Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: emulsionside???

This is topic emulsionside??? 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=003950

Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 09-03-2002, 01:45 PM:

How can I see which side of a film is the emulsion side? I can feel a difference when I press my finger on the movie and move it over the film. One side is more smooth than the other. But which side is this?

Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 09-03-2002, 01:56 PM:

The dull side is usually the emulsion side. It will also feel rough.
Some people use there lips as to your lip will stick to the emulsion side.

------------------
Samual Hunter Sr.

KC5ZSL

Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 09-03-2002, 02:04 PM:

hmmm both sides seems shiny to me...

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-03-2002, 02:05 PM:

Here's some information about film base and emulsion:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/base.shtml

The image on a 35mm release print normally "reads" correctly when viewed from the emulsion side of the film. If you look at the print with the image upright and the analog soundtrack along the left side of the image, the emulsion side of the film is toward you.

It's poor practice to determine the emulsion side by wetting the film or sticking it to your lips or tongue . (Although some still use the technique to tell which side is the emulsion on unprocessed film in a darkroom).

------------------
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 Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 09-03-2002, 02:47 PM:

John,

I usually use my lips to determine the emulsion side. But I usually put my lips on the very border of the print (the SDDS zone!). I dont' like to kiss the prints!!

I can recognize some colleague's work when I can see the lips mark over the entire frame!
They can write some cooking recipe based on 35mm prints!

Bye
Antonio

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-03-2002, 03:38 PM:

Antonio wrote: "They can write some cooking recipe based on 35mm prints!"

Maybe that's why a film pile-up is sometimes referred to as "spaghetti". The gelatin used to make film is much purer than food grade gelatin, but film does contain "artificial coloring" and much more than the daily recommended dose of minerals (silver).

Posted by Jeff Skallan (Member # 891) on 09-03-2002, 04:40 PM:

There's no need to kiss the film! Breathe on it. The side you see your breath vapor on is the base side. Also, around these parts in Colorado with dry humidity, the film will slightly curl inward toward the emulsion side.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-03-2002, 06:45 PM:

When I was just starting out as an editorial apprentice, it was quite acceptable for me to use my lips to determine which was the emulsion side. In fact, that's how they told me to go about doing it.

Having said that, it was also explained to me that it was only okay because I was a novice and I understood quite clearly that the day would come when I couldn't get away with it anymore.

Try looking at the film at different angles. If the film is always shiny (no matter the angle at which you are holding it) then you are probably looking at the base side. If the film looks "dull" from certain angles, then that is the emulsion side.

It's one thing to be handling the film if you're just experimenting with old trailers or whatever, but you should try to always wear white cotton gloves when handling film you actually plan to show.

Latex gloves are more readily available and they are okay for general operations (e.g. lacing/threading) but they will probably get torn or sliced if you hold the film while it is in motion (e.g. rewinding) or if you are splicing.

~Manny

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-03-2002, 07:05 PM:

Don't believe everything you read in the books Manny. Cotton gloves are a waste of money and slow down the inspection process if you know what you are doing and can handle the film properly. Cotton gloves are a crutch for people who have poor film handling practices so they do not destroy the film.

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 09-03-2002, 07:16 PM:

Cotton gloves prevent chunks of flesh ripping from your fingers.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-03-2002, 07:30 PM:

Never had that happen Jeffry. Perhaps you might want to change the way you are holding the film.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 09-03-2002, 08:09 PM:

Yep, it's a controversial subject but I just can't move my hands with cotton gloves, and I've never gotten fingerprints on the film as a result of not using them. I did watch a print made up by someone who did use gloves, and managed to get the last shot marked-up when putting on the lights-up cues!!

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 09-03-2002, 09:19 PM:

One thing I do is look at the film from an angle to a light source. The DTS track will be somewhat "indented," so will the analog track, you can also see the lines that make up the image. This is the emulsion side.

Josh

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-03-2002, 09:48 PM:

The "indented" surface is called a "relief image", caused by a difference in the hardening of the emulsion during development and bleaching in the process. The KODACHROME process and the old ECP process that used dichromate bleach gave a very obvious relief image. Today's print films have a much less obvious relief image, but if you look closely, it is a good guide to the emulsion side.

