Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Hey, you, you rule! (AKA: Praising good film handlers)

This is topic Hey, you, you rule! (AKA: Praising good film handlers) 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=004183

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 11-08-2002, 07:46 PM:

We opened 4 prints of 8 Mile today.
When I came in at 2 yesterday, only 3 of them were here.
A call to Technicolor showed that one of them was being delivered at 11 PM from someone else.
I knew I was in for a used print from another theater somewhere and was fearing the worst: scratched, dirty, poorly wound, too many frames cut off the heads and tails, etc.

Well, the print came in at around 1030 and I was realieved to find a print that was in great shape.
The tags on the back of the cans showed that it came from the Rice University Media Center here in Houston.

Since this place runs changeovers, the heads and tails were uncut, the attached trailer was still attached, and all trailers that were sent in the can were still there.
No scratches and no dirt to be found anywhere on the print.

Only two minor complaints with this print:
1. The reel bands were secured with a small piece of tape and one of them came loose during delivery.
2. At the end of one reel, there was a splice made with some nasty splicing tape that left a little residue behind when I peeled it off to remake it. Filmguard helped remove the residue.

I thought the splice may have been made to remove a lab splice, but the next reel had a lab splice still in it, so it is not clear if the tape splice was made at Rice or not.
Either way, I was thankful to receive a used print in such good condition, especially since it was a bit of a late buildup.

I know the projectionist for the Rice University Media Center has posted here before.
Are you still lurking?
Thank you for taking care of this print.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-08-2002, 08:54 PM:

Awesome!

Now hopefully this thread will some day have more replies than the "suck" thread.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 11-08-2002, 10:03 PM:

As for praising good film handlers:

Hats off to all the people responsible for handling the film and for the operation and maintenance of the projection equipment at the Regal River Oaks Cinema 8 in Decatur, AL, the theatre with the best and most consistent presentation quality in the Huntsville/Decatur area for the past 5 years!

As of tonight, this theatre has 20 straight attendances with no deductions for any presentation defects (no other theatre around here comes anywhere close to that), and an incredible problem index of -0.2 (the next best is -1.4 ). -0.0 to -1.0 is the "A+" range, and -1.0 to -2.0 is the "A" range.

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-09-2002, 01:47 AM:

Dang, Evans, that formula is seemingly scientific!

I certainly don't have anything like that to gauge on praising good film handlers. For those I consider deserving of the "you rule" title, I bestow that on the guys that gave me great film-going memories at the GCC Northpark #1-#2 in Dallas.

And even though Jack Connor is a good friend of mine, I give that fellow "you rule" points for keeping the Carmike 8 in my town running very well. He's been running the same print of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" for I don't know how long now, but it has been long, and the print is still in very good shape (no dirt, scratches, etc.). He campaigned hard and got his theater in little-ol-Lawton equipped all-DTS. The guy cares about putting on a good show, and that's in spite of putting in some really long marathon hours.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 11-09-2002, 10:43 AM:

quote:
He's been running the same print of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" for I don't know how long now,

This would be a good test to see which theaters really do have "good film handlers": Go see My Big Fat Greek Wedding at your local theater! Just about every theater in my area still has a full set of shows since it was released, or shortly after its initial release when it expanded. Can a multiplex really run a print that long?

=TMP=

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-09-2002, 12:58 PM:

On a movie like that it is very important to find out if the theater got the print brand new, as odds are it was received used. If they got it used, it is unfair to judge their presentation on it.

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 11-10-2002, 07:49 PM:

All of the guys in my booth, the Lakeville 18, have kept Big Fat Greek Wedding running for, god, it must be over 12 weeks. Five shows a day, still in our second largest house which has 262 seats, and not a scratch or bit of dirt on it. Even as we trained three assistant managers to run movies, we haven't had one bit of damage done to the print. It even feels new as the tail leader runs through your fingers as you begin to thread

And it still comes close to selling out every evening show on the weekends too.

At the Willow Creek theater, the 2 projectionists have had their print as long as we have, and their's looks just as good and gets run just as much. It's a shame it doesn't have SRD, I'd love to check the error rate on it.

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 11-10-2002, 09:15 PM:

We are out of that running already, our print was damaged when we received it.

Bummer

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-10-2002, 09:19 PM:

One place where I often fill in had Monsoon Wedding in mint condition for about five months and then someone (not me!) scratched it a couple of weeks before we shipped it out.

Also: hey, you, at the Coolidge Corner Theatre in Brookline, MA.: you rule! Last Saturday's show of Lawrence of Arabia (in 70mm mag) was great ; lights, curtain, music, changeovers, etc. were timed perfectly. Thanks!

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-10-2002, 10:04 PM:

We got Greek Wedding after it had been out for about a month and a half. I was afraid we were getting someone else's crappy print, but low and behold, a VIRGIN PRINT!!! HAHA! We played it for several weeks, and for some strange reason it was pulled - it happened to be our biggest draw at the time (freakin stupid booking people!).

Anyway, it was gone for about two weeks or so, and all of a sudden, we were slated to get it back this past weekend, and the first thing I thought was "Uh oh." We got a call from Technicolor telling us that the print wouldn't be delivered until 10:30am Friday morning. "Uh oh, again." No time to screen it and make sure everything was cool. I was all set to be extremely pissed because the print we sent out was in pristine shape, and there was no way we could get lucky twice, right?

WRONG! The print showed up with all heads and tails attached correctly, even the paper bands were wound around the proper reels nicely, and it was extremely clean, and scratch free! What are the odds???

All I know is that it looks like it came from a theater in LA. Whoever it was, YOU RULE!

Mark

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-03-2003, 09:30 AM:

To whoever last ran print 00058 of Nicholas Nickelby--you rule! It looked like the print had come from a changeover house (leaders were properly attached with double-sided splices) and had previously been run at a platter house (which left one ID frame on each leader, as I prefer). Both houses appeared to have handled the print well, and it even had that nice April-fresh Filmguard scent. Reel bands were properly attached, too, and the reels were in sequential order in the cans.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-15-2003, 11:18 AM:

Hey, you, at the Clearview First and 62nd St. Cinema in NYC, you rule.

We got your print of "Owning Mahowny" last night. It was in great shape, leaders had a single reference frame on each and were attached with single-sided splices using good splicing tape and a good splicer, reels were nicely labelled, etc.

I suppose that I shouldn't be excited about receiving a used print that didn't require repairs in order to be run, but it's a rare enough event that I thought I'd thank whoever was responsible.

My only complaint is that there were four or so lab splices that were not removed.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-18-2003, 09:06 AM:

This thread is interesting in that it points out how the industry has changed. I have always worked in second run and art house format theatres. I have ALWAYS gotten "used" prints. (the only virgin prints I ever get are sneak previews). From the posts so far, I hear a subtle fear that if a print isn't virgin, then chances are it will have been abused.

Years ago that wasn't the case. Prints coming from first run houses, where typically booths were populated with well trained projectionists, mostly union guys, prints came to subrun booths in excellent condition. When there was the occasional mistreated print, it was something the projectionsist and our manager got really bent out of shape about -- it was the oddity, not the norm. And you have to remember, back in the 50s, 60s and even into the 70s, titles had a whole hierarchy of release strata that they don't today -- on big releases you first had reserved enagements which could play for months, even years, then flagship engagements in major markets, then first run wide, then second run, then subrun (underbellies as they were called) and then maybe a few years later, the re-release. Same prints going down the ladder. Yet, the theatres at the bottom of the totem pole still got prints in very good condition -- prints that had a lot more handling than the occasional print today that makes it to a second run house from one other first run engagement.

Contrast this with what is being implied in this thread -- that you are as likely to hit the lottery as you are of getting a decent print if it has played just one engagement before you. Sad commentary on what is going on in today's projection booths. What's the reason? Many, I'm sure, but I'd put my money on automation vs. trained personnel -- lots of automation, very little trained personnel.

Frank

Posted by Aldo Baez (Member # 790) on 05-18-2003, 10:37 PM:

I received my House of 1000 corpses print one week after the original release date from the mann? westwood village. Print came absolutely perfect, torn down with one splice of tape on one side, no fingerprints at all or anything. Awesome.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-27-2003, 02:35 AM:

Hey you, at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in Beverly Hills, CA.--you (not surprisingly) rule! Print #0008 of "Heart of Me" arrived today in mint condition and almost looked brand-new from the lab, with barely a fingerprint on the leaders. Leaders were intact and uncut. The print arrived heads-out on shipping reels with the leaders securely taped down with good-quality artists tape.

Admittedly, the print was probably only shown once at the AMPAS, but I've seen enough prints that were trashed on the first showing that I was delighted to get this one tonight.

My only (minor) quibble was that one reel had a lab splice that was not removed. It was, however, on a frameline.

Posted by Luc Odell (Member # 1760) on 06-27-2003, 06:38 AM:

Hello to one and all!
I FINALLY received my registration to this EXCELLENT site and wanted to introduce myself to the other members. I also wanted to say simply: Thank You!
This site validated my belief that there are indeed other professionls out there in this industry who care about "Film Done Right!"
When i chanced upon the "You Suck!" Forum i realized i HAD to register. I always felt i was a little anal when it came to my booth, but here i found things i never considered and yes, even some things i had(HAD!) been doing wrong.
Re: "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" post.
We stopped running it 22 weeks after it went to video. Had guests for every show(that i ran). I came to this theatre while it had already been viewing(and damage to reel 1) I believe it ran for 7 months(at Least!) or 8.
Anyway,nice to meet you all and i look forward to a long association with all.

Luc

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-30-2003, 11:44 AM:

Welcome, Luc....come and post often! I love the fact that you refer to your patrons as "guests;" it bespeaks of a mindset that many more exhibitors would do well to adopt.

You said: "Re: 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding'post.
We stopped running it 22 weeks after it went to video.....I came to this theatre while it had already been viewing(and damage to reel 1) I believe it ran for 7 months(at Least!) or 8."

I never thought it was much of a picture even after the first run (but who am I to argue with 100 million paid admission?) , but I bet by now you HATE it with a passion, eh?! [Smile]

Frank

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 07-29-2005, 01:36 PM:

It has been 760 days since the last post.

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 07-29-2005, 01:36 PM:

Damnit! I couldn't find this one last night.
I was searching for threads with "you rock" in the title...Could've swore that's what it was.
Sorry, guys.
Anyway:

quote: Dominic Espinosa
I'll have to check the print number but I think it was 3028.
Must Love Dogs, an example of Film Done Right!
I have a feeling it was a fellow Film-Techer who had this print for a sneak.

It had the following tell-tale signs of film-techery:
1.) Head leaders contained 1 ID frame while tail leaders did not
2.) No splice tape was left on from previous splices and no residue was left on the reel ends either.
3.) A single sided splice secured the leaders to the reels
4.) All reels had a piece of tape on the outside flange with a "fill line" on it
5.) All splices overlapped just slightly suggesting a modified splicer per the tips section
6.) The print wasn't damaged in ANY way.
7.) The tail of the final reel was protected by a clipping of an old trailer
8.) The tail tag was written properly, i.e. all sound formats were identified correctly. Even SR-D!
9.) It was clean, even at the reel ends!

Thanks, whoever you are. Keep up the good work!

