Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: I really need to start splicing head and tail leaders back on the prints

This is topic I really need to start splicing head and tail leaders back on the prints 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=002937

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 01-06-2002, 01:25 AM:

Seriously, Ive known for a while that its supposed to be done this way, but havent convinced myself to do it until recently.
The only problem I've had when doing this is finding the best way to do it.
I have a STRONG makeup table where the reel lies sideways on top of it and there is not enough room for the splicer.

I tried setting the splicer on top of the reel to make the splice, gut quickly realized that its waaaay too dangerous and I could risk dropping the splicer.

Then i tried doing it at the platter and the only problem there is that sometimes the tail leaders are too short and they come off of the reel and I have to wind them up to keep them off the floor and then put them back on the reel.

Is there a better way to do this or is the second option the way to go?

Posted by Josh Kirkhart (Member # 1046) on 01-06-2002, 02:21 AM:

At the very least use masking tape to reattach the heads and tails.
It takes only a small amount of tape to do the job. try to find the least sticky available to decrease any damage to the ajoining frames. Absolutely do not use double sided tape.

I was shown this when I first began and was told it was to save time. I use a strong to break down also and I have no problem in fitting the splicer in between the reel and take up rollers. If anything place a sturdy small box below the make up table and place the splicer on top and do your splices there. Hope any of this helps.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-06-2002, 02:27 AM:

The professional way of breaking down a print is to single sided splice the leaders back on. I've used the Strong table and there is enough room for the splicer, although not a lot. If you have to, place the splicer on the table to make your splice, then set it elsewhere while you unload the reel.

Remember, when breaking down do NOT use the cutting blade on your splicer to separate the splice. Doing so will only damage the initial cut and force the next guy to chop off two frames to make a good joint. Also do NOT chop off another frame so you don't have to peel the splicing tape off. Again, the professional way to break down is to peel your splicing tape off and reattach the leaders with a single sided splice. However, in a rush situation, I've personally no problem if you just tear the splice in your hands, leaving the splicing tape in tact, and just lay a single sided splice on top. That way if the next theater cares enough to save the frame (sadly most don't these days), they can do the peel job for you.

I don't know what theater you work for James, but I do know that AMC actually TEACHES the practice of breaking down without reattaching the leaders. (You see, using half a foot of splicing tape is WAAAAAAY too costly for a print on ship out in AMC's opinion.) An alternative acceptable solution in AMC's eyes is to use a piece of the cheapest, nastiest masking tape you can find. Both are completely unacceptable methods of breaking down and I wish someone at AMC would get in there and change that company policy/training practice. Frequently when I've received a print that played (even if just one time for a screening) at an AMC, I have to chop off multiple frames because I cannot get that damned masking tape goo off of the film and I don't want a brain wrap in the middle of my show from it. If the print came from one of the "just tuck the film under the leader and ship it out" AMCs, there is almost always scratching where the film rubbed up against itself and frequently damaged sprockets and folded film too. Stupid, stupid, stupid!

(I might add that I know of at least 4 times where I flat out rejected a print due to such carelessness during breakdown that only played once at an AMC and that theater DID have to pay for a new copy.)

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 01-06-2002, 03:12 AM:

In AMC's defense, they are currently making many changes in how projectionists are trained and how things are done. I do not know everything involved as parts of it are being rolled out a little at a time, but the latest update on biuldup policy did make mention of actually splicing leaders back on.

As far as tape is concerned, the only tape that is now approved by AMC is the white paper tape from permacel (the same stuff used on many prints behind the title on the head and tail leaders).

Despite the reputation they may have, they are making some improvements on how things are done.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-06-2002, 03:31 AM:

That's very good to hear. But do bewarned that the Permacel Artist's tape DOES leave a residue if left on the print for months. If the print goes straight to another theater it isn't too big of a deal, but if the print goes back to the depot and ends up as a repertory print, it could sit there for months or a few years before it is sent out again.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 01-06-2002, 10:08 AM:

Dear God, please don't use masking tape to "re-attach" the leaders. I work in a few booths with c/o's. It is a hassle to have to fast forward, then rewind, every reel to attach the tail leader so it won't jam in the projector when it's acually run.

Like Brad said; if you are in a hurry, just rip the splice by hand and place a peice of tape on one side. Not ideal, but it will run through OK.

Could you make the top of the make-up table a little bigger by bolting a peice of wood to it, like a shelf?

