary about these prints. Send the detailed information to me off-line. But I suspect there are other factors, related to the conditions and equipment in the theatre.

Here are some recent articles to help theatres reduce static problems:
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/september99/pointers.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/september98/pppp.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/faq/static.shtml

------------------
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 Tom Fermanian (Member # 1094) on 01-06-2002, 02:27 PM:

Hey! just for clarity's sake, let's make it clear, besides physical weight of film stock,and some proccessing savings for the lab and minor impact on the environment, why in heaven's name did we,as theatre operators allow the swith to this troublesome film stock. We had to spend money bu putting safety'features on our equipement, film choppers etc.Godd money that could have been spent on better improvement (lenses etc.) Things where going well with the old tri-acetate stock, they tell us that the film will last longer, ha, with all the multiple prints today ,most pictures are thru within a month anyhow.Local labs confirmed that film stock prices are about the same between both types. The decision is up to the distributor.With digital cinema supposedly coming in the next few years, industry should not horse around with the dreaded (for cinemas anyway) mylar stock. I can't, in my region find any projectionist or theatre owner that has anything positive to say about this.

Anything realy good to be said (for theatre operators) about mylar?

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

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-06-2002, 02:54 PM:

The Labs and others didn't want it but NATO and its members did the thought that no more film breaks was to big of carrot
estar film actually weighs more and I no of no enviromental advantage to estar either.
The exihibition industry wanted it and now they are stuck with it

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 01-06-2002, 04:44 PM:

"The exihibition industry wanted it and now they are stuck with it."

Really? I thought it was the other way.. ie; the distributors wanted because they had to pay for replacement prints.

I think we are better off with polyester than without it. Admittedly, though, there are still problems. Besides, it's really cool to see some of the spectacular platter wraps, watching the platter pulled to the projector, etc. Never had this much fun with boring acetate.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-06-2002, 06:44 PM:

Kodak cautioned the movie industry about polyester's issues of static charge, projector abrasion (dusting) and extreme strength. I presented a technical paper at ShoWest detailing the concerns found in a trade test with the picture "Mr. Wonderful". Other film manufacturers encouraged the conversion, and Kodak had to follow suit and spend years and hundreds of millions of dollars developing Kodak VISION Color Print film, which has a conductive antistatic backing and is much more resistant to projector abrasion. NATO's Technical Advisory Committee requested the conversion to polyester in 1991, well before Kodak could recommend its use. Distributors favor the reduced perforation wear, and the ability to fit longer features on "mini-platters" with the slightly thinner film.

Posted by Tom Fermanian (Member # 1094) on 01-06-2002, 07:09 PM:

In regards to John's Reply:
Realy!!!fit longer features on mini platters? How many mini-platters out there???, Reduced Perforation wear?? Prints don't seem to play that long anymore, average run on so-so pictures nowadays is 3 or 4 weeks?? When an industry makes a mistake, (Ford had the superior EDSEL car) it was marketed failed to its USER'S expectations,It was retired! Does anyone remember the Simplex aero platter??? Let's do the same with polyester!
BTW, in Canada we get some European product (France-Belgium etc.)some prints still arriving in good ol'e tri-acetate!

MAJOR MAJOR DISADVANTAGE for polyester is static, Projectionists have enough to do to assure a great presentation (Focus,Sound,Framing,Cleanliness) than having to be a Humidity expert/permenant platter watchers, Let's get to work and find the right answer to get rid of Static permenantly, not only Hit or Miss solutions.

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

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-06-2002, 08:59 PM:

I have yet to see in canada a triacetate print from europe recently
Agfa hasn't made acetate stock available for prints for some time
the only acetate I have seen was some BW stock

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-06-2002, 09:04 PM:

I hated the first few years polyester film came out, but I must admit I do really like the latest Kodak Vision 2383 stock of the last couple of years. (I actually prefer the look of 2383 to 2393.) Overall though, I would gladly welcome back a reissue of the 386 acetate stock. The colors were MUCH better as was just about everything else about it. Plus virtually no shedding and no static.

Bear in mind this is coming from someone who markets a product that most people use to eliminate static and shedding and not necessarily because of the improvement in presentation it offers. Bring back acetate!

Posted by Tom Fermanian (Member # 1094) on 01-06-2002, 09:23 PM:

Gord,
In the province of Quebec, the local distributors do import prints directly from Europe, there are loads of art pictures, specialised releases in french/german/russian/other language with sub-titles etc., some of them are Tri-Acetate, some are polyester(Agfa-or Eastman-fuji) polyester.

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

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-07-2002, 05:25 AM:

Gordon: Up until I moved from cinemas to archives early last year, there was still a small but steady trickle of prints from French labs (usually of French titles, but sometimes of British and other European films too) that were still on Fuji triacetate. Eclair seemed to be moving increasingly to poly and had also gone over to high-magenta soundtracks, but LTC were still producing mainly acetate prints. Among the other advantages mentioned I also thought that laser subtitles looker sharper on the acetate prints - possibly because the thicker stock reduced the comparative distance between the focal plains of the burnt subtitle characters and the emulsion?

I do agree with the pro-acetate arguments that have been made here. As most multiplex prints do an intensive 3-6 weeks and are then binned, brittleness and perf damage resulting from age are surely less of an issue than NATO thought they might be when making the decision to convert. And it is far easier and quicker to fix an acetate film break than a polyester platter wrap.

Where poly might be a better bet is for archival release prints (almost always shown in single reels, so wrapping isn't a problem) and rep titles (in distribution for longer, so an acetate print might start deacetylating and going brittle after 1-2 years).

Posted by William Bunch (Member # 1040) on 01-12-2002, 03:45 AM:

Static? What's that all about? I guess "old is better".

All our theaters use cast aluminum house reels within steel "closed door" upper and lower magazines on our 50 year old Simplex XLs running 2,000 ft changeovers. A total cast iron enclosure of sorts.

Never a problem for us, this static thing.

But this is very good info in case any one of our places decides to go platters. Thanks for the discussion.

Bill BuncH
Misawa, Japan

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 02-25-2002, 05:26 PM:

Bumping this up for John Wilson.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-26-2002, 02:07 AM:

Thanks Charles.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-26-2002, 03:57 AM:

Christie makes aluminum anti-static rollers for the payout head. I'm about to order them...does anybody have any thoughts on this?

What about the StaticVac device?

btw, I just ordered my first quart of FilmGuard. It'll be here some time next week.

------------------
And, hey! Let's be careful out there.

~Manny.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-26-2002, 09:13 AM:

Metal rollers provide a path to ground for any static build-up on the surface of the print. Even though KODAK VISION Color Print film has a conductive layer on the back side of the film, the static must find a path to ground, or it stays on the film. That is why platters with non-conductive surfaces (e.g., the Christie AW-2) and plastic rollers tend to have more problems with "static cling". Another way of providing a path to ground is to treat the platter surface and plastic rollers with a conductive anti-stat like "Static Guard" or "Endust for Electronics" --- these compounds contain chemicals (e.g., quarternary ammonium salts) that conduct static electricity.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 585-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 585-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion