Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Sundance

This is topic Sundance 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=003001

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-23-2002, 09:47 PM:

I screened a print today that came to me directly from Sundance.

Their little inspection form indicated "Previously Cut? NO" though this print had been built since there were leader splices. The inferrence is that it had been plattered there at the festival.

It was all very tidy (yes, the leaders were properly spliced on) but I'm still rather surprised. I've done festival screenings via platter and that is really a pain compared to changeover. Further, their paperwork indicated half a dozen screenings or so at 3 or 4 different venues. Do you suppose they are carrying clamped prints all over town? That would make more sense than constant makeup/breakdown. I'm just curious. Any Sundancers present?

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 01-24-2002, 11:11 AM:

There is one location that builds all the prints. Then those built prints are moved to the screening locations.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-24-2002, 03:36 PM:

Hmmmm, that idea kind of reeks to me. As standard practice if I do not have access to a platter reel for buildup, I always make it mandatory the film be screened once from the platter deck in which it was made up from to ensure the tension on the wind is even before it is moved. Any idea on how the Sundance actually handles moving prints around? What kind of platters are they running? (Some takeup very loose.)

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-24-2002, 04:05 PM:

Probably like the Toronto Festival they use the Goldberg platter reel

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-24-2002, 04:20 PM:

Actually from what I was told they use something that reeks even worse for this sort of operation, and that is 36 to 48 inch reels! I can't claim to have actually seen this, but I was told this by a reliable movie studio source. A customer of ours rents his theatre in Heber, Utah to Miramax for Sundance so they can screen prospective films there. They wanted to bring over a print one day on a 4 foot reel to run there but the theatre only has a platter. The sad thing is that there are really no decent movie theatres to screen any of this stuff in up in and around Park City. Some of it is done with makeshift setups in hotels and some at the local Carmike 4 screener?(might be Cinemark) and other locations. The Park City Public Library also has a 35mm booth there as well.
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 01-24-2002, 05:44 PM:

Mark - it was a Cinemark 3-screener. We closed it and in the next month or so are opening a new stadium seating 4-screener that will be christened "Home of the Sundance Film Festival".

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 01-24-2002, 05:58 PM:

Up until 5 years ago, Sundance had no, zero film inspection. The films just arrived at the theatres with platters and whoever built them up. I heard that presentation at Sundance was a joke. 4 or 5 years ago a group of projectionists from the Telluride Film Festival went to Sundance and created a film inspection department. Funk Roseman, Barbara Grassia and Bill Hill are the film inspectors. They inspect and build up prints on 13,000' reels for transport about the festival. They have yet to discover the joys of the Goldberg reel. Converting all at once to Goldberg reels would be too expensive, they would have to have a sponsorship. I am also certain that the Egyptian Theatre has two projectors for those prints that can't be cut.

I hear that the hours are long, the work is grueling and the pay is very good. They rarely see the sun and hardly ever get to see any films.

A few years ago Chapin Cutler of the Boston Light and Sound took over the Technical Direction for Sundance and I hear presentation is much better. It had better be, he is our technical director for Telluride Film Festival as well.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-24-2002, 08:40 PM:

Mike,
I just found out today that you will have some new competition in the form of a brand new, classy multiplex, right down the street from you. All has been signed, sealed, and delivered as of this afternoon. I imagine that construction will start soon after the Olympics or there abouts. Thats all I can tell for now.

Ian, Indeed the Egyptian does have a two machine booth, The Library has only a single Century though. For what they could sell all those large reels for they could easily buy all new Goldberg platter reels. I think one of the other problems though is that they use Eprad Double MUTS and I definately know they have a portable Ernemann with the sidewinder as that was posted here but a Sundance guy about a year ago.
Mark

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-24-2002, 08:57 PM:

For what they could sell that Eprad double MUT, they could buy a good used platter too.

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 02-01-2003, 06:11 PM:

http://www.sundancechannel.com/festival/vignettes/index.php

Select "Bill, Festival Projectionist".

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-01-2003, 11:24 PM:

Do they still put the "Inspected for Sundance by Hill Top Productions" stickers on the leaders? It seems that every print that I have shown that had one of those stickers was in pretty lousy shape, although admittedly most had been to several different festivals by the time I got them.

13000' reels? What a pain! Wouldn't it be easier to use 6000' reels, which at least can be carried around easily and run onto platters quickly at venues which don't have a second machine? How do they deal with last-minute changes in programming (particularly with shorts)?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-02-2003, 10:05 AM:

They don't have room for platters, even a miniwind, in most of the locations so the DOUBLE MUT is about all there is. They do use a couple of Ernemann sidewinders too. So big reels is what its all about there. Its doubtful that you WOULDN'T see a pring that has not been made up.
Actually the Double MUT is not that bad....perhaps the only other big reel transport than the Ernemann that does keep constant tension on film while its being shown, or rewound. There are very few chances of cinching film on one. As far as print condition when they leave there, I'd ask their overly high priced projection supervisor about why prints leave there in such poor shape. All that is his responsibility....

As for Bill....Projectionist....He claims, or they claim.....
"After projecting films for 40 years, Bill believes he's finally getting it right."

I think Bill should have known what he was doing after about his third day on the job! That would have been 39 years and 362 days ago! If its taken him 40 years to learn it .....oooobooooyyyy. I realize though that is just a tag written by some stupid writer there. Sure makes him look stupid though.
Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-02-2003, 10:34 AM:

Mark,

Check out the Kinoton SPT-5000K

http://www.kinotonamerica.com/spt5000k.htm

Look familiar? Incidentally, I'm installing one tomorrow! Also a room where there is no space for a platter or even a second projector (will not with the DLP that is setting next to the 16/35 film projector).

Steve

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-02-2003, 10:42 AM:

Why do they always show their products with those stupid wire reels? Are those common in Europe or is that just to show the product better than would be seen with normal reels?

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 02-02-2003, 11:19 AM:

I've known Bill for over 20 years. He does "get it right."

Maybe it's that perfectionist trait within us. We're all looking for ways to improve our showmanship and presentation.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-02-2003, 12:51 PM:

Steve,
Yea, I'm familiar with the Kinoton, however Sundance continues with the use of the Eprad DMUTS. Personally they're alot better deal IMHO. Eprad will produce them for you if you order 6 of them. You might get the 6 produced for a little bit more than the price of one of the Kinotons. I think in fact the last 6 produced were for CLACO, which were in turn 4 were sold to Sundance In my earlier years in this buisness I disliked most large reel DMUT's, but now have alot more respect for them. I've used the Ernemann on a rental job and was somewhat impressed with it, but I still like the simplicity of Eprads idea alot better. BTW: The DMUT was supposedly designed by Al for the original 3 projector Cinerama process. I doubt that many here are aware of that. The Shakemeccannicca tower doesn't even enter into this stuff anyplace as far as I'm concerned. They are way too good at cinching film due to the lack of any constant tension.
The Kinoton is nice, but totally unnecessary at its price.

Mark @ CLACO
www.clacoequipment.com

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-02-2003, 02:20 PM:

Actually Steve K, the wire reels are in many ways better than a "normal" reel in this size. The sheet metal reels are not supported very well (only at the hub) and will flex and flap at rewind speeds. The welded wire reels remain ridged and protect the film better. The "fancy" Kinoton reels are chromed. And here is the kicker....they are less expensive than "normal" sheet metal reels with the same dimensions.

With torque motors with "dancer arms" the added mass of the welded "wire reel" is next to irrelevant. I wouldn't advocate them for typical 6000' use on mechanical take-up frictions though.

Steve

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 02-03-2003, 07:09 PM:

Steve,

I don't know why the wire reels are "stupid". They are not common in the US, but I don't think that alone damns them. Splices are easier to find. I do know I've cut my hands many times on the nicked flanges of aluminum reels, but never on the chrome plated steel wire ones. Have you had a bad experience using these reels?

Larry

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 02-03-2003, 07:21 PM:

Mark,

I think your comment "overly high priced" is uncalled for.

Also, Bill is an excellent projectionist. I have been delighted to have him work with us all over the US and overseas. He was trying to be humorous and modest, as is his style.

Larry

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-03-2003, 07:33 PM:

The old Neumade 3d reels were wire as were the old 2000' neumade house reels had no complaints with them

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-03-2003, 08:09 PM:

Larry,
Again.....and this is right off the Sundance site.......
"After projecting films for 40 years, Bill believes he's finally getting it right."
Sorry Larry, but thats a really stupid tag line that makes Bill look like he's finally learned to do his job correctly after 40 years......I brought it up because it needs to be changed!
I know about Bill's qualifications and many people I work with also have worked with him.
And yes, I vote for wire reels...I'd like to see more of them out there....
Mark

[ 02-03-2003, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gulbrandsen ]

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-03-2003, 08:18 PM:

No Larry...never had the pleasure. They just look cheap. It's purely an observation and has nothing to do with functionality.

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 02-20-2003, 08:12 PM:

Part of Cinema Talk by John Ewing.
The Sundance Film Festival has been much in the local news recently, what with the shot-in-Cleveland American Splendor (based on Harvey Pekar's life and comic book) winning the Grand Jury Prize and all. (We knew Harvey had really made it when he was named "Winner of the Week" in the movie section of the Feb. 7 Entertainment Weekly. "Loser" of that week was Meryl Streep!) But in addition to all the northeast Ohio filmmakers, journalists, flacks, and programmers who went to Sundance, Cleveland was represented by two local projectionists who ran many of the screenings: Bill Taggart and Jeff Johnson. Taggart, longtime projectionist at the Regal Severance Movies in Cleveland Heights, is flat-out one of the best operators in the U.S., and a seasoned Sundance veteran. He is regularly plucked by Boston Light and Sound to do special film screenings all over the U.S. (and overseas). Johnson, a former Co-Director of the CWRU Film Society, has long projected movies at the Cedar Lee and Centrum, the Omnimax Theatre, the Cleveland Museum of Art, and other locations. This was his first year at Sundance, and he deserved to be there. Both are members of the IATSE Local 160.

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 02-01-2006, 02:24 PM:

It has been 1076 days since the last post.

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 02-01-2006, 02:24 PM:

90.3 WCPN: Sundance Diaries: Projecting a Good Image

quote:
Some of the most important stars of the silver screen here at Sundance are people you’ve probably never heard of. Does the name Bill Taggart mean anything to you? How about Jeffry Johnson or Scott Woodruff? You probably won’t see Orrville Kist’s name on any theater marquee. But, without these aforementioned fellows, movies just don’t happen. They are the guys back in the booth who run the various film and digital projection machines at the Park City Holiday Cinemas - one of several movie venues for Sundance Film Festival goers. And this quartet of projectionists all come from Greater Cleveland, which means a good many Sundance films have a Northeast Ohio touch. ideastream’s David C. Barnett paid a visit to the Holiday Cinemas booth and spoke with Bill Taggart, the dean of the team.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-01-2006, 05:54 PM:

Nice interview. [thumbsup]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-01-2006, 06:49 PM:

I'm glad Slumdance is gone and the people that it beings to this area have left!

Mark

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 02-02-2006, 07:15 PM:

Ummm....we love you too...I guess....

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-02-2006, 09:25 PM:

Larry,

I wasn't referring to you. Just the people it attracts... but if you feel that way thats ok, its a free country [thumbsup]

.

I just dislike Film Festivals in general and all the plastic people they attract. Its certainly one of the most novel ways to temporarily ruin a nice part of the country.