If you can properly handle the print by the edges only (no greasy fingerprints on the picture or soundtracks!), gloves are optional. Always wash and dry your hands before handling film however.

Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 09-03-2002, 10:22 PM:

In defense of myself, I do not use the kissing method to determine emulsion side and should not have used it as an example.
As all the post show, there are numerous ways to handle film and such. I think if I couldn't find any other method then I would sacrifice one frame and do the scratch test (If you had to splice the film that is).But I really think if you look close enough you will see a difference between each side with the dull side being emulsion.

------------------
Samual Hunter Sr.

KC5ZSL

Posted by Michael West (Member # 428) on 09-03-2002, 11:47 PM:

i sometimes moisten the tips of my fingers and gently touch an area without an image to determine the emulsion side - on film without a soundtrack.
i use cotton gloves - i can find splices and film damage quicker and my hands are better protected.
brad said:
"Cotton gloves are a crutch for people who have poor film handling practices so they do not destroy the film."
brad, i think you have hurt my feelings.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-04-2002, 02:50 AM:

On the gloves issue I agree totally with Manny - latex ones are preferable to cotton in every conceivable way. They do not become saturated with perspiration which then finds its way onto the film. Being thinner, it is easier to feel for defects on the film edges while winding. They don't shed fabric particles, and they are less likely to transfer dirt back onto the film surface when overused.

I know that some people have a latex allergy issue (and I've often thought this must have the potential to cause serious problems with another... ahem... 'activity' which can involve the use of latex devices, but the less said about that the better!), but for the vast majority of people who don't, I'd say that they were a far better option than cotton ones. I really don't know why they aren't used more extensively by archivists.

And as for Brad's belief that anyone who feels the need for gloves at all is an incompetent film handler, I think we just have to live with the fact that some people have a higher level of manual dexterity than others. I would tell projectionists I was responsible for that it is a matter of personal choice, the bottom line being that there must be no fingerprints on the films. I now take a similar line with trainee archivists, though I do insist on gloves being used for certain types of element (e.g. tinted and toned elements - some of the dyes are irritant and/or toxic, and can shed during examination).

Posted by Brad Haven (Member # 954) on 09-04-2002, 03:21 AM:

If the side of the emulsion remains constant, why do we need to test which side is the emulsion?, if holding the film head out and soundtrack on the left you are looking at the emulsion side.
I have a shocking memory, but this doesn't seem too hard to remember!

On the issue of gloves, i wear a glove on my left hand for old/dirty print's and no gloves on new print's.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-04-2002, 07:07 AM:

For 35mm release prints, standard SMPTE 194 specifies: "The photographic emulsion shall be on the side of the film which faces away from the projector lens". In other words, if you view the film with the image upright and the analog soundtrack to the left, the emulsion side is toward you. The image "reads" correctly from the emulsion side.

Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 09-04-2002, 07:38 AM:

Thanks all. The methods I use now are
-soundtrack left & picture ok (or 'head' up and 'tail' down)--> emulsion side towards you
-Breathing on the film also shows the base side clearly

Btw is there a preferable way to winding the film(emulsion in or outside)? A controversial topic I think...

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-04-2002, 08:01 AM:

It depends what you're using the film for. IHMO a release print should be wound base out as in most circumstances this gives better protection to the emulsion (which is more vulnerable to scratching). However there may be issues with some platter or tower configurations which make this a bad idea. For archival elements emulsion out is almost always preferable, because base shrinkage is likely to deform the emulsion and/or subbing layer more if it is oriented outwards.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-04-2002, 09:00 AM:

SMPTE Recommended Practice RP39 specified an emulsion-in winding orientation for optimum performance during projection. Work done by Kodak with 35mm TRIACETATE prints showed better focus stability if the winding orientation was always emulsion-in: "Effect of Winding on the Projection Performance of 35mm Motion-Picture Film", by Paul H. Preo and Eric A. Yavitz, SMPTE Journal, June 1965, 74:521-525

This work has not been redone for polyester print film, and the preferred winding orientation of today's polyester prints seems to depend mostly upon the curl of the film, which is affected by the drying of the film after processing and the relative humidity of the projection room. Use the winding orientation that gives the best performance for platter transport and focus stability on your equipment.