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-29-2005, 02:04 PM:

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 07-29-2005, 04:16 PM:

Great cartoon, Scott!
Nobody want's to fess up, huh?
I know it was one of you film-techers...

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-30-2005, 05:06 AM:

quote:
Now hopefully this thread will some day have more replies than the "suck" thread ....

..but unfotrunately, we operators at discount houses have to put up with the majority of the prints that come from houses that have no intelligence on what they are doing. Thus, it'll be rare for a praise for a print to come in that isn't one way or another, screwed up which puts our emotions to the test.

Realistically, to gain a praise is when we actually receive a unused print from the depot that was never assigned to a first run house...and that happened two years ago when we received a new print for MATRIX: Reloaded - 'bout had a heart attack in receiving a new print to a discount house. (Can's full of trailers, leads not cut off, no cue tape, et.al. ... )

Thus, I seriously warned the other booth personnel of us having a new print and I want it to stay clean thorughout the engagement.

-Monte

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-30-2005, 12:26 PM:

Hah...I bet Evans A., if anyone, is the one who can come up with a scientific formula that would take into account the difference between the age of the print and a "from-the-lab" print, giving the art house or second run houses certain numerical handicaps. Then again, it would be really great if we knew the condition of a print BEFORE the arthouse guy was faced with it out of the can -- you know that sinking feeling in your stomach when you open a can and you're looking into a tangle of film spagetti -- you KNOW you've got a plateful.

Many times a print might look pretty bad on the screen, but it may have taken that projectionist hours to get it to look even THAT good. It might not even been playable the way he received it (how many times have we've been in THAT position).

Just ran THE SOUND OF MUSIC last night. Anyone want to guess how much feakin white shoe polish or white-out or whatever is was that they paint all over it that I had to clean off the image and soundtrack? (No wagering please.)

Posted by Thomas Dieter (Member # 2507) on 07-31-2005, 12:22 AM:

quote: Dominic Espinosa
8.) The tail tag was written properly, i.e. all sound formats were identified correctly. Even SR-D!

I have to say that I've seen a lot of Tail Tags, and they all vary. My question about this is why put a "Tail Tag" on? Why not just put a strip of Masking tape over the title on the base side, so that when it winds up on to the top of the platter, it is shown from there? All Sound formats are printed there, granted they are small, and you have to look close to read it.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-31-2005, 12:47 AM:

quote: Thomas Dieter
Why not just put a strip of Masking tape over the title on the base side, so that when it winds up on to the top of the platter, it is shown from there?

Thomas, Thomas, Thomas....of course we all know you meant Artist Tape, right?! The reason why not just put a strip of masking tape is because it ages VERY poorly and in a very short time the adhesive dries out, flakes and migrates its way into the body of the print where it acts pretty much like sandpaper against the emulsion. Masking tape is insidious in that when YOU put it on, it looks very benign and seems to do exactly what it's supposed to do. But in TIME it will show its evil nature, and you will be embarrassed that it was you put the stuff on. [Wink]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-31-2005, 01:20 AM:

Thomas, unless you have a large supply of CLEAR leader to add to the tails of your prints, your trick doesn't work.

This is of course assuming that YOU do not suck and are actually adding extra tail leader to all of your prints. (Most professional projectionists simply use a minimum of 25 feet of footage from an extra trailer laying around, although some do go to the extra trouble of purchasing clear leader.)

You don't suck at your job, do you?

Posted by Thomas Dieter (Member # 2507) on 07-31-2005, 02:46 AM:

So the topic dosen't change, lets go here.
Changing Ways

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 01-20-2007, 08:09 PM:

It has been 538 days since the last post.

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 01-20-2007, 08:09 PM:

A special thank you to the managers and/or booth staff at Regal's Brooklyn Center 20, Brooklyn Center, MN.

We've recently received three move-over prints from y'all that have been properly wound, packaged, complete with DTS discs, no static, tail properly labeled & looking pristine on screen [thumbsup]

Your attention to detail is a rarity in this town, especially from a megaplex.
Kudos.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 01-21-2007, 03:39 PM:

Don't worry- whoever's responsible for that will probably be fired soon [Wink]

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-21-2007, 07:36 PM:

Brad said " (Most professional projectionists simply use a minimum of 25 feet of footage from an extra trailer laying around, although some do go to the extra trouble of purchasing clear leader.)"

Old trailers may contain timecode that could cause a DTS player to do a format change after the nonsynce pulse

Posted by Chad M Calpito (Member # 3736) on 01-21-2007, 09:52 PM:

While working at the Gaslamp Stadium 15 projection booth, I noticed a lot of wonderful things at this theatre. The projectors and platters and everything in between were kept in great shape. Also, all of the prints looked great on screen with virutally no sound problems. Not a single customer complaint was made to me while working there. So, I must say that it was a very pleasent booth to work in by myself. So, a big Praise to the projectionists there.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-23-2007, 02:11 PM:

Just reverse em Gordon -- it's only fill, so it won't matter if the soundtrack is on the wrong side.

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 01-25-2007, 07:40 PM:

Then you'd get a visible soundtrack on screen.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-25-2007, 07:57 PM:

quote: Charles Greenlee
Then you'd get a visible soundtrack on screen.

...Um...they're talking about adding this footage at the very end of the film - so the tail end won't be all damaged during film runout from machine to the platter. Then, you snip that scrap end off on breakdown night and the print going out is in excellent condition from head to toe.

But, if you see all of this on the screen, better get your cueing all straightened out and/or your dowser situation fixed so it will close properly when feature is over with.