Mark

Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 02-02-2006, 09:55 PM:

Funny, the two San Diego-based film festivals I provide projection services for pull in housefulls of real flesh-and-blood patrons and provide a welcome boost for the theatre hosting the fests. Must be the nature of the festivals or the people down here. [Smile]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-02-2006, 10:31 PM:

Jon,

Well, Park City USED to be a nice place until about the late 80's. Its only a slim resemblance of the amazing town it once was. This is really more of the way the locals feel about fests in general, most here could care less about them. You will find similar feeling in similar towns like Aspen and Telluride, both of which I've spent alot of time in. Also Keep in mind that Park City grows by 17,000 when it occurs and that most attending it come in from elsewhere. I suppose its good for the Airlines [thumbsup]

. Park City is beyond being a wealthy town already, its not a convention center and can't be, essentially its been ruined big time by those trying to make it so. And its especially a big nuisance to the folks that come in just to go Skiing. Skiing is what built Park City! Thank god there are a half dozen other fine Ski areas within a stones throw of Park City.

Similar things occur during the summer art festival thats held there and thats about 2 to 3 times the size of Sundance [Roll Eyes]

. And really... Out here there are alot of places that are alot nicer to go visit or live in than Park City!! Overall..... Park City's been trashed [Frown]

.

Mark

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-04-2006, 05:45 AM:

The big problem with festivals as a general rule is that they involve a big throughput of extremely valuable (e.g. directors' showprints, one-off archive prints etc.) prints, often in venues which don't normally handle such prints and are only called upon to take on this technically difficult job once a year. The result can often be poor presentation and mangled prints, and of course a high-profile event like a festival is the last place you want to see that happen.

From the posts above it looked like Sundance dealt with the issue comprehensively from the top down, by putting a dedicated team in place to look after the prints and oversee what goes on at the venues where overseeing is necessary. I only wish that other festivals which use screening venues that don't handle this sort of material regularly organised themselves as well.

Whenever I loan any of our prints out to festivals there's always an element of risk as to whether they'll come back in one piece. On the whole I usually take that risk, because there's no point in having prints made if you don't show them. In that scenario you might just as well have a digibeta transfer made from the preservation master and use that (or subsequent copies of it) for all access. But there are one or two festivals about which I've heard some serious horror stories and would treat with extreme caution.

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-04-2006, 08:48 AM:

Leo, you've raised some interesting issues there which deserve attention.

I've had experience working for a Distributor where we sent a pristine, newly-struck print of a film to a festival, only for it to come back destroyed with dirt and scratches. We were able to inspect the print in our own theatre, before and after, and I recommended at the time that the festival should be billed - a not unreasonable action to take.

However, the company were "dependent" on this festival for good PR and for showcasing their product, so took no action and shrugged their shoulders in resignation.

Nothing new about this of course, but some new ideas on how to tackle these issues might be useful. For instance, can some new kind of legal or insurance structure be put in place for these eventualities?

Say, a contract that's sent to the festival, or whatever, seting out clearly what will happen if they wreck the print. On the festival side, they could have insurance to cover themselves in case of accidents (let's face it, accidents can happen).

There also needs to be a way of making sure the print is inspected before and after dispatch, so there can be no room for erroneous accusations. OK, I guess that causes problems with crossovers or tight schedules.

But here's another thing - I think it's time the Distributors and Archives were able to somehow inspect or certify venues. Could a film handling certification process be developed? I guess the costs of operating and policing it could be high, but nevertheless...

You know, watching "making of" documentaries on DVD, and seeing film craftspeople at work, really brings it home how unforgiveable it is not to project the final work to as high a standard as possible. Personally it never fails to inspire and humble me when I see the sheer dedication and detail put in to many productions today.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-04-2006, 11:24 AM:

This is a difficult, no-win issue, and one which gets hotly debated at practically every AMIA conference.