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 09-04-2002, 12:31 PM:

Figure 11 of Film Notes Issue #H-50-2 Film Handling.

Please note that not all rewind/inspection benches have variable speed motors. Some are just On/Off. Old prints with edge damage can slice a finger open. Gloves work much better (and safer) in these situations.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-04-2002, 01:21 PM:

If you prefer to wear film handlers' gloves, that's fine. As you note, they protect your hands, as well as the film. The bottom line is that you should handle the film without putting fingerprints on it or getting it dirty. I have seen film handlers using gloves that were black with dirt.

True story: A few years ago, I was visiting a newly opened 16-plex theatre during a SMPTE-sponsored behind-the-scenes "open house" tour. I observed one of the newbie operators at the rewind bench, splicing together trailers to go onto the platter. He was wearing thick, fuzzy woolen winter gloves on both hands. When I asked why, he said he was told he must wear gloves when handling film.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 09-04-2002, 06:01 PM:

You can always find the emulsion side by using a scribe of some sort to scratch a mark either on an edge or on the leader, somewhere where it will have no consequence.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-05-2002, 03:54 PM:

Ooooh, Steve, that's a DANGEROUS thing to tell the guy who is wearing winter gloves....you never know what "somewhere where it will have no consequence" will mean to that guy!

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-05-2002, 04:59 PM:

I know how to handle film without gloves but I prefer using them because I know I'm not perfect and that mistakes can happen. That's not an admission of incompetence; lots of times projectionists are asked to do things faster than they'd like. This creates more opportunities for mistakes to happen. With gloves, getting fingerprints on the film is one less thing I have to worry about.

My name is Manny and I prefer wearing gloves.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-06-2002, 01:55 AM:

Manny,

I was referring to John P.'s guy who was told to wear gloves while handling the film and wound up wearing woolen winter gloves. Obviously he mightn't be the one you want to have a go at a with a razor as a way of finding the emulsion.

I too wear gloves -- I have both cotton and latex, depending on the task. But I am not fanatical about it. I tend to use a glove on one hand, with the other free to do the tasks that require more dexterity.

I found that gloves can become a danger in (or rather on) the wrong hands. I see guys using them as a kind of built in cleaning rag attached to their hands. I think this is a worse practice than accidently getting some skin oil on the print. I'd rather tell them to fore-go gloves and just be sure to handle the film only by the edges and avoid touching it in the picture or sound area. After all, the amount of oil that the skin can excrete and pass onto the film emulsion isn't in the kind of quantity that can't be easily removed with any standard film cleaning solution. Better that than some goon grabbing the film with a cotton glove and running the film through it as it rewinds, collecting dirt and abrasive particles and pressing them against the moving film.

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 09-06-2002, 04:51 AM:

Films are subtitled on emulsion side.

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

Cheers, Thomas
www.in70mm.com
www.dp70.com
www.70mm.dk

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-06-2002, 08:03 AM:

Thomas wrote: "Films are subtitled on emulsion side."

Good point. Both laser and chemical-etch subtitles remove the entire emulsion in the lettered area --- usually very easy to see.

Subtitles that were printed into the image (e.g., bipack printing) aren't as obvious, but of course will "read correctly" with the emulsion side toward you.

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 04-09-2015, 12:37 PM:

It has been 4598 days since the last post.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-09-2015, 12:37 PM:

I just handled a print that read correctly through the base. How common was/is that?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-09-2015, 01:01 PM:

Was it a 16mm print?

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-09-2015, 04:24 PM:

35mm print of a Guy Maddin film

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-09-2015, 05:28 PM:

Generally, in order to get the emulsion towards the lens, there was a print off of a reversal film in there...somewhere.

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 04-09-2015, 06:16 PM:

Reversal print film was available for making one off copies of a release print with some increase in contrast. The last one I saw was a Van Damme movie that never played in the United States. You have to refocus due to emulsion flip.