Posted by Tim Asten (Member # 4051) on 02-05-2007, 02:30 PM:

All this "Film Done Right" stuff on this site is all very well and good practice,but whats all fuss about about peeling bits of splicing tape off old joins,with all the unnecessary film handling and the chance of leaving tape residue etc,just to save TWO frames per join? I can understand that cutting more than one ident frame off a leader of a brand new print is just lazy and unnecessary,but most end of reel joins result in a change of scene and so two frames,or even a few more,is not really going to be noticed.Personally I always cut a brand new join every time and I dont think anybody so far has noticed that there is a couple of frames missing. [Smile]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-05-2007, 03:41 PM:

Ok Tim, you can expect to get blasted over this one, but before that happens I suggest you do a search of the archives. This thread explains the effect on losing 2 frames of sound. So let's say the first person to play a print leaves an ID frame at each leader. That's 2 frames gone forever from the print. Then Sally plays the print and cuts off another 2 frames. That is now 4 frames gone forever from the print. The you get it and chop off 2 more frames. Now we are up to 6 frames missing.

The effect IS noticeable in the audio, sometimes even cutting off bits of dialogue and certainly screwing up future changeover theater's timing.

Personally I still strongly feel that NO frames should be cut, but I am 100% fine with someone cutting ONE ID frame off of the head leader only. There is no excuse for ever losing more than that one frame because under that argument, the head leader provides "positive ID" for people that do not want to (or are capable of) comparing edge markings or waveforms. The tail doesn't need it.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 02-05-2007, 05:56 PM:

I have seen up to 12 frames cut from the head and tail - you can't risk that in your show.
However, on the rare occasion when we get a new print the first and last frame of each spool is a slightly different colour to the adjoining frame. I assumed thatthis is a sacrificial ID frame.

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-05-2007, 06:58 PM:

A great way to approach film handling IMHO Tim is to treat every Print like an extemely valuable Old Master in an art gallery.

Imagine an art gallery curator taking a scissors to a canvas and cutting off a small triangle at each corner, then saying nobody will notice! You get the idea. [thumbsup]

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-05-2007, 07:05 PM:

We've talked bout this before, and since I happen to love horses,....I know this is like beating a dead, er... oposum, but especially in this day and age of digital intermediates, there really is no good technical reason why there can't be an ID frame printed multiple times along the length of the leader....let's say after each countdown number. Better yet, they have the edge print technology -- use that to print the reel number along the entire length of the reel. How about dusting off all that old SDDS printer equipment that's already able to print along the film edge -- commandeer that to print the reel numbers -- lord know no one will be needing it for SDDS any more.

Once you have reliable print numbers in the body of the print, then getting the right leader to the right reel is almost irrelevant, and no need for ID frames so no more accordian fan-folds at leader joints and no more lost image and sound.

But the again, that's assuming there is anyone on the production side of the coin who gives a flying puck about improving print integrity when we all know the studios' mindset is fully focused on digital. And fan-folds and lost frames are the bailywick of second run -- and no studio is concerned about second run exhibition. In their collective minds, the legs of film exhibition are gone after the initial marketing blitz, i.e., after a release's initial wide theatrical run -- after that, it's all about the real cash cow, the home video market.

Ask them about making a change to film print standards, especially one that might cost money, which would benefit the exhibition of film prints and you might get and exchange like this between two young studio execs turks:

We pick up the scenario just after a Film-Tech guy tried to explained on the phone to a rather dense Studio Exec. 1 how it would be beneficial to make slight changes in order to improve presentation.

Studio Exec. 1: (to Studio Exec. 2 who is sitting across from him at another desk in a large, well appointed office) Harry, this guy says they have a chronic problem loosing frames at the reel joints.

Studio Exec. 2: What frames?

SE 1: (looking perplexed) Don't know....seems they get chopped off and it causes jumps in the image and sound.

SE 2: Do they mean in the server...the server drops frames?

SE 1: No, at the leader. They loose image and sound information.

SE 2: There's no image or sound in the digital ID stream. Are they talking about when they put in the encription key?

SE 1: (On the phone to the Film-Tech guy) Is it a problem entering the encription key?

F-T: No, it's when the film print rolls are joined together for platter or long-play reel projection. I'm talking about when making up and breaking down the 35mm film print.

SE 1: Harry, not it's not in the encryption key....this guy's talking about movie film....35mm prints on platters. (Pressing Mute on his iPhone) Hahahahahahah!!

SE 2: (holding his side, bent over with laughter) AHHH HAHAHAHA!

SE 1: (composes himself, unmutes iPhone) OK, listen babe, thanks for bringing this to our attention (SE 2 trying to stiffle laughter); we'll take that under advisement. Oh and hey, really babe, you should be getting your people to Get With The Program -- put in digital, babe. It doesn't have scratches or jitter or color fade, in case you haven't heard. Bye. (Presses END on his iPhone; both execs continue to laugh long into the evening.)

Posted by Tim Asten (Member # 4051) on 02-06-2007, 05:57 PM:

Hi Brad.I have read the "ID Frame Thread" as you suggest,however there seems to be a lot of argument and disagreement by others as to what you say is worth worrying about,especially with regards to digital sound.I am not saying you should chop frames out willy nilly,but a few frames missing here and there is not going to kill anybody especially with some knackered old re-run print like "Garfield 2" I had to run the other day for a kids show.As regards an ID frame on the tale leader,this is sometimes invaluable.As Duncan Smith's post in the thread suggests,the state of some of the re-run prints we get is terrible with leaders attached to wrong reels etc.I once had a reel delivered with half of another reel spliced to it.The only way I found out this was the fact the end leader ID frame did not match the end of the half reel(which,incidently,was part of the following reel).So sometimes ID frames at both ends are usefull. [Wink]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-06-2007, 06:21 PM:

If you would stop cutting frames it would IMPROVE the state of subrun theatres. Loosing frames here and there is just plain incompetence and laziness.