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 01-06-2002, 01:07 PM:

James, I've used Strong MUT's in the past. Like Brad said, there is enough room for the splicer. I put it between the reel and the rollers. I find it a good idea, as was mentioned, to put the splicer on the floor when I'm done with it.

Yes, using splicing tape is the ony professional way to go. But if you must use masking tape, I also recommend white paper tape. I've heard it referred to as non-oozing tape, I guess because it doesn't leave goo behind. Anyway, I don't know who makes the stuff I use, but I purchase it from Tape Products Company. It's about 3 dollars a roll, but it's much better than regular masking tape. Much more professional. I have their phone number and the product number if you're interested.

Posted by Howard Johnson (Member # 62) on 01-06-2002, 01:43 PM:

I'm glad I'm not the only peeler! I do seem to be in a minority in the UK though. I've always used it and it's nice to receive a print with the leaders taped one side so it's easy to make up on a tower or for change-overs. I really hate leaders that are just wound in with the film. It doesn't take much longer to tape them.

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 01-06-2002, 04:45 PM:

I was never talking about leaving the splicer on the makeup table while winding the film on the reel, just for splicing.

Has the design of the STRONG makeup table been altered in the past few years?

I know mins stands shorted than some others (at one of my old theatres you could make up and break down from the middle platter without using thr rollers; on these you cant), but is the main body also narrower?

I put down an empty reel and a splicer to see just how much room I would have. I could fit the splicer there just barely, but with no room to make a splice. My theatre was biult in 1999.

Posted by Mike Judge (Member # 558) on 01-06-2002, 08:02 PM:

This is where I hear my dad saying to me, "Where there's a will, there's a way." What about the floor? For safety's sake, whenever I'd break down I'd set my splicer on the floor up against the wall. I knew that I wouldn't step on it, I was more afraid of bumping the MUT and causing some sort of catastrophe. Next time you break down, look objectively at what you want to get done, find what will work best for you, in keeping with the most professional job possible, and you will find your answer. I agree with John though, it certainly isn't masking tape! Even in a platter booth, nothing I hate more than taking the leader off, and getting snagged by a half-assed replaced leader. Teach the respect and bring the honor back.

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 01-09-2002, 09:10 AM:

Gee Whiz! I'd settle for a print that had the correct leaders and tails (as long as there was a reference frame) whether they were spliced on or not.

In contast to the usual scrached up shit I usually get my print of Serendipity this weekend (second run) was absolutely gorgeous. Almost brand new.... not a scratch or a mark on it. However, except for the tail of the last reel number 5, there was not a head or a tail included with the print. (Probably in a prior operator's trash can somewhere). There were white bands around the reels..... but none of those was marked either. It was a 5 reel print so Reels 1 & 5 were easily identified. Not having seen the feature before, I was forced to run a couple of the middle reels just to determine the order.

The last time I had to do this was with The Full Monty a couple of years back and even with screening the reels I still got it wrong!

Posted by Bob Healey (Member # 1003) on 01-09-2002, 10:15 AM:

I had something similar happen with Xmen. The last reel had a tail, reel 1 had some clear film for a head. The only thing that made assembling it easy was that on breakdown, instead of undoing the splices at reel change, who ever had it last just cut it diagonally across the frame as soon as the shipping reel was full. Print went back out with the reels in proper configuration

Posted by Carl King (Member # 398) on 01-10-2002, 11:38 AM:

Masking tape? On film? Good Lord, NO NO NO!!

Please, if there is anyone on this site who uses masking tape to join head/tails to reels please stop immediately. It is not only detrimental to the film it is very unprofessional in both practise and appearance. Not to insult anyone, but , when I see masking tape used to join tails to reels the first thing that pops in my head is "lazy s.o.b.". Is that the opinion you want people to have of you or your work? I think not.

Carl

Posted by Carl King (Member # 398) on 01-10-2002, 11:44 AM:

another thought: You're right when yu say that the room for splicers on the Strong m/up tables is minimal. I solved the prpoblem.
Check out yard sales or your basement and find a samll table. I have one that was an old elementary school desk. You know the type.. with the empty space below the desktop but any small table will do fine. During m/up or t/dwn I set the table nearby and use it to place my splicer or anything else I need to complete the task. My next project is to put it on castors so I can push it around the booth instead of carrying it. Lazy, eh?

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 01-10-2002, 01:33 PM:

I've always groaned when getting used prints with the leaders taped onto the film and the splicing tape not peeled off- unfortunately that seemed to be on the majority of used prints! The last people I trained I pounded into their heads what a bad thing it was to do that!

