There is no visible damage to this print. There are no raised sprockets.

It was brand new when it went to another theatre for two screenings then straight to us. It took up badly there also.

Suggestions?

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage". - Indiana Jones.

We have requested another print. There's no way I'm going to attempt to move this.

The prints, BTW, are local.

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage". - Indiana Jones.
 

-- Jeff
 

Good to hear from you again.

This print would do the same on 6k's for sure. It's got the same effect as it would have had it been taken up with a very loosened off take up belt...even worse perhaps.

Hi Jeff,

Welcome to the forum. I've tried soundtrack up then soundtrack down. There's minimal difference. It takes up very marginally better down, but it's still loose as a you-know-what.

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage". - Indiana Jones.

It's not too much of an issue with nitrate because if a reel is measured at over 3% linear shrinkage, it's not safe to project. But early acetate prints are still shown in rep houses after quite severe shrinkage, and in these places having a separate motor driving the take-up spool (as distinct from the take-up spool being driven by a chain or belt from the main motor) is useful, because you can increase the pressure slightly to ensure a smooth take-up.

But as I say, I've never experienced this syndrome with polyester, which is not supposed to shrink. Given that this is an almost new print, the only guesses which come to mind are that (i) it was dried too intensively by the air knife in the lab's processing machine, which caused the swollen emulsion to shrink very rapidly, thus distorting the base, and (ii) the effect of a static electricity build-up. However, if you've never experienced this problem with any other films, it does seem that this is print-specific. A fault with the antistatic layer on the print stock, perhaps?

On balance, I'd vote for the emulsion having been shrunk by overdrying, as this is consistent with Jeff's observation that the uneven winding is reduced by mounting the print emulsion in.

If you pull a three feet section and hold only one edge doing this, the other edge is far from tight. I would say it's in the printing, but the distributor says we are the only ones to complain...of course, not many theatres have thought about moving it yet. Maybe on Thursday morning they may be getting a few phone calls from around the traps for replacement prints because they have just lost it all over the floor. (We run Thursday to Wednesday).

Just remember...you heard it here first, folks.

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage". - Indiana Jones.

When you pull the three-foot section and it curls, is the emulsion on the concave or convex side?

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage". - Indiana Jones.
 

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage". - Indiana Jones.
 

Steve.

One or both edges of the print have been damaged (stretched) and the film will NEVER wind properly again.

A print damaged in this fashion will look perfectly normal in many cases if you look at the edges, however you might notice a teeny tiny crease on the edges or some slight elongation of the perfs, or some other very subtle damage.

Causes? There are many, misthreaded projectors and platters can do it (it only takes ONE pass thru the film path to do the damage), as can too-tight or way off-center pad rollers on sprockets. I have had both of these cause exactly the same problem with several prints before finally discovering the cause...

-Aaron

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

No Gordon, it was new. Just two previous passes.

The stock is Agfa AGS 96 7984 01.

Just a reminder, the print is not damaged. It has a medium running scratch down the outer edge of the sprockets from the previous location's two passes. I guess this could have done it. The print would have been pretty green knowing the lab's workload of late.

I did the 3 feet stretch on one side and found this...

Of course, happens with any print if you pull it only on one edge. A pull in the middle of the frame showed only a buckle free print. If being picky, there was a (VERY) slight concave towards the base side. The print was made at Atlab. Unsure of the city though...

The pics at the top of this post...(Here's one)
were taking up track up and you can see the result. Here's a pic of it taking up track down.

Note the buckles at the bottom but not at the top. The print is still just as loose and pays out the same.

Curiouser and curiouser.

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage". - Indiana Jones.

Did the print do this at the previous theatre? If yes, printing fault seems more likely than not. If no, the process which inflicted that scratch could be to blame.
 

Interesting. Agfa Gevaert print film is rarely used for feature film prints in the United States, although quite a few on-screen advertisements are printed on their film.

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

That second sentence may be a key. I'm not yet convinced that your assessment is correct. I've seen something similar. Hold the film near the sprockets with a facial tissue held very lightly between two fingers and pull with the other hand. Repeat with the other edge of the film. I suspect you may find more resistance on one side of the film than the other and bits of paper being pulled off.