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 04-09-2015, 09:11 PM:

The easiest way to determine which side is which is to run the film on platters.
The side with the yellow & green scratches is the emulsion.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-10-2015, 12:53 AM:

quote: Jim Cassedy
The easiest way to determine which side is which is to run the film on platters.
The side with the yellow & green scratches is the emulsion.

Really? I would expect that from some newbie, but Jim you've been around long enough to know it's the operator that scratches the film.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-10-2015, 02:45 PM:

I got to meet Guy Maddin this afternoon, and I asked if he was aware of the unusual printing on his film ("Archangel") -- I wondered if perhaps the lab did it that way to accommodate a certain look he was going for.

He said it wasn't his doing -- as he recalls, the lab said it was necessary to accommodate laser subtitling, but it was over two decades ago, so he's not 100% sure how it ended up that way. Whatever the reason, he recalls (a) not being 100% "sold" on whatever it was; and (b) the sound always seemed a little low wherever it played.

I've handled a lot of subtitled films and, thus far, I don't recall any of them needing to be projected "emulsion in," and this includes the subtitled film I'm showing here later today.

Anybody ever heard of this unusual subtitling scenario?

Regarding the observation about sound playback level -- due to the printing? or due to the documented fact that many theatres play films with the volume turned down?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-10-2015, 03:10 PM:

The focus on the sound lens would be off, since it would have been set up for the normal print orientation (emulsion toward lamp). This would reduce HF response and would probably lower the overall level.

This issue exists with 16mm prints, too. Color reversal prints (which, as far as I know, only exist in 16mm) are the worst, since they effectively have dye soundtracks, which already compromise sound quality.

Not that this is an issue with new prints. Kodak discontinued reversal print stocks over a decade ago. Prints from reversal original now go through an IN.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-10-2015, 05:14 PM:

I figured it would affect the HF response, but wasn't sure how much of an effect it would have on perception of overall level.

And then factor in that a lot of venues are known to be timid when it comes to playback level.

Posted by Michael Putlack (Member # 6523) on 04-10-2015, 06:37 PM:

I'm calling dibs on naming a band "EmulsionSide!"

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-10-2015, 08:05 PM:

quote: Manny Knowles
He said it wasn't his doing -- as he recalls, the lab said it was necessary to accommodate laser subtitling...

Oh, that's clever! Because laser subtitles are burnt into the base, the classic problem with these prints is that you can focus the image, or the subtitles, but not both. However, if you flip the whole image and make it as a DIN print (to be projected base side facing the lens), both the image and the subtitles are going to be on the same focal plane and thus, I guess, both will be sharp.

Film subtitling technology never did advance to the point at which they could be lasered into the emulsion without damaging a lot of emulsion around the characters, and so most prints of laser subtitled films had to be shown with the letters in soft focus. Making a DIN print to get around this problem seems like the perfect solution, but for the audio issue it would cause. Did this print have any digital optical audio on it? If so, did it play with a higher error rate than you'd typically expect?

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 04-10-2015, 08:53 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
Jim you've been around long enough to know it's the operator that scratches the film.

And you've been around long enough to know that I'll never pass up an
opportunity to make some snarky remark about platters, devices which
I have no more affection for than that which I hold for tax collectors
or child molesters. I just couldn't help myself. [Smile]

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-10-2015, 11:13 PM:

Since it means choosing clear sound or clear lettering, I'd prefer to have the movie sound good than to have letters in sharp focus.

Subtitles are a compromise to begin with, so I don't mind compromising them. They just need to be legible.

And then take into consideration the fact that not all prints will get subtitled.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-11-2015, 01:32 AM:

quote: Jim Cassedy
...platters, devices which I have no more affection for than that which I hold for tax collectors or child molesters.

Well if you're going to make a comment about platters insinuating that they are horrible, don't forget other horrible things from the film days such as Brenkerts, Simplexes, CFS lamphouses, and so forth.