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 01-10-2002, 05:11 PM:

Here's another solution if you are uncomfortable breaking down on the small MUT.

Back the print off the platter onto 6,000 ft reels. Take them back to your make-up bench. There you can reattach the heads and tails of each reel in better light. Easier to peel off your splicing tape and make your splices, too!

Granted, you ship the print out tails up, but look at it this way. If it goes to a platter house, it's a snap to build tails up onto 6,000's and you don't need to rewind- just spin onto the platters.
If the print goes to a changeover house, it is easy for the projectionist to inspect for cue marks and then run the print onto house reels.

Posted by Brent Mahaney (Member # 1090) on 01-11-2002, 01:09 AM:

You know, before you start thinking to yourself, "Lazy S.O.B's," you have to realize that there are some theatres that actually teach this quick breakdown method. When I started in booth, I was taught to tear the splice, attach the heads and tails with masking tape, and then throw it in the can. I had absolutely no idea that it could cause trouble for the next theatre that received the print.

Being a rehabilitated improperly-trained projectionist, I tend to have a little more mercy on those booth people who don't know any better. Hopefully, threads like this one will serve the purpose of teaching the professional way to tear down.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 01-11-2002, 02:58 PM:

That's true; I forgot to add that the theater's "Booth Certifier"(TM) subsequently had my trainees build used prints for the summer kids' matinees by CUTTING off the frames that had the previous theater's splicing tape!!!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-11-2002, 08:59 PM:

Sometimes there is no choice but to cut off the tape. Anytime I receive a print which has Zebra tape all over the ends (which happens more often than not) I have to cut the tape-covered frames off. That stuff just won't peel well at all, nor will any other cheap splicing tape.

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 01-11-2002, 11:18 PM:

I hate to say it, but it seems like most Certifiers don't truly care about Film Done Right. Jesse, yours isn't the only horror story I've heard about certification gone wrong. Seems like some of them just care about getting their money. Certifiers like me seem to be the exception, not the rule. After all, how many others are members here? AFAIK, I am the only one. If there are any others, please speak and be heard!

I can say that I do know two really good certifiers, and I'm sure there are others. I just wish all of them were as good as these two.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 01-12-2002, 07:51 AM:

Given the choice of receiving a print with all the heads, tails, bands etc. tossed in the cans loose or attached with masking tape, white paper tape, hell, even duct tape is better than unidentified. Tape goo I can get off.

Posted by Steve Anderson (Member # 364) on 01-12-2002, 09:58 AM:

What about the tape you see used on the head and tail of the film where the print and reel number show? What kind of masking tape is this. If you peel away some of that tape there is no sticky glue left behind.....

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 01-12-2002, 11:12 AM:

That is "white paper tape" or "artist's tape," which for some reason is different form masking tape. Available from a mail-order company called Tape Products Company. I have the phone number if you want it. I'm sure you can get it other places, too, I just don't know where.

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 01-12-2002, 03:04 PM:

I have had pretty good luck wiht drafting tape.. Unless you leave it on for a while, it won't leave reside behind. However, unlike permacel, you can get drafting tape at OfficeMax...

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-13-2002, 12:47 AM:

Just about any of the splicing tapes CAN be peeled off, though the crap is certainly more work.

On "Zebra tape" peel off the top layer, thereby leaving the sticky part behind. Use masking or like tape to pull the glue off by pressing the masking tape onto the glue area and pulling the masking tape off rapidly...repeat as needed to remove the glue.

Steve

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

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-08-2002, 07:41 PM:

Wow. I just happened across this thread by accident. Brad comments, "I have to chop off multiple frames because I cannot get that damned masking tape goo off of the film and I don't want a brain wrap in the middle of my show from it."

Umm, masking tape is annoying, but it's not that annoying. Use of the correct solvent will solve the problem for you, at the cost of spending ~30 seconds scrubbing at the tape residue with a solvent-wetted cotton wipe. There should not be any reason to cut off frames due to residue.

I'm not sure what solvent to recommend; we're happy w/ inhibitted 1,1,1 trichloroethane (aka Renovex), but of course you can't buy Renovex anymore, and can't trivially buy 1,1,1 trichloroethane legally (manufacture now prohibitted in a number of countries, including the US, by the Treaty of Montreal).

But I know there are plenty of other solvents you can use. Some may have inconveniently low flash points, or be slower to evaporate, but that shouldn't be a serious impediment to using them on single frames of film, as opposed to coating the entire print. Some people have recommended using naptha, lighter fluid, etc. And there's of course Renovex II, though I haven't tried it.