If you still see or feel no damage, look at an angle and feel the area between the sprockets, looking for a single tiny bump between but not touching each sprocket hole. The embossing can be _very_ light. Sometimes the little bumps may be out of line with the sprocket holes entirely.

I haven't been reading every single word on this thread, so forgive me if someone already mentioned that.
 

Hi Jerry... the print has no sprocket damage. Believe me, I've looked VERY closely to try and work out the reason for this anomily.

John Pytlak said...
>>Interesting. Agfa Gevaert print film is rarely used for feature film prints in the United States, although quite a few on-screen advertisements are printed on their film.<<

Hi John...Yes, we have been receiving a few of these prints through now...generally they are through the one distributor. The image is VERY nice, but the stock picks up a LOT of dirt through its run. A print on this stock must be FilmGuarded from day A to day Z of its run or as soon as you stop, it's like a magnet to dirt. This goes the same if its not Fg'd at all.

I also find this stock to wear out far more quickly than Kodak stock. I have Dolby Digital snipes that are simply un-runnable now as they look shocking...especially at the heads and tails, whereas another snipe of equivalent age is still looking fantastic.

Ads and trailers printed on this stock look foul after only one or two weeks. They also show incredible resistance to being made up from a ring and spun onto a spinner on make up day. The stock flips, clings, grabs onto itself then you get to Kodak and an ad of equal length that just took you 2 minutes to spin now takes 10 seconds as it just does what it's supposed to.

John, I'm assuming it must be a LOT cheaper. Would I be right? Although the images are great and I would commend the distribs for that, the fact that the prints must all be covered in crap only days after release would surely lose any of those benefits, so it must be cheaper.

I'm moving toward thinking it's this scratch that's stressed it too much. One good way to see I guess would be to check the splices. I'll do that tonight.

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage". - Indiana Jones.

Let's just say "You get what you pay for."

Here is the technical data for the KODAK VISION Print Films. You can see all the advantages that were designed into the film:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/2383.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/2393.shtml

Kodak spent over $200 Million USD designing and building the machine to make the unique ESTAR film base that has a scratch-resistant, conductive coating to make "Prints Done Right".
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr19960509-01.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: 585-477-5325 Cell: 585-781-4036 Fax: 585-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

To move this print, we have had to remove the last three reels from the plate to a spool and then move the sloppy print in a sleeve. Even this is VERY dangerous.

There are five movements this week...I will attempt to change that when I get to work today and just have it left in one theatre if I can.

The lab say they won't replace it if we are able to run it...which, of course...we can, but is that really the issue? If a new car starts and runs yet as soon as I try to move it, the wheels wobble and look like they are going to fall off...isn't someone responsible? Would I really just have to accept that it runs and thus be happy?

I think not.

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage". - Indiana Jones.
 

This is bull.

Perhaps now is time to publicly name the lab and the contact person so that all the lurkers working in the industry can know where not to get film processed, and who to avoid hiring when it goes belly up?

I just want another print...that's all.

------------------
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: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Even though it's unknown if the other location had anything to do with it, my manager has requested to the distributor we don't accept prints from other houses again. I tend to agree. It would make things so much more easier.

BTW, our 'new' (but second hand) print of A Beautiful Mind had a faulty reel 6 where the print went yellow on and off regularly for the last 1700ft or so. I emailed the distributor Thursday night (we opened it Friday for sneaks) and they had a replacement couriered to us and it was in for the second show. The spooky part about that is as I said it was second hand ex USA. This means whoever has run it before ran it for its entire season with this fault.

Not having much luck with prints lately. Had to get another reel one of Black Hawk Down (new) as it had a bad sideways movement. Also had a print of Kung Pow where the leaders and tails were as follows on a four reel print...

Heads Reel Number Tails

T2 1 H1
T3 2 H2
T1 3 H3
Nothing 4 H4 and T4

The cut between 3 and 4 was not at the C/O and just cut mid scene with a pair of scissors.

Again, this was from the USA. Obviously NOT someone from this forum...but they bloody well should get here and learn a thing or two.

John

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage". - Indiana Jones.