The next theatre may indeed be a reel-to-reel house...so the frames you cut now start to take away from the changeover cue and the last projectable frame.

If you can't peel your tape without damaging the film please get out of the business...you don't belong. If your tape leaves its mastick behind, use better quality or spend more time removing it...it is that simple. Return the film with everything it was delivered with...that is all the frames.

As for ID frames...on modern films with ID codes on the edges...it is not hard to match up heads/tails with their proper reels, ID frames or no. You do need to be able to see the magenta numbers on the edges of the film but there shouldn't be a problem there if your eyes are decent or if you have a magnifying glass.

As to SDDS...it is still used by more than you would guess. We service a fair number of them...2000s, 2500s and 3000s. Believe it or not...they are more reliable now in SDDS near extinction than when they were an emerging technology. Another oddity...SDDS-8 film seem to be coming out with greater frequency than Dolby's Surround-EX. Ghost Rider being the next SDDS-8 film.

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-06-2007, 06:22 PM:

Were you able to report the condition of the "Garfield 2" print before screening? You would surely have been sent another one straight away, even same day depending how far you are from Perivale (centre of the cinema universe in the UK!).

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 02-06-2007, 08:32 PM:

I think the concensus is pretty clear.

There is reasonable argument about whether you should cut 0, 1, or 2 ID frames from each reel, but it is clear that more than 2 damages the print and adds no value.

It is always possible to get the goo off. Some people recommend FilmGuard, in my experience 1,1,1-trichloroethane or naphtha both work better.

Anyone cutting more frames off is damaging the continuity of the print. The 42ms per frame is significant, especially in the soundtrack. 84ms for two frames is more significant, and any more than that produces notable continuity gaps.

(By the way, I recently re-discovered the power of peanut butter for adhesive removal. Has anyone ever tried it on film?)

--jhawk

Posted by Tim Asten (Member # 4051) on 02-07-2007, 01:14 PM:

Good grief!You are a touchy lot.personally A few missing frames in a film is lower on the list of priorities than other things,like film cleanliness,scratches,oversize screens resulting in soft focus,low contrast,dim light.Also screechy compression driver induced sound distortion,surround channels to loud,sticky floors,seats that give you back ache,idiots with mobile phones bleeping away etc.In an ideal world,all films should come complete with all reels already joined,perhaps laser welded on the rack lines and delivered to theatres in giant protective caddys,untouched by human hands-if you have a platter or tower,of course.now wouldnt that be cool? Any way I cant believe we are arguing about cut frames.ive just been on our theatres digital projector training course,and the pictures were jaw droppingly good(Christie CP2000)with simple operation,auto xenon alignment at the touch of a button,bright rock steady crystal clear picture,and..NO frames missing!!.Mind you nothing thrills more than watching 70mm film running through a well engineered projector.The CP2000 in comparison is just boring-just a metal box with light coming out the front.Ah well,thats progress I guess..

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-07-2007, 01:25 PM:

Touchy is the wrong word to describe this group. They are professionals and they expect anyone joining in on the discussion is either a fellow professional or is someone learning with a strong desire to be a professional.

It might also interest you to know that properly done, film looks better than D-cinema. You have to see it done properly first though to believe it. Unfortunately poor training and improperly maintained equipment is what plagues this industry. You should be able to run a print 1000 times without the slightest speck of dust or mark on the print. If you cannot do that, you are doing something wrong.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 02-07-2007, 03:41 PM:

i simply don't understand the argument that one problem is irrelevant just because another bigger problem can be identified. they should all be corrected. sometimes it's the little problems that cumulatively become big problems, as is the case with chopped frames.

i have seen literally dozens of films in first-run theaters with dialogue over a reel change that's missing phonemes, even whole syllables. sometimes more if there's a fadeout that's been lopped off.

then look what happens when these operators get to handle the odd rep print for a midnight show. you need a yardstick to measure the missing film.

is it any wonder rep prints are in such shit shape when poor practices like this are institutionalized?

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-07-2007, 05:32 PM:

I think the best way to look at it is no problem that effects presentation is too small

Posted by Tim Asten (Member # 4051) on 02-07-2007, 05:57 PM:

Brad.Please dont get me wrong,I have every respect for professionals.I to,dispite what people may think,am one.But I think we are fighting a loosing battle with film presentation.the whole industry seems to be geared toward making as much money as possible with little regard to making quality films and as for the way they look onscreen,well, standards have definitely dropped.You have to admit print quality,even first run prints,tend to look soft and jittery, probably due to the fact that so many are made with scant sympathy for quality control.Over worked,poorly paid projection staff who dont get paid enough to worry about putting on a good show.badly maintained equipment is another problem with cinema chains spending as little as possible.also the demise of high quality formats like 70mm is another nail in the coffin of high quality presentation.All of this you know.I dont want to sound all doom and gloom,but I feel a bit sorry for proper projectionists who have high standards as they must feel a sense of fustration.As regards Digital Cinema,all I am saying is that an extremly good picture and sound can be had by just pressing a couple of buttons by a non qualified person.This must be Mana from Heaven for your average film distributor.And I think they will win in the end.But all of this,dispite trying to run a 15 screen multiplex-largly single manning-does not mean I dont try to do the best job that I can.I have a keen interest in this industry..honest [Smile]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-07-2007, 07:21 PM:

Okay fine...given all that you just stated....what does that have to do with not only condoning but actually participating in the removal of frames?

There are things in this world you can't fix/change and those that you can...cutting frames is something YOU can overcome if only in your little portion of the world. Some of the other items you listed are also within your power to overcome for at least those that visit your cinema(s).

In short, all of the other ills in the process does not condone ore lessen the wrong of adding to a diminished film going experience.