--jhawk
(who spends more time cleaning off tape gunk than you might imagine...)

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 11-08-2002, 11:33 PM:

The best solvent for removing ANY tape adhesive residues is good ol' Film-Guard!

spray it on, let it sit for a couple minutes and in most cases simply wipe clean!

-Aaron

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-08-2002, 11:59 PM:

I haven't re-read this thread to see if I mentioned this before, but there is not just the issue of sticky goo on the print. There is also the almost certain possibility that the last guy who had the print did not have a splicer that made a quality cut. If it comes between losing a frame or having a loud POP in the audio, that frame is gone. (I will normally only cut one side of the joint a little bit extra far over from center to prevent me from having to chop a frame from each side. I also always choose the head of the incoming reel so as to not disturb the changeover theaters.)

And before anyone suggests "blooping", I've tried every different technique I've ever seen and I do not like the "bump" it makes in the audio.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-09-2002, 12:22 AM:

Is that a real issue for digital sound?

--jhawk

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-09-2002, 03:42 AM:

If it is digital and the tracks are not damaged, then no I will not chop the frame.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-09-2002, 04:33 AM:

I have a couple of brand new manufactured-this-last-July Strong MUTs, and they really don't seem any different to me, other than the retractable cord is now bright yellow. Whether they are shorter is beyond me, as I have never tried to use the older ones to go straight to the middle platter without using the other rollers, nor would I. But they seem the same.

So why can't Strong MUTs get their power from the platter? The thing I hate most is having to plug the thing into the platter tree AND plug it into the wall. It's a bad and inefficient design. It's so unnecessary.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-09-2002, 09:24 AM:

It is also just your opinion. A strong MUT can also do "quick and dirty" service as a rewind table in a pinch. It can also power the platter in case of catastrophic failue (like the transformer melting down in a AW-3 due to shorted work lamp socket or lamp). I prefer the idea that the work table is unto itself...just my opinion.

Steve

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

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-09-2002, 09:39 AM:

Except for having two cords on the MUT, giving the platter power from the table is a good idea, IMHO.

It reduces the number of wires that have to carry current between the tree and the table. It simplifies the design of both table and tree. Furthermore, it ensures that you'll never blow a fuse in the tree if you try to break a movie down at the same time as a movie is running.

SPECO platters have that problem. If you are playing a movie while breaking down and you turn the speed control knob too fast, you will blow the main power fuse in the tree. Of course, the movie goes down. In order to prevent this you have to turn the know really slowly or you have to put a larger fuse in.

OK, Turn the knob slowly... It's REALLY easy to turn the knob too fast. We tried it this way for a while. Even the occasional one or two of these you tend to get is too much.

Put in a larger fuse... Sounds easy but there's a problem with that too. You take a chance on burning up the insides of the platter. If you ever press two programming buttons of the same color on a SPECO platter you take a chance on burning up the switches. Changing switches on these babies can be a PITA if you don't have the never vintage with the plug-in switches. (Or the retrofit.)
Why would you need replaceable switches if they didn't get blown all the time?

The simplest, most elegant solution for avoiding all those problems is to have the MUT on its OWN SEPERATE power supply. The only thing that really bugs me is that the power cord doesn't retract like the "umbilical" does. At least they could put a cleat on the side of the table to wind the cord on.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-09-2002, 12:24 PM:

The separate plug thing doesn't bother me at all...most outlets are duplexes so there is a plug ready willing and able.

I agree on having both retractable...I also would prefer a much better strain releaf. The Potts/Strong tables have a ball that slowly gets pushed to the connector and eventually will force the wires broken...kinda defeating it's purpose.

Steve

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

Posted by Scott Balko (Member # 438) on 11-09-2002, 01:16 PM:

Well, I would just like to say that being a film collector before becoming a theatre owner really helped in the "respect for film" department. In building a print, I always use clear tape (the good stuff too) and use gloves so as not to get any skin oil on the film. Then every run of every print gets the film guard treatment and the heads and tails are spliced back on at breakdown time. I believe the print should leave my theatre in as good or better condition than it arrived. We are all in this together and if I keep the print in an enjoyable condition for other exibitors, we all benefit. I too have recieved used prints that had Scotch tape splices and other crap done to the print and never wanted to pass that kind of frustration on. I figure that if I don't like dealing with this shit, no one else does either.