Proving that print damage was caused by venue negligence (for want of a better term) is hugely difficult, as is persuading a venue to undertake in advance to meet the cost (either of having a print ultrasonically cleaned or, in the worst case scenario, one or more reels totally replaced) of any accidental damage. When you try, the usual response is 'Sorry, there's no way we can afford that, so just send us a DVD instead.' And of course, when you're dealing with the effect of minor, cumuluative damage as distinct from someone who spectacularly buggers a print in one fell swoop, that's even more of an impossible problem.

quote: Brian Guckian
But here's another thing - I think it's time the Distributors and Archives were able to somehow inspect or certify venues.

Very difficult, because the projection booth is the projectionist's kingdom: and if you get some distributor or archivist marching in saying 'my print's very special, so this is how you should do your job', (s)he is likely to take that the wrong way. Of course, for an event as big as a festival, those sorts of negotiations can take place at a higher level (i.e. the festival organisers hire a theatre on condition that the have the final say on how and by who their prints are handled), but even then it can cause friction on the ground.

In reality, of course, the 'certification' happens informally and off the record. For example, my contacts at the BFI know which venues have a track record of looking after their films, and would happily send a rare 1950s IB print, or their hand tinted and toned print of the South restoration out to these places without a second thought. But there are other venues which have a track record of accidents, and they'll just be offered a DVD. This arrangement isn't perfect, but it's probably the best that's achievable.

But, as your experience points out, there are some Catch 22 situations: a major, prestigious conference, event or festival with a big reputation offers you a chance to screen your latest release or restoration, but you know that they mangle prints and their presentation is awful. So, do you risk your print for the PR boost or play safe? There's never an easy answer, IMHO.

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-06-2006, 09:51 AM:

I get that Leo, you're right, but my intention here is to see if there are any new ideas or new thinking that can be brought to bear on the situation.

Of course it's old ground and people have tried very hard in the past to do something constructive about it.

That said, it's interesting how what appear to be intractable problems can sometimes be solved through an entirely new approach.

It's interesting that festivals calim they "can't afford" to replace prints, etc. But if one had comprehensive insurance, surely purely accidental damage could be paid out of the policy?

I can't see how insurance can be that expensive given the relatively low physical cost of a print (granted I'm not talking about archive material, just regular festival titles).

Dont' get me wrong - I'm not pretending there are easy answers. But it's good to look on these issues afresh.

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 02-07-2006, 04:59 AM:

As an exhibitor in the UK for nearly 25 years (until 2002), I can tell you that, it was impossible to find insurance cover for cinematograph film damage, other than lost in transit or a building fire. Now I dealt only with a specialised Broker in the entertainment industry. The policy clearly stated, NOT WHILST ON THE PROJECTOR!

BTW, there was a Philips (Kinoton) DP 70 projector installed in Ireland that originally came from the Columbia Theatre, Shaftsbury Avenue in London. I worked freelance at that lovely cinema for 9 months during the 1970’s gaining that wonderful 70mm experience. The large screen was nicely curved with two sets of curtains. I don’t know where the other DP 70 projector went, or if was just kept for spare parts.

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-07-2006, 07:09 AM:

Ah! Well that's interesting, because what about damage done on the bench or other film handling system e.g. platter / tower?

If one could even get that covered it would help a lot.

BTW - in no way can one condone any film damage whatsoever. It's just trying to find answers to the kind of complaints mentioned e.g. by Leo above.

Anyway, this is all a bit negative. It's a matter of creating something new that will address things. Technology can help, but it seems really it's in the organisational aspects of film festivals where improvements might make the difference.

A good start is to set out what we think best practice in running a film festival is, and then promote that.

So, for starters:

1. A clean and well-maintained projection room / rooms.

2. A separate clean film preparation area with a dedicated expert film handling team (as per Sundance, etc.), either in-house, or in a nearby location. This could apply irrespective of whether changeovers or long-play systems are used, because of the quantity of work involved over and above the usual.