Some of the most worn prints I've seen were uncut prints ran only reel to reel.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-11-2015, 01:48 PM:

Having spent pretty much my entire working life in projection in arthouse/rep venues, I have to disagree with Brad here. I have very rarely seen prints that have no splices at the starts and ends but still show evidence of poor handling (you do get them, but very rarely). The killer is prints that are repeatedly made up and broken down for platter/tower/double MUT use, with only a small number of passes each time. If you're showing a print four times a day in a 20-plex for six weeks, then of course a well-maintained and operated platter installation is the way to go. But if you're only showing the movie once, the wear, risk of accidental damage and the fact that tape splices will fail over time all points to a changeover installation being preferable.

Getting back to subtitles, it's ironic, isn't it? They are a technology that couldn't be got right in either the analog or the digital worlds. With laser subtitling of film prints, we had the base side and focus problem, and the only way of fixing it involved taking an audio hit (though I would be interested to know if Dolby digital, DTS or SDDS works reliably on a DIN print: if so, problem solved, sorta). In the digital world, we had the series 1/SMPTE subtitles saga, with all the reliability issued that involved.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-11-2015, 02:06 PM:

I've always knew which side was which by the shiny/sheen look of each side, along with seeing the contours on the surface of the printed image by reflected light on the emulsion side.

This is how I taught booth operators, when doing wet splices, that soundtrack always faced you with the supply reel mounted on the right hand crank.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-11-2015, 03:28 PM:

Monte - we've moved on from that! LOL

Now, while I agree with Brad that plattering doesn't NECESSARILY doom a print, I support Leo's claim that the most horribly battered prints are pretty much always the ones that show signs of having been built - i.e. head/tail leaders have been cut.

And, because "builders" are prone to cut frames (rather than peel away leftover tape from an old splice) the changeover folks end up needing to reapply cues.

On the other hand, there are evidently a bunch of short-sighted changeover projectionists who insist on using a cue scriber to etch permanent cues into the print. And then the builders cut more frames. Pretty soon THOSE cues don't work anymore. Lather, rinse, repeat... and now there's a "parade of cues" on every reel.

And, of course, this also means there's a bunch of missing footage at heads and tails.

So, in my opinion, there's plenty of stupidity and incompetence on both sides of this argument.

And that's one more reason why film is dead now.

</rant>

Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 04-11-2015, 05:33 PM:

Back in the day when I was building up prints if I got a print that had already been automated I would take the time to peel off the tape and not make a new cut. I used high quality splicing tape such as film-tech tape and it would be relatively easy to pull apart the splices I made. I never cut out the splices I made when shipping out.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-11-2015, 10:25 PM:

Not doubting you personally, but I guarantee that the very ones who f**k up the prints also say this.

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 04-11-2015, 11:55 PM:

I have to agree with Leo; What New release Prints looked like after you sent them back to the exchange wasn't the fault of a Simplex, Brenkert, etc. It was the Projectionist running the Equipment. I always adjusted Gate Pressure to the absolute minimum just enough to avoid Flutter. Some of these Guys had their Gate Pressure to the Max which is going to wear a print exceeding Fast. What did they care, it wasn't like it was their own print from a Private collection. I always treated every Print like it was my own; and keeping hygienic maintainence of the Film path and Projector itself was top priority....

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-12-2015, 10:16 AM:

We are all "preachin' to the choir."

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 04-12-2015, 11:26 AM:

Can I get an Amen!

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-12-2015, 01:02 PM:

Amen. But wait.

Leo sez,

quote: Leo Enticknap
Oh, that's clever! Because laser subtitles are burnt into the base

Subtitles are burned into the BASE? I have run enough subtitled features to question that. Besides, how is that even possible. The base doesn't contain the image so how etching into it produce subtitles, unless the laser burns THRU the base which I have never seen.

First they used chemicals to remove the emulsion to form the text, then they used a laser to scribe the text. I have never seen the machine that used chemicals, but I have seen a laser subtitler in action -- quite fascinating. It ran slower than projection speed, maybe 3 or 4 fps. The operator had to make sure the positioning of the text was in the right place (framing) and of course that he had the right reel on the machine to match the text file. He told me more than once someone had mismatched the reel to the file and ruined the entire reel, although no problem selling those reels to collectors if they were Hollywood titles, i.e., English language being subtitled for the foreign market, which is mostly what this company in NYC dealt with. The company, of course was just another ancillary film related service that was killed in digital's mass murder spree.