Just my two cents worth.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-09-2002, 09:41 PM:

A clever lad like Joe ought to be able to install a metal ceiling and floor around his platters and rig the MUT's with trolley poles like the old bumper cars!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-10-2002, 01:29 AM:

Hmmm... hadn't thought of that. I guess I'll be stopping by the hardware store on the way to work tomorrow.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-10-2002, 10:20 PM:

Brad Said:

quote:
...but I do know that AMC actually TEACHES the practice of breaking down without reattaching the leaders. (You see, using half a foot of splicing tape is WAAAAAAY too costly for a print on ship out in AMC's opinion.) ... and I wish someone at AMC would get in there and change that company policy/training practice.

Workin on it. One theater at a time.

Posted by Daniel Boisson (Member # 1027) on 11-11-2002, 02:08 AM:

At my old theatre, we use architecture's tape(I think that's what its called). It's similar to masking tape, but the sticky side isn't as sticky, so it wont tear paper, or in this case, leave a residue.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-11-2002, 08:14 AM:

That's "drafting tape," Daniel.
Personally, I suspect it will degrade over long enough, too, but I don't know from experience.

Using good tape is certainly the right and conscientious thing to do, but the fact of the matter is that everyone should be prepared to clean off nasty tape residue, and have the tools to do so. Because you're never going to stop absolutely everyone from using nasty tape...

--jhawk

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-11-2002, 08:24 AM:

Someone else also mentioned that in a post some time ago, but I can't find it. I think they said it was blue? Anyway, Daniel, do you have a supplier for the architect's tape? I am game to try anything that holds well but leaves no residue. Perhaps a few of us could test it out. As Brad mentioned, even artist's tape will leave residue after a few years, although unlike masking tape, the adhesive on artist's tape is rubber based and will always remain flexible and not flake off. Masking tape adhesive on the other hand will become hard as nails and it does flake. Eventually the particles will migrate into the body of the print where it acts just like sandpaper. That's a worry you don't have with artist's tape and why, so far, it has been the hold-down tape of choice. But this architect's tape may be even better. A few of us should get a couple of rolls and give it a try. Who knows, it might become THE definitive hold-down tape for film.

I have also tried using a thinner artist's tape -- 3/8th inch. It holds down film ends down just as well as the wider widths, plus, if it does leave a residue after a long period, there isn't as much of it to clean off.

Specs for a PERFECT splicing tape:

It stays supple forever; never hardens.

It will not ooze adhesive.

The adhesive comes off on the tape ONLY, never on the film when it is
removed.

The width is two full frames.

It is thicker than present tape -- thick enough so that it will not tear when it is pulled off.

The adhesive grip does not increase with age. It should be able to be removed as easily after 5 years as it was the day it was applied.

Anyone else have any other specs they would like to see in the perfect splicing tape?

3M Scientists....are you listening? Come to think of it, shouldn't the Kodak people have come up with this years ago -- the better splicing tape? And the better hold-down tape, for that matter. You would think this would be a natural product for them. They were all into those splice tabs for the 8mm consumer market years ago. Do they have a splicing tape line for 35mm commercial operation?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-11-2002, 08:27 AM:

I like the idea of 8-perf tape, but does anyone make an 8-perf splicer?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-11-2002, 08:35 AM:

quote:
Specs for a PERFECT splicing tape:
It stays supple forever; never hardens.
It will not ooze adhesive.
The adhesive comes off on the tape ONLY, never on the film when it is
removed.
The width is two full frames.
It is thicker than present tape -- thick enough so that it will not tear when it is pulled off.
The adhesive grip does not increase with age. It should be able to be removed as easily after 5 years as it was the day it was applied.
Anyone else have any other specs they would like to see in the perfect splicing tape?

Frank, with the 8 perf width exception, Neumade clear tape already offers this. I have prints that are 10 years old that I can effortlessly peel the splicing tape off of without the slightest hint of residue. They also do not lose their strength or pliability over age. If only Neumade would make 8 perf wide tape and modify their splicer just a tad to accept it, they would really have THE splicer. (Not that they don't already, it would just be that much better.) Get a spare trailer and a roll of Neumade clear tape and make a bunch of splices in it, alternating from whatever you use now and the Neumade. Every few months go in and try to remove one splice of each. All other brands get worse and worse with time, but not Neumade's!