As for DCinema...financially, it still doesn't work. The technology doesn't bring in one more ticket and it is many times more expensive to buy into and to keep as compared to film. Those that are not paying for it may not see that but somebody is footing the bill and will continue to have increasing expenses relating to keeping the DCinema equipment not only working but up to date.

Steve

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-07-2007, 07:56 PM:

I don't work in a booth but if I did I'd do the best I could with the stuff under my control. Even if every other aspect of "my" theatre was crap, I'd try to limit my contribution to that crap, to the extent possible. Sound and/or image disruptions caused by missing frames are disconcerting to the audience.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-07-2007, 09:17 PM:

Since I run a booth in a discount house, I get prints used, thus the leads have been cut -some were sloppily cut and some with no ID REFERENCE frame (which is a horrible for me since I just don't know if the booth clown who reassembled the print right with the correct head leads..this is where I try to see if the cut matches between leader and the roll..from the ETS factories) on the head leads..and even no leads are reattached - just the ends taped down. What's even worse, is when a print comes in like this, no reference frames on both ends and tails out.

Now, I cut new for the simple purpose that I want to make 'my own' splices - not take anybody elses splices as my own. For, we don't know how their splicer was - was it out of alignment, is the punch and die assembly aligned properly..et.al. ?

For, I've tried it a few times with cleaning the existing cuts and just do the resplice over the existing cuts. But with sad experiences with hopping frames in the gate assemblies when those splices go through since the existing holes in the sprocket holes were cut different causing the hopping, I said "forget it" and do cuts so I can clean and smooth splices, thus my presentations are smooth running in the machines.

My presentation isn't going to look trashy as the cinemas that are run either by booth clowns or "usher bees"

-Monte

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-07-2007, 10:44 PM:

MONTE!!! You can always bloop the soundtrack if there is a gap between the ends of the film. If there is an overlap and your projector jumps, then your projector is out of alignment (or is just a lousy design) because an overlap splice with tape is still less thick than a cement splice and all projectors back into their origination were designed to handle it.

Don't cut more frames! [Mad]

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 02-07-2007, 11:20 PM:

Personally, I peel. It bugs me that everyone else here cuts the frame to get rid of the splice. But I got that good habit, from some bad habits. Working at Carmike, I noticed our continuous use trailers (DTS, Policy, Etc.) were getting shorter and shorter. Some starting 1/4-1/3 way into the trailer. I realised, like any tape, that it can be peeled off, with no frame loss. At my current booth, I raised hell over it, and now everyone peels, at least when I'm around. I explained what cutting eventually does, and that I won't have my DTS trailers, that I worked so hard trying to get, ruined. And that goes for everything else, ads/trailers/movies.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-07-2007, 11:54 PM:

Sorry Brad..didn't mean to confuse you a bit there, but it's not the blooping that is my problem for I've blooped many-a-splices, if necessary, when running prints in optical by making trangular pieces of bloop spots that fits right in the soundtrack area using electrical tape-works pretty good.

It's when the film was punched with someone elses splicer that the dieteeth from other splicer reams out the sprocketholes in this existing splice area which causes the framehop in the trap when the splice goes through when it hits the intermittent sprocket (plus, being a rather noisy splice anywho due to uneven teeth spacing from that other splicer's punch). ... and this is what really gets me to no end and that's why I cut.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-08-2007, 12:39 AM:

That's a very rare situation though. Your post makes it sound like you do this more than once a year for those rare exceptions.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-08-2007, 02:00 AM:

..yet, I can see where you're coming from with all of this since the basis of this whole site is to be of an instructional tool in as well as a good reference point for all who seeks what they desire in this industry - sorta helping those along with these forums since you can't be everywhere all the time showing them everything.

Posted by Alex Grueneberg (Member # 2652) on 02-08-2007, 02:21 AM:

I was unaware removing the old tape was the preferred method, not cutting the frame on used prints. I find it odd that no one ever told me that [Frown]

.

Also, Hey! [thumbsdown]

I did'nt want to become an "uuh-sure b". It just happened.. I sware!

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-08-2007, 02:47 AM:

quote: Alex Grueneberg
I find it odd that no one ever told me that .

..simply that a booth training program was designed for the workers in an "Wal-mart" (K.I.S.S) atmosphere - no skills or special training is needed, just do as your trained and told.

And you had to accept that is why you didn't know any different.

One could say, "blind leading the blind", but that isn't a fair description, for the blind leader didn't know of such a practice either.

Nobody's blaming you whatsoever..just the way it is.

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 02-08-2007, 08:15 AM:

Monte,

Please join the rest of us in second run and use the wonderful ID images here in this site.

It is a real God-send to have those images, thanks to Brad.

KEN

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-08-2007, 08:19 AM:

Monte, I am really not following....what kind of splicing misalignment problems do you find? I run lots of old prints and I rarely see a splice that is so badly cut that it can't be rehabilitated. Are they punching the sprocket holes not true -- enlarging them or distorting them in some way? Mostly if there is some kind of misalignment it causes a gap or the splicing tape is larger than the width of the film and it sticks out....something like that, but that's fixable.

The Letterset applique stuff that I use covers a lot of ills...literally -- it is a great blooper as it is the exact size of the soundtrack and if you wind up with a gap between film ends, you can use it to cover the gap, giving the splice strength so it won't fold as it travels thru the mechanism.

I think in all the years I have been in the booth, a bad splice may have caused an actual mistracking so the film jumped a sprocket at most 2 or 3 times, if even that. But you can tell just by looking at a splice it is that badly made. I've gotten some handmade splices that were difficult to salvage -- but few and far in between.