3. The equipment and personnel to handle the volume and types of prints. That means enough reels, proper make-up benches with correct spindles, proper splicers, all the consumables, light boxes, frame counters, etc. In fact...you could possibly hire gear from specialised film editorial supply houses, just like on a feature production where they often will hire film cutting equipment to go with their NLE systems.

4. A clean, secure and safe system of transport of prints between the make-up / break-down location and the projection room / rooms (where applicable).

5. A temporary re-fit of the projection equipment and screen to facilitate additional ratios such as 1:1.38, 1:1.66, etc. - if necessary.

6. New ways to ensure that older prints sent to the festival are in fact in good condition [a tough one to be sure]. One idea is to ship these in early for inspection. If a film handling area was set up in advance, and gear hired from a film editiorial supply house, you could also hire a flatbed Kem or Steenbeck to quickly assess visual quality beyond what is possible via bench inspection. The distributor could then - with their agreement - be billed for this work, where they cannot do these inspections themselves (all too common unfortunately).

7. New management structures for the technical area, using a team-based approach (but this happens a lot anyway).

8. Embedding the critical importance of print care and presentation at the admin levels of the festival. Way too often, all kinds of stuff isn't provided, as some people think they can run these things on a shoestring.

Comments / additions to this list?

[BTW Bernard, yes, those DP70s are at the Irish Film Institute in Dublin. One in service and the other retained for parts AFAIK]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-07-2006, 09:21 AM:

If insurance was a viable and cost-effective option, I'm sure that all properly run festivals would be taking out policies as a matter of course. I suspect that the reason why it isn't is because it's an open-ended, unpolicable commitment. For example, does a platter wrap count as 'on the projector' or not? Or what happens if I swear blind that a deep emulsion tramline was caused by a reel falling off a roller during rewinding, but the insurer's examiner is convinced that it happened in projection and that you're fibbing? And what happens if the 'damage' in minor enough to be regarded as routine wear and tear at an average to not-so-good multiplex, but an archive or the owner of a showprint feels it to be unacceptable?

Brian's list is basically a statement of best practice, which properly run arthouse theatres and festivals follow. The problem really comes at the next level down, at which too much money tends to get spent on the closing gala booze up and not enough in the projection booth. The only thing that's going to change their minds is if more film-makers, distributors and archives dig their heels in. If - for a hypothetical example - a big distributor announced that it was going to premiere its latest blockbuster at the Festival A and stay away from B, because A had a track record of higher quality technical presentation, then that would motivate the Festival B organisers to sort their problems out.

There is one quite well known European festival that three of Europe's best known archives won't deal with in any way, shape or form, because there have been too many presentation 'accidents' that have resulted in serious print damage. I understand that a new technical manager is coming in for this year's event, and that we can expect to see a big improvement.

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-08-2006, 06:52 PM:

Great, that's brought up some interesting stuff, particularly where you said that more film-makers, distribs, etc. should dig their heels in.

What really works would be to show festival people who are not up for raising the funds to carry out at least acceptable practice just how much art and craft goes into film-making, and how bad it is when that incredible work is scuppered in projection. That should bring it home to them big time.

Secondly, it would be good to actually set out best practice and I'll follow this up. (Talk followed by action and all of that).

More on this anon...

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 02-10-2006, 07:04 AM:

quote: Brian Guckian
Ah! Well that's interesting, because what about damage done on the bench or other film handling system e.g. platter / tower?

If one could even get that covered it would help a lot.

I very much doubt it Brian, the small print conditions would have seen to that. Unfortunately I no longer have the large bible to look anything up. We keep clearing out, however some records have to be kept for six years by law.

I have reproduced a section from an annual quote of sums insured and conditions. Note the error of negative film when it should have been of course positive film.