Assuming there is ample leader on the prints, the only major time I have an issue with cheap masking tape or old Artist's tape is when people use it on trailers. All that has to be done is for a short loop of film to be wrapped around the trailer (like a reel band) before labeling, and any crappy old tape can be used without damage to the trailer. It also protects that first foot of it from getting scratched and dirty from handling and storage. There are pictures of this in the "tips" section under "cutting trailers properly". (Scroll to the bottom of the page.)

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-12-2002, 12:07 AM:

Brad,

I know you have praised Neumade tape for awhile now; it definately will be my next batch. And no question their splicers are hands down the best. When I know I am going to a booth where they have the one with the tape roll in the front, I carry my Neumade with me.

Frank

Posted by Yuichi Uehara (Member # 1443) on 11-12-2002, 03:12 AM:

How is "painter's" tape? That's what we use down here. Also, I've found that applying Xecote w/ a Q-Tip to take off the sticky tape residue works pretty well, also works to remove silver pen marks. I believe rubbing alchohol does the same thing, but never tried it myself.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 11-12-2002, 09:49 AM:

I'm going to have to agree with Steve here (gasp!), having a seperate power cord on the Strong MUT is a definate plus. When I'm building up a print I usually have the other MUT plugged in and set up near the platter I'm building on. If I come to a reel that's tails up I can rewind it on the extra mut while a reel is being built onto the platter. A real time saver.

Posted by Daniel Boisson (Member # 1027) on 11-12-2002, 12:43 PM:

Frank, we never had any supplier, the head projectionist just buys it a hardware store I presume.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-12-2002, 01:49 PM:

How do you do your inspection Dustin? A MUT is an awful lousy way to do the job.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 11-12-2002, 01:57 PM:

Inspection? *cynical laugh* As if I have time for imspection. You try cleaning twelve theatres, loading the projectors, and building prints at the same time.

What sort of inspection are you talking about anyway? When dealing with release prints about the only things you are going to run into are lab splices and possible lab defects. Its easier to find lab defects when you screen the movie and we don't remove lab splices. So, I suppose even if I did have the time I'm not sure if I'd do an 'inspection,' at least for release prints.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-12-2002, 02:08 PM:

quote:
"Inspection? *cynical laugh* As if I have time for imspection. You try cleaning twelve theatres, loading the projectors, and building prints at the same time."

Sorry to hear that. I forget how cheap some places can be with their presentation...the very thing that brings the customers to the theater in the first place.

The most aggravating thing I keep running across with brand new prints is white lab tape ramdonly thrown into the film roll. I don't know who or how or why, but it happens all the time and it would easily cause the film to jump a sprocket and cause damage.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 11-12-2002, 02:16 PM:

I've never run into the white tape thing. I'd think you could see that as a dark flash on the screen, like when you use opaque splicing tape. Even if you can't see it on screen, we've never had the film jump the sprockets because of that. Not saying you're lying, just that I've been lucky so far.

I'd also like to make it clear that I do inspect prints if they come from another theatre. I spent several hours repairing splices in a print of 'Haloween' that we ran for just six showings. Several hours of my own time, btw (don't you just love salary?).

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-12-2002, 02:58 PM:

If there is undeveloped emulsion (opaque purple color) under the tape, the tape was on the print film before processing. If there is an image under the tape, the tape got on the print at process machine take-off, inspection projection, "positive assembly", or at the film exchange.

Sometimes, tape may be used to reinforce an ultrasonic lab splice if the operator is unsure it is reliable enough to go through the printer and processing machine, and doesn't have time to redo the splice as the raw stock feeds into the printer elevator. These splices are normally removed during positive assembly or inspection.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: here Kodak Website

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-12-2002, 03:01 PM:

There has always been an image under the tape. The tape peels off effortlessly too, but it frequently blocks the sprocket holes. The worst offender of this is Deluxe Hollywood, but I have seen it on other lab's prints on occasion.

This shouldn't be happening at the film exchange, as it is wound into the roll and the exchanges don't bother to unwind the rolls anymore.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-12-2002, 03:42 PM:

I ran into the "white tape thing" with a trailer recently. Can't remember the title. It looked two film ends were just randomly taped together in the lab. Maybe it was supposed to be a lab splice that got overlooked somehow? The image was dark and discolored on both sides of the tape too, and it would have definitely caused trouble if it ran thru the machine.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-12-2002, 04:05 PM:

Mike wrote: "The image was dark and discolored on both sides of the tape too, and it would have definitely caused trouble if it ran thru the machine."

Discoloration under or around the tape usually indicates the tape was on the raw stock. Probably a tape-reinforced splice before printing or processing that should normally have been removed.