The thing I can't for the life of me understand is why would anyone cut an additional frame when they can just as easily cut on the same frame cut? Splicing "over" the existing splice, even if they are too damn lazy to peal the tape off, it is still much better than compromising the integrity of the print by lopping off another frame.

As Brad rightly points out, well aligned projectors are very tolerant of splice thickness -- the double acetate film thickness of cement splices were routine. It would take quite a few multiple layers of tape, especially on thinner estar base film, to have a mechanical mishap because of thickness. You figure even if you have a few I-can't-give-a-damn booth clowns just taping over existing tape without pealing it, there has got to eventually be one conscientious professional who will peal off the multiple layers of tape and make a good clean splice and send it out to be multiple layered again by the a-holes.

Or am I missing something here? Just seems to me that no matter how lazy someone is, making a cut on a new frame isn't any quicker or easier than just making the cut on the existing splice cut. How is cutting a new frame an advantage in any way whatsoever? Is it just that they need to be better trained?

Or do they just need to have their fat little effin fingers broken?

And Tim, just look at it this way, if a booth is run by people who have a "what's all this fuss about doing things correctly" work ethic and are sloppy because, well, it's just easier and hey, look at all the other jerks cutting corners so what's the big deal when there are soooo many other things that are wrong so how's this additional little thing going to hurt.... well you can be damn sure that you put those same lame people into a booth that has D-Cinema and given time they'll rape that system just as surely as the do the film system.

Unprofessional is unprofessional no matter what kind of equipment happens to be in the booth. And D-Cinema may look like just a box with a light coming out of one end, but it is a highly sophisticated and VERY EXPENSIVE system. Put clowns that have an I-really-couldn't-give-a-damn attitude near that equipment and they will find a way to screw it up. You can put money on it.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-08-2007, 03:36 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
. Are they punching the sprocket holes not true -- enlarging them or distorting them in some way?

Yes, this is my big beef, is that when the punch comes down and punches in the film's sprocketholes itself, it enlarges the sprocketholes slightly. thus with these slightly enlarged holes, the pulldown from the intermittent sprocket is slightly off when the sprocket is pulling down this section of fim causing the film to pop a bit in the trap and the picture will slightly hop - due to the slight offset speed of the film going through the trap.

This is not an issue of either overlap or gapping when splicing, for that can be easily fixed in the splice.

Guess, I have to clear up something: I live in a regional area that booth professionalism is on the rare side-if they have projectionists at all. If they do have booth operators, it's the 'wal-mart' training techniques handed down from corporate to location.Thus,why should they care on how do to things if the pay isn't there and having pride in their jobs is next to nil? Thus,all of my ETS prints comes from these regional locations, and I tell you, I do find some doozies in the 'fox-box' or cans..

I've seen this so many times within first run theatres that I anticipate a hopping picture when the splice hits.

I'll have to get to a splicer and explain more on how things do get out of alignment and which splicer is more of the culprit. But I know that when tearing down a splicer to clean it and putting it back together, I align the punch and die assembly with a piece of film to ensure a full aligned punch.

It's amazing on how things cut and splice with everything aligned.

Hope I cleared things up here a bit .... thx - Monte

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-08-2007, 08:13 PM:

quote: Tim Asten
But all of this,dispite trying to run a 15 screen multiplex-largly single manning-does not mean I dont try to do the best job that I can

What? Well that just about sums it up [Roll Eyes]

. Aren't you guys in a union? Single-manning in a 15-plex should be totally verboten

Posted by Tim Asten (Member # 4051) on 02-09-2007, 01:46 PM:

Hi Brian,most of us are in the union,but I feel the issue of single manning is something they expect us to live with.Perhaps others can comment whether their unions have helped is this regard.We single man most weekday evenings,except Thursdays, because this is when we do trailering/moving the prints etc,for the following day.Friday afternoons also we double up to do all the ad reels.It can be very tireing.The cinema I work in is one of the busiest theatres in the UK,and the owners know this,so I think they milk it for all its worth.Sometimes we run over 80 separate shows a day not including previews etc.The cinema is on 2 floors,thankfully connected by a lift.We hardly have time for even the smallest of breaks.Then there are technical issues/faults to deal with and so on.Im not suggesting other projectionist have an easy life-there must be other cinemas with similar schedules-but you do get run down at times and presentation does suffer.Mind you it does teach you to be very efficient,and we have learned a lot of useful techniques,especially with regard to keeping the equipment running.

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 02-09-2007, 03:15 PM:

Back to the "you rule" part of this thread ...

Willow Knolls 14, Peoria, IL*. I just built your former print of The Painted Veil ... probably the best condition of a used print that I've received in a LONG time. Thanks!

*at least that's the label on the box ... as was discussed in the "you suck" thread, that isn't always 100% accurate.

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-09-2007, 03:22 PM:

Good stuff, sorry for going off-thread back there.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-09-2007, 04:23 PM:

Tim what you just described isn't that big of a deal in all honesty. I've worked a 16 plex with 5 to 6 shows a day per screen by myself MANY times, as have tons of other people on this site. (Some have worked 30 plexes by themselves on non-print/trailer shifts.) It's not that difficult, and I have single handedly ran a 16 plex including changing out all 35mm rolling stock ads, trailer changeouts as well as changing all 16 film cleaners in one evening shift (this is usually done on Wednesdays). I have also built 8 prints and broken down 6 on one Thursday evening by myself while running that same 16 screen booth...and it was spread over 4 different rooms. The presentation did NOT suffer in the least bit. You just have to know how to manage your time and to do it properly you need a Goldberg platter reel for assembling prints, a Goldberg collapsible trailer-hub split reel and a Kelmar film cleaner running FilmGuard on every screen. With those tools in hand, you won't be wasting your time running around chasing brain wraps, focusing, cleaning out projectors after each show, or even just wasting time "loading" new films to the platter with a MUT. Having a truly qualified tech on call, or doing it yourself, is also of primary importance because if there are equipment problems, it suddenly takes a major toll on how much extra time you have to devote to that problem.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 02-09-2007, 08:55 PM:

Be careful....wage & hour people require a 15 minute break after 2 hours; 30 minutes for lunch break, and another 15 minute break later. This is state law in most states, not contract or "policy." Louis

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-10-2007, 12:51 AM:

I ran a 21plex all by myself for a couple of wknds since some of my crew wanted time off for special engagements of sorts or got sick.

