After loading reel 1, i noticed that the tail was secured using a single sided splice with no ID frame left on the tail.
I counted the frames from the last changeover cue.
24 EXACTLY!!!
I thought to myself "This print looks like it was biult by someone who read BIULDING 101."
At the end of reel 2, I noticed it was originally biult with an Ultrasonic splicer.
It was also at this moment that I realized that this print had FILMGUARD on it.
"Could this be....?" I thought to myself.
"No way!" I thought again.
I made a call.
I found out that the print came from none other than the UA GALAXY in Dallas!
I was told that the print played there for two months and then sat in the depot till it came to me.
I had never seen a print in such excellent condition and was very pleased at the guys (and possible gals?) at the GALAXY for taking good care of this print.
I did not screen this print myself, but did peek at a few seconds of it and it looked great.
The person who screened the print asked me beforehand if it was used and at first rolled his eyes, but I told him the excellent condition it came in and he was relieved.
I asked him how the print looked afterwards and he said it looked really good.
Thanks to you guys for taking such good care of this film.
FILM DONE RIGHT at its finest.
I'm glad you got a good, COMPLETE print, James. I hope you and your guys keep it that way.
------------------ http://www.autoramadrivein.com
come on out to the drive-in and spend a night out with the stars"
ME!!
So there are not any more loss of frames. I can stand 1 ID frame without complaint but NO MORE!
Where things will match is that the track extending 20 frames or so out onto the head leader is identical to the last 20 frames of track on the prior reel due to the sound pull-up. (This pull-up on the end of the reel is what plays when the splice has passed the gate but hasn't yet hit the soundhead--otherwise you'd have about a second of silence.) Of course if it's silent or the modulation is hard to distinguish it may be hard to tell.
Anyway, the track would be something to check if you suspected a problem, but by then you'd probably have already called someone to get info on heads & tails. Proponents of leaving a "check frame" would argue that it's so blatantly obvious that it automatically calls attention to itself when it's wrong. More than likely, without them you'd presume that the identity is correct and hope for the best.
If a print is originally assembled with an ultrasonic splice, that splice can be cut using a normal tape splicer with NO frame loss. Now since the great majority of the world is fearful of not leaving an ID frame, if they choose they can just leave that first frame attached to the leaders as the print comes to them and cut one frame over when they re-build the print, thus their presentation would be like the "original" presentation where 2 frames were lost at the reel change and they have an ID frame on each leader. When we break down prints, we do not break them down using an ultrasonic splicer. We cut right down the center of that splice and then lay a single sided tape splice across the joint. If the next theater who is going to play the film is going to preserve the frames, they can simply rejoin them together and lay tape down. Since I know of no other theater that has an ultrasonic splicer in their booth for 35mm film splicing, the odds of a print that I play going to a theater that intends to assemble it with an ultrasonic splicer are basically zero. Thus, there IS NO FRAME LOSS! It works fine and dandy like this. Note James' comment above "Also, I did not chop off those frames and the splices I made to join the reels were just as good as any "cut" splice", so again, stop your whining Gordon.
I would also like to add that there are actually a LOT of people, and I do mean a LOT of people who care enough to not leave an ID frame on the leaders. This is not just me with this practice. If everyone recalls, I came up with the idea of posting ID frames on this website well before TES stole the idea from me and offered it on their own. I tried, but the studios were too worried about copyright infringement from those frames. 
To the other ID frame whiners here, take a look at the joined heads/tails to the reel of film. Every and I do mean EVERY single reel of film is just a little bit different. Look at the SDDS track. Look at the SRD track. Glancing at these two will very obviously show whether the correct leaders are on the correct reel. Anyone who has ever had 2 prints of the same title in the complex and accidentally broken down a print with leaders from the "other" can knows the colors do not match up. If that still isn't enough for Gordon and other whiners out there, look at the analog track. It should be very obvious that the leaders match up. For anyone still whining, look at the edgecode. Those are like a serial number and can further be used as verification that the print was broken down correctly. ID frames are not necessary. If anything, they at least ensure that someone with minimal brain power is working in that next booth who gets the print. (And we all know that is something we need more of!)
Anyone who thinks I am incorrect, feel free to bring me down a print with it's leaders on randomly and watch as I build it perfectly on the first shot without any more than 5 minutes extra time being spent on the film makeup process. And that is even assuming you have managed to put EVERY single leader on a WRONG reel. This isn't rocket science here guys. If you are smart enough to tell the difference between the base side of the film vs. the emulsion side of the film, then you are MORE than smart enough to match up leaders.