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 04-13-2015, 02:14 PM:

The old-fashioned way was to coat the film in paraffin, then use a plate to hot-press letters (preset) into the wax, then the film was run through bleach and rewashed to removed the paraffin.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-13-2015, 05:51 PM:

Burnt into the base as in, they indent it. Yes, the lasering is done from the emulsion side, but if you look at the base side where the subtitles are under a microscope (even a cheap 40x toy one of the sort phonograph buffs use to check styli for chipping), you'll see that the lasering has deformed the base a little. Someone from LTC once told me that that during the '80s and '90s, they spent a hell of a lot on R & D to try to perfect the system so that it didn't do this, and thus the letters would be on the exact same focal plane as the image emulsion, but they could never get it right.

So the only time you'll ever see razor sharp subtitles and image on a film print is when they're matted on in duplication, which is only economic for a large run of prints (e.g. the scene in a Bond movie where the bad guys speak a few lines of Russian - that sort of thing).

By flipping the image around to a DIN print, the theory is, I guess, that you're going to get the picture closer to the indented subtitles, and therefore that the focusing "sweet spot" for the two will be a lot closer. The problem is that you want the same focus sweet spot for three components: the image, the subtitles and the optical audio, and no-one ever figured out a way of making the print such that it was the same for all three on the same print.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-14-2015, 01:20 AM:

quote: Scott Norwood
The focus on the sound lens would be off, since it would have been set up for the normal print orientation (emulsion toward lamp). This would reduce HF response and would probably lower the overall level.

This known variant in the 16mm realm was so common that the really high end projectors, like the Lamborgini of 16mm projectors -- the magnificent Eastman 25B designed in the abilitly to focus the sound slit to either position -- Emulsion toward the Lamphouse (EL)or Emulsion toward the Screen (ES). And in 16mm where the resolution of the soundtrack is hurting to begin with (compaired to 35mm), even that fraction of a milimeter difference on where you focus the slit will whack the hell out of playback high frequency response. A 16mm track with its already limited frequency response, every Hz of audio is precious. The lesser 16mm projector designs simply focused the slit in the middle, splitting the difference between the two locations. In other words, half-assed, and not getting the best audio available from the 16mm soundtrack.

If you ever want to hear how much of a difference that focusing position actually makes, all you need do is play an Emulsion L(amp) print on a 25B and set the slit focus to the Emulsion S(creen) position. Play the film and then move the focus knob to the correct position -- oooh, listen...high fidelity! (well nearly). The improvement is like another whole octave or more.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-14-2015, 03:55 AM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
Burnt into the base as in, they indent it. Yes, the lasering is done from the emulsion side, but if you look at the base side where the subtitles are under a microscope (even a cheap 40x toy one of the sort phonograph buffs use to check styli for chipping), you'll see that the lasering has deformed the base a little. Someone from LTC once told me that that during the '80s and '90s, they spent a hell of a lot on R & D to try to perfect the system so that it didn't do this, and thus the letters would be on the exact same focal plane as the image emulsion, but they could never get it right.

In all the years I've never seen razor sharp lasered-in subtitling and practically all foreign films did have them around here. I guess besides burning away the emulsion exactly back to the base, there is also the added difficulty of the emulsion itself being "burned" around the edges of the "cut", creating a somewhat blurry, dark edge around the subtitle. I never minded this effect, because it created the necessary contrast required for light scenes.

Sometimes you also got reels where they seemingly misjudged the intensity, because those subtitles ended up being blueish, so the burning didn't make it all the way trough to the base.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-16-2015, 04:53 AM:

quote: Manny Knowles
Not doubting you personally, but I guarantee that the very ones who f**k up the prints also say this.

Hell, I know guys who aren't even embarrassed enough about their sorry piss-poor work ethic that they don't even bother lying about it -- they'll outright brag right to your face about how they don't peel no stinkin tape and will tell you that they just lop off a whatever frames they feel like...2, 3, 4 -- whatever number their muse inspires them to -- so, they will tell you, they DON'T have to "waste time on stupid stuff like peeling tape or cleaning off adhesive residue."

Kind of makes you wanna spit in their coffee cup.