Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 'Rejuvenated' prints

This is topic 'Rejuvenated' 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=003393

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 05-04-2002, 10:47 AM:

Often, the local distributors deem it uneconomical to make new prints of many titles, but it's getting to the point here where only A++ day-and-date worldwide releases are getting released as 'real', actual new prints.

Second-hand prints can be fine (as long as they aren't photoguarded!) because using FilmGuard, we can make them appear like new within several screenings.

Lately, however, we have had to reject a very high number of prints which have multiple, deep scratches, and it's getting a bit annoying to have to (seemingly routinely) make-up, screen, reject, breakdown, then re-make up every second feature (well, not quite every second, but that's the direction it seems to be going in!).

In a way, it's a good thing that our patrons are on the ball - if I screen a print (on my first shift for a particular title) which I feel is unacceptable, I will ALWAYS receive a complaint about it. I say that this is a good thing because our patrons are clearly coming to us for 'Film Done Right' and are disappointed if they don't get it (and rightfully so). If customers were this vigilant at all the other cinemas (which I'm assuming they aren't, or perhaps the complaints aren't reported to projection/management), then 'Film Done Wrong' would not be tolerated and the entire industry would HAVE to employ dedicated (in both the professional and literal senses of the word) projectionists in order to keep the public happy...and they would have to be paid accordingly...

Anyhow, the point is that with the number of dud prints we seem to be receiving, it's getting harder for us to present films properly, and we are generating complaints that are the fault of the previous theatre and/or the distributor for not implementing measures to ensure that the prints are in reasonable condition before shipping them (a dud once in a while is sort of acceptable, but not all the time), but WE are getting the complaints and it's NOT our fault. The customer, of course, only sees a faulty print on OUR screen, and assumes I'm a moron button-pusher (perhaps debatable). And that's just not fair.

So...do you think that the local distributors will eventually get the hint and get sick and tired of sending out replacements to our theatre, thus ensuring that they send us only good prints in the first place, or is there something else that we can do to ensure that this problem is vastly reduced?

Rant over. Opinions, please.

Posted by Brad Haven (Member # 954) on 05-04-2002, 11:33 AM:

We also recieve many second hand print's , we rarely recieve new print's at all these day's!.
As i plan to purchase a kelmar cleaner by the end of the year (i already have filmguard)i hope the current trend of photoguarded print's end's, we dont get alot, but any is too many!!.
Our second hand print's range in quality from just plain dirty, to base scratching, to small segment's missing through unreported damage!. i would feel ripped off going to see a film opening day to find it dirty and scratched!.
With the way they stagger the releases worldwide for the smaller art/crossover films, you cant blame them for trying it out on us, and i cant imagine many cinemas complaining about it, judging by some of the projectionist's i know of, in perth anyway!.
If we dont complain they wont change!!!

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 05-04-2002, 03:37 PM:

Test screen your prints on changeover before make-up

--jhawk

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 05-04-2002, 07:07 PM:

Good idea, JHawk. The only thing is that it would involve coming in VERY early or staying back after work very late. All our screens are always in use. Also, we don't have a changeover setup!

We should probably pre-screen everything, though, not just certain titles. Especially second-hand stuff...

Posted by Matt Close (Member # 996) on 05-04-2002, 09:10 PM:

Our print of 'We Were Soldiers' had a constant black scratch up the guts from the word go

'Black Knight' ... I could never achieve even focus on ... Brad tells me it was what he calls 'embossed' by another theatre

AND I just received 'The Count Of Monte Christo' .. with sprocket 'divets' conveniently running over the optical sound track from about reel 2 onwards!! Needless to say it is playing only in a DTS auditorium now..... good thing DTS doesn't drop out very easily eh?

I could go on .....

Posted by Benjamin J. Kepner (Member # 1241) on 05-08-2002, 03:59 AM:

Forgive me for being new, but what exactly is a photoguarded print? And how can you tell it apart from other prints. I know this is something I'm going to need to know soon as I have just convinced our management to buy us filmguard, and I know that you aren't supposed to use that with photoguarded prints.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-08-2002, 04:07 AM:

Click "search" at the top of the page, make sure you have selected "Film Handler's Forum" and type in "photoguard" and you'll get more than you ever wanted to know.

The odds of a regular theater actually getting one of these prints is extremely low. Should you actually use FilmGuard on one of these, it will not harm the print, but it will take several runs to get rid of the "water beads". Pretty much the typical theater's only real chance of getting one of these prints is on Oscar re-issues if they came from the Technicolor depot (the orange film cans). Even then it is not often (maybe 1 every couple of years).

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-08-2002, 07:20 AM:

Links to information about UV-cured polymeric coatings for film:

http://www.3m.com/market/consumer/photogard/film.html
http://dacarproducts.com/igard-div.html

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

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-08-2002, 10:19 AM:

>>The odds of a regular theater actually getting one of these prints is extremely low.<<

Oh Brad! If only that were true here.

Buena Vista are the worst by far. I think Disney must have money in Photoguard!

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

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-08-2002, 03:56 PM:

Sorry, I should have clarified since the guy is in the US. The odds are low *if you are in the states* of getting one of those evil prints.

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 142) on 05-10-2002, 08:55 PM:

Michael, we do tech. screen all of our prints at the major multi's and reject inferior prints every time. It does involve coming in early and staying late for projectionists even though we do have a preview theatrette available.

The "rejuvenated prints" from various companies involve many different processes, many proprietry and secret! Some are as simple as selecting the best spools from 3 prints to make one, others involve heating and rolling, some photoguard or 3M Scotch guard as I believe it was previously known.

I would say there is another major distributor in Australia that is just as bad as the one you mention.

I have found those rejuvenated prints from "Filmtreat West" are generally of a higher quality than those rejuvenation plants not identifying themselves on the boxes.

Good to see all SW Ep 2 are brand new from Atlab.

David