A year or so ago someone recommended leaving an ID frame ONLY on the "heads" of the reels. That was an interesting compromise and one that I had hoped people in general would have listened to. However, there is nothing anyone on this forum can say will get me to change my practice of preserving EVERY frame on the print, so you guys can knock your whining off right now.
I'm just thankful that the print went to a theater that cares enough to take care of it! Those Moulin Rouge prints that I had were incredible and I know they both shipped out in much better condition than when I got them. It is nice to know that James it taking care of it instead of some bozo. James, perhaps you could post that print number? Also, did each reel come to you sealed in plastic liners, or did ETS remove them?
To remake the splice with another ultrasonic splice, you must lose 2 frames. But again, find me a dollar house that has an ultrasonic splicer and I'll give it 1/2 of a second of consideration.
Chris, when you visited, did you sit through a reel change and notice how perfect and flawless the changeover was with the ultrasonic splices? That reason alone is why I spent the $3200 on the unit, and the improvements it makes in the presentation was worth every dollar.
Its ONE frame. I do hate when people cut off multiple frames, which are left hanging to the head with serveral one-sided splices in a chain...but ONE frame is not something for the non-extremely-anal-perfectionist person to worry about
Even the BEST changeover projectionist will miss a frame or two on changeover...either that or a half-second or so of black. I'd rather overrun the changeover a few frames than miss it and have any black.
On another note, aren't reels always cut so that a changeovers occur where a few lost frames won't be a problem (ie scene changes)...at least most of the time?????
No. Back in the days before platters were prevalent, yes. Nowadays, at least one changeover in every film of the last few years has one of those finicky changeovers. Frequently it affects the audio if two frames are missing. Remember, it's not just ONE frame, it's TWO frames and that is plenty to hear a jump in the audio and on some occasions enough to notice a jump in the picture. Can you see dirt on a film if it is dirty? Guess what, each speck of dirt is on one frame, not multiple frames. Can you see those flashes of one clear frame in the Star Wars movies? Of course you can. You never know what is going to be at the beginning or end of a reel that might affect continuity and this is also a reason to NEVER use opaque tape.
Some quick examples. Toy Story II has a reel that starts with Woody sitting upright after a nightmare. The reel before it ends with a circular wipe to black in the center of the screen. If a couple of frames are missing at the changeover, the "sit up" action is lost as well as the end of the wipe. Yes it is very quick and it is noticeable. Moulin Rouge reel 9 starts with a partially faded up end title slate. Miss a few frames and it no longer gives the optical illusion of fading up. Terminator II has a reel that ends with the line "knives and...." What was that??? That's what you hear when frames are chopped off. The full line is "knives and stabbing weapons" that is heard only in theaters who care to preserve ALL frames. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade has a reel change in mid-action with intense music playing. I screened this at a theater that chopped off one ID frame per leader and the jump was obvious. In the Sound of Music there is a changeover in mid-song. Now don't even try to tell me that the music won't miss a beat if two frames are missing. There are tons of others, but these are the first few that come to mind.
Don't be a lazy projectionist. Unless you have the ability to pre-screen the reel changes to see if missing a couple of frames will matter, all of the good operators I know make it a habit to preserve every frame. It really is not hard to keep up with the leaders at all, it's just that many people can't break an old habit they were trained to do. If you must be lazy, please at least ONLY leave one ID frame on the HEADs only. Preserve all of the frames on the tail of the reels (which also helps future changeover projectionists for that print). I have no sympathy for lazy operators who can not use their brains to verify proper leaders and yes it is true that I am an "extremely-anal-perfectionist". You'll never see a jump in my presentation though!
And of course we all know that Steve Guttag is the one changeover guy who is frame accurate in his changeovers, so he doesn't count. Most every changeover I've seen have been sloppy in the timing though. Frequently you can tell there is a jump. Not always (depending on how the reels were cut), but I'm just not willing to build a print only to find out later that I SHOULD HAVE left every frame in tact as a jump in a changeover passes. We only get one shot at splicing the films together correctly.
It is also not difficult to imagine Kodak, etc. making stock with an index hole every 4 perfs (to be used for the non-SR-D edge obviously) just like they used to put at 5 perf intervals on 70mm stock. (Yes, used to--it's gone now.) The labs didn't always print in accordance but at least you could find a frame line in solid black by extrapolating from a known position ("OK, on this reel the frame lines are 2 perfs to the right of the index holes.")