Appendix to Section 1b)

“All Risks” Coverage on Films
Note: This indemnifies the insured
Against Loss or Damage from any cause
Whatsoever to any negative motion picture
The property of the insured, or for which
they are responsible whilst anywhere in the
United Kingdom. However, under exclusion (1)
Loss of or Damage to the property insured
which may be sustained whilst in a projection
machine or undergoing any process and directly
resulting there from is excluded. The total
liability of the Insurers in respect of any
one film shall not exceed £3,000 nor at any
one time the total sum insured.

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-10-2006, 07:23 AM:

Many thanks Bernard for going to the time and trouble to reproduce that.

Well it does go to show that basically insurance really is all about getting you to pay out on a policy which at the end of the day doesn't cover you at all!

The exclusion clause above is so broad and open to interpretation that you might as well not take out the policy in the first place, save for disasters like fire or flood, etc.

Still, it's worth looking at this whole area further.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-11-2006, 04:52 AM:

Right. It doesn't cover any projection-related damage - presumably only films in transit. And £3k wouldn't be enough to replace many prints: an average length 70mm print or a hand tinted-and-toned print of a silent restoration can easily cost five figures.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-11-2006, 07:45 AM:

I was recently called in on behalf of an exhibitor to evaluate a claim by the distributor that a just-struck print had been burned while in the hands of the exhibitor, my client. The distributor agreed to have me come in as a neutral party to inspect their claim.

In the presence of the distributor's people I inspected the film and did find damage; It was a high silver b&w print of a silent film. It was obvious that a hot spot had scorched the frame and caused blistering of the emulsion to the point where small holes were burned that were visibly dancing near the bottom of the image. It occurred on reels 1, 3 and 5 which indicated to me that it happened in a change-over run, which was the kind of booth my client has. But beyond that, I explained to the distributor and by client both that all the inspection could verify was that damaged had occurred in a change-over run, but it was not unequivocal evidence that my client caused it.

It was a relatively new print that had had only 3 engagements: one prior to my clients, and one after my clients. And since my client was not the only theatre that had run the print, it was not definitive where the damage happened. The theatre after my client's run called in the damage so on the surface it might seem that points to my client as the one caused the damage, but not so. There is still the possibility that the theatre before ours damaged the print but the projectionist at our didn't notice the damage or thought it was just the way the print was and didn't mention it. OR it could be damaged at the theatre that played it after ours but was clever enough to say it came that way. I presented both scenarios and let them battle it out themselves. But this made it very clear to me that it is a difficult thing to assess blame as to who causes print damage unless prints are thoroughly inspected before and after each engagement.

The one point my client makes that may tilt in his favor is that he screened the print twice and no one saw any anomalies on the screen. From what I saw, the burn on these three reel would most definately been very noticable unless somehow they were projecting 1.33 silent aperture with the mask still set to 1.37 sound, which might have resulted in the burn being projected on the mask making its less noticable to the lay observer. I haven't been in that theatre in ages so I have no idea if this could be the case, but it is possible. But surely if this damage was occurring on the screen, it would be hoped that SOMEONE, especially the projectionist, would have noticed, complained, DONE SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

But my point is, much of this kind of thing winds up as a he-said-he-said predicement, so it is no wonder the insurance companies are hesitant to insure something that can't be very difficult to prove liability. (I can't believe I just sided with the insurance companies..... [Eek!]

someone smack me).

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-12-2006, 06:58 PM:

Well that says it all Frank. This is what happens when as you say the print isn't thoroughly examined before and after.

One new approach could be to "hopscotch" prints and have each come back to the distributor for checking after each engagement. But here's a commercial opportunity - since most distribs no longer seem to have print-checking facilities in-house (over here at any rate), you could "outsource" this function to a facility set up for the purpose.

NB - "hopscotching" would involve print A going to Festival 1, print B going to Festival 2, print A going to festival 3, and so on. This would address situations where there are relatively tight timescales between Festivals.