Manager was deeply impressed that I did it all with no problems and had shows on the screen in time, but recommended that I'd better not do that anymore, for if one house muffs up bad, the rest of that entire theatre's performance times would be all but late.

One thing about running a 14 plus screen complex by yourself, it builds character knowing that you can do it all under control in as well as it makes the day/night shifts go fast - plus having some good excersize from running to one end of the building to the other.

Posted by Tim Asten (Member # 4051) on 02-10-2007, 10:51 AM:

Hi Brad,we dont have access to the Goldberg platter discs that you mention,therefor we have no choice but to use MUTS and good old rewind benches.However I am a little perplexed to how you managed to make up 8 prints and break down 6 while still running 16 screens.In our theatre at least that would take many hours of back to back print make up/break down,and thats without any distractions like threading up projectors etc.there is obviously a lot of projection techniques that we are not aware of.Perhaps you could start a new topic,if its not already listed,suggesting the most efficient way to make up prints,change ads/trailers etc,as this current topic is supposed to be the "you rule" thread.-my fault,sorry. [Smile]

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-10-2007, 04:07 PM:

Brad is obviously super-human. [Smile]

My personal record is four prints in, four prints out, plus trailer changes, plus running a 6-plex in about 8 1/2 hours. Prints were fully inspected on the bench and made up onto 6000' reels. It would have been faster if there had been a second working MUT in the booth. I never want to do that again and I really don't understand how people who work in the larger theatres can do this sort of thing every week.

I've run a 16-plex a couple of times and it's not all that difficult on a "normal" night with start timers and equipment that is in good condition.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-10-2007, 06:14 PM:

It's all how you manage your time. Also little things like not having to thread to a certain start point in the leader helps (but most crappy automations don't have such a "show start" cue). When I said that the platter reel and FilmGuarded cleaners were a must, I literally meant that. WAY too much time is wasted just loading up prints from big reels to the platter. With the platter reel, you can be 100% done with the assembly and the print on the platter in less time than it takes to build to two 6Ks on the bench. And don't forget all of the time wasted in cleaning out the projectors when running the film dry.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 02-10-2007, 07:20 PM:

Louis, I don't know if Wisconsin is the oddball state or not but we have no mandated breaks here except for minor who are required to have a 30 minute break after 6 hours of work.

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 06-08-2008, 03:47 AM:

It has been 483 days since the last post.

Posted by Chad M Calpito (Member # 3736) on 06-08-2008, 03:47 AM:

About two weeks ago, I received a print of OSS 117 from the Landmark's Ken Cinema and was really pleased with the excellent condition that the print was in. No scratches or other problems. It made me happy knowing that there are people out there who really care about the prints and doing Film Done Right. So, to the Ken Cinema Booth People, Thanks! [thumbsup]

Oh yeah, I even sent them an e-mail as well thanking them for a wonderful job.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 06-08-2008, 11:16 AM:

would that be the Landmark Kendall Square cinema in Cambridge, Ma? I have been to that theatre on service calls and have to say it is a very clean and well maintained booth. Landmark also put some decent equpiment in when they built the place including two projectors, and consoles on thier biggest screen. I don't think they are set up for change over I think one is just a spare.

Posted by Thomas Pitt (Member # 4322) on 06-08-2008, 11:37 AM:

I must suggest the film handlers at the Bradford Cineworld - this cinema has some of the best presentation I've ever seen! I've never once had to complain about the picture or sound; they do manual starts whenever possible (so they can check focus and framing), and most of the time the picture and sound are the best I've seen in a multiplex!
I have complained about other things though - like the buzzing on the front channels and disabled douser I mentioned in other threads, but that's not really the film handler's fault.

Also, all three single-screen cinemas (including the IMAX) in the National Media Museum, Bradford. Although they use platters, everything is done manually (curtains, start/finish, turret changeover), and I've never once seen a bad presentation due to incompetent projectionists [Big Grin]

Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 06-08-2008, 01:43 PM:

quote: Sean McKinnon
would that be the Landmark Kendall Square cinema in Cambridge, Ma?

No, it is the Ken Cinema in the Kensington neighborhood of San Diego, CA. This theatre was, for a long while, the only full-time movie house in San Diego County still running changeovers and carbon arcs. Their projectionists took pride in keeping their vintage equipment in good shape and putting on a good show.

I haven't gone to a movie there in several years but I read somewhere on the Web that the Ken threw in the towel and replaced their Super Simplexes and Peerless Magnarcs with platters and xenon and put one of their old projectors out in the (cramped) lobby on display. An end of an era, indeed. [Frown]

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 06-08-2008, 01:57 PM:

Yes, that is true. The story I heard was that the carbon rods were expensive and getting hard to find. I used to enjoy sitting in the very back and hearing the faint sound of reel end bell. By and large, the Landmarks in San Diego do a good job.

Posted by Chad M Calpito (Member # 3736) on 06-08-2008, 05:10 PM:

I, too, heard about them switching over to being a Xenon/Platter house via e-mail from them. It's been a long time since I've been to that theatre, but, they always put on a good show.

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 11-22-2009, 10:10 PM:

It has been 532 days since the last post.