For 35mm the raw stock could be assembled with all splices at the mark and the prints struck so that the framelines are thus aligned.
This would instantaneous improvement in presentation across the board:
(1) No more lab splices to cut or see projected.
(2) Frame line reference means you always know where the line is. No more reason for lazy operators to cut off fade-outs/fade-ins. Fewer errors.
(3) Costs to stock manufacturer offset by silver recovery on the additional perforating chaff.
How about it, John? Should there be a SMPTE committee to look into this?
I always remove them if I catch them, and if I miss one during hand-checking, at least running changeover means that pulling one of out a reel after I've run it is pretty straightforward.
Steve said:
quote:
For 35mm the raw stock could be assembled with all splices at the mark and the prints struck so that the framelines are thus aligned.
But having lab splices frameline registered isn't sufficient in all cases. If you're running in analog sound, they're still quite audible. If the film is in scope, they are often visible. No where near as bad as when they're 2 perfs off the frameline, but still not good.
Also, according to the
THX grading standards, specifically "Lab Grading",
quote:
Any problem that draws itself and pulls the audience out of the picture receives a "C" or a "Reject" grade. Reels with clean or mid-frame lab splices, for example, are automatically given a "C" grade.
They go on to talk about how "Select Release" prints are "A" and "B" grade only, and "Release Show Prints" (whatever that means ) are "A" only. I have some recollection of seeing text somewhere that suggested some folks had arrangements to get lab-splice -free release prints, by paying an extra fee. Does anyone have any documentation on this?
Also, what does (e.g.) Technicolor say if you try to reject a reel based on lab splices. Do they just nod and put it in their computer, or do they give you some pushback? I've never tried on the grounds of a lab splice...
--jhawk
quote:
Either call technicolor and have them fax me a sheet with all the id frames, call my booker to get them from ets
I suspect it wouldn't be useful for us, anyway, since the non-theatrical bookers we use aren't open past 5pm, and it's extremely rare for us to be inspecting prints any time other than late evening.
Also, you gotta wonder why (at least on TES's checkframes) they're 1:1 instead of blown up a bit. You can sure lose a lot in the fax. Does anyone know who to talk to about that?
Alternatively, they could start a new 6000' run into the printer and take off the first two reels as splice-free, and then collect all the short ends together and give the rest of us prints with 6 lab splices to a reel. Won't that be wonderful?
I suppose perhaps the cost of inspection/grading is higher than the cost of the short end. I dunno.
--jhawk
--jhawk
In general, I remove lab splices and replace them with tape splices, which cause less visual and aural disruption to the presentation. The only exceptions would be on "old" prints (e.g. IB Tech, which, at least in the "old" process, always has an in-frame cement splice halfway through each reel) and the rare well-made, in-frame lab splice that can be carefully blooped with marker.
Please do complete the list so I will know which projectors to stay away from. Remember, your saying that an overlap splice is a bad thing to these projectors is also saying that these machines cannot run a film that has a lab splice in them. That is just pathetic. Besides, if these machines cannot handle an overlap splice, they will obviously put a lot of stress on any butt splice join and consequently stretch the splice, leaving a gap and a large "POP" in the audio.
These machines were obviously poorly designed.
That's not the way I set my pad roller clearance (and everyone else that I have personally worked with). The rule of thumb (at least in these parts) is the pad rollers should spin freely with 2 layers of film, but should have some drag with 3 layers. We can of course argue that point forever, but in the end your butt splices will slowly pull apart from daily use and there will be a tiny gap in there, causing the splice to lose it's strength and cause a pop in the sound. This is most noticeable with acetate, but is plenty obvious enough with polyester. Anyone who breaks a print down that makes un-modified butt splices can verify this. Just hold the splice up to the light, preferably at a dark reel change and you will "see the light" shining through. Also, a butt splice that has slightly worn will "hinge", that is if folded at the splice easily fold back on itself producing a sharp corner. Someone other than me please do this and verify it here so Gordon will stop his complaining.
So you don't see "much" stretching, even assuming you have clean film, a well made splice and good tape eh? So you're admitting it STILL happens even when everything else is perfect. Does anyone else see a problem with this?
...and the roads, irrigation, sanitation, crime and public health...WHAT HAVE THE ROMANS EVER DONE FOR US???
------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage". - Indiana Jones.
The print number is 2286.
And ETS did remove the plastic liners
Splice-free release prints would require wasting considerable amounts of film. Not many reel lengths are exact increments of the 4000-foot or 6000-foot raw stock lengths supplied by the film manufacturers.
------------------
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