Just another idea, would it work?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-13-2006, 01:44 AM:

If you can afford to have enough prints struck to start with. For arthouse and rerelease titles in Britain, 1-2 prints is the norm, and these most play back-to-back weekly booking or even Friday-Sunday and Monday-Thursday bookings, all linked by overnight crossovers. Shortly before the end of my time as a full-time projectionist I remember Securicor losing a print of an Artificial Eye title on a crossover, and all hell broke loose. I guess that this is what d-cinema is supposed to make a thing of the past (freeing us from the tyranny of 35mm and all that! [Roll Eyes]

); but given that the cost per screening is still way higher than 35mm, shipping costs and all, I still think that the emphasis should be on making the current system work better. Think about it - you can invest £150k on a DLP machine which will be obsolete in 2-3 years' time, or, say, £20k upgrading a 35mm installation to the state of the art and investing in some decent training for the people who run it. Do this for all the 'usual suspects' in the rep cinemas/arts centres/universities circuit, and all this mieowing and hissing about mangled prints would be a thing of the past.

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-13-2006, 08:07 AM:

Leo - brilliant ideas there, and they can be followed up.

One thing - you say 1-2 prints is the norm for these titles, surely just one more print would help greatly?

OK, for sure there is a cost, but can it really be that hard to raise another STG£1000 or so?

Are these operations so hamstrung for funds? Surely one more print will cover its cost over time? Forgive me if I sound naive here.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-13-2006, 07:22 PM:

Its amazing but Bobby Redford has conceded that his festival is "Getting Out Of Hand" and ruining Park City..... Yep, thats right all you Sundance fans. Apparently he was on the news the other night talking about this and is planning on hosting it differently in the future. Just how he can trim some of the 17,000 extra folks that come to town for this will remain to be seen. I think that most residents around here still wish he'd pack it all off to another state.

Mark

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-14-2006, 06:33 AM:

I felt the same way about the tennis when I was growing up in Wimbledon! What tended to happen was that most of the locals would pack themselves off to other states for the duration, and financed their holidays by renting their homes out to the tennis crowd, sometimes at truly eye-watering rates.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-14-2006, 08:14 AM:

Park City had about 300 to 400 inhabitants in the late 70's, then in the early 80's it all started going down hill and this is how it stands today.... A Developers dream come true [puke]

As one can see from the available 17,477 tourist bed pillow base... Slum Dance is exactly what Paek City becomes. This is not counting the huge amount of Skiers that are also there at the same time......

Mark

Quick Facts.......

Alpine Heart of the 2002 Winter Olympics
Park City was founded as a silver-mining town in 1869. By 1900, it was a booming mining town with 10,000 residents and 100 saloons

Second largest silver strike in U. S., 1200 miles of mining tunnels under the city; the deepest mining shaft is 2600’ Flagstaff Mountain was the first mining claim in the Park City area; George Hearst owned the Ontario Mine

Summit County was one of the fastest growing counties in the US during the 1990’s

Elevation = 7000’ at Main Street: ranges from 6500’- 10,000’

City Size =12 square miles

Average Daily Water Consumption = 4. 6 million gallons

School Population = 3,891

Assessed Property Valuation 2001 = $3,390, 742, 411

Number of Primary Dwelling Units = 2,624

Number of Secondary Homes/ Units = 5,718

Tourist Bed Base = 17, 477 pillows in vicinity; 4549 units

Gross Taxable Sales = $400 million in city

Number of Restaurant Seats in PC & Basin = 11,354

Number of Park City Business Licenses = 1500

Number of Retail Stores = 251 in Park City & Basin

Number of City Police Officers = 22

Number of City Employees = 269 full time equivalents

Number of Miles of City Roads = 94

Skier Days 2001- 2002: 1,350,003 at three area resorts

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 03-04-2006, 11:13 AM:

Festival Dailies 2006 January 26

quote:
INSIDE SUNDANCE: PRINT TRAFFIC OFFICE
Get an inside look at the operations of the Sundance Film Festival with this behind the scenes view of the shipping, receiving, trafficking and quality control of the 35MM prints at the Sundance Film Festival.