Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Would you have removed these lab splices?

This is topic Would you have removed these lab splices? 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=004307

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 12-13-2002, 01:20 PM:

While building Star Trek: Nemesis yesterday, I noticed our reel four had THREE lab splices in the reel. That's right, THREE!

My boss threw out the two that I cut out (the third was on the frameline) by mistake since she didn't know I was keeping them, so I don't have them to scan. I'll try to describe it the best way I can, though:

The first one occured in an almost totally black frame. To be more accurate, it was outer space with just a few stars here and there. WHAM! A huge white lab splice in the middle of the frame. This would have been horribly distracting to the audience, especially once the print moves to an analog house.

The second was in the middle of an action scene, and was in the top third of the frame. The problem with this one was that it was followed by an emulsion scratch from the lab splice down into the following frame.

The third like I said, was on a frameline, so I left it alone.

My question is, to those Film-Techers here who do not remove lab splices for reasons of not removing any frames from the feature, (or any other reason) would you have removed these had you run across them? (Let's just say that ordering a replacement reel is not an option, even though 3 lab splices in a single reel would probably warrant a replacement request.)

On a side note, anyone else notice that the head leader of Reel 1 on Star Trek had a picture of a bomb inside the square next to "H-1"? No other reels had it.

=TMP=

Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 12-13-2002, 06:41 PM:

Quite simply 'YES' ...even if they are on the frame line.

They sound awful when running analogue and to be honest I don't trust them. I'm much happier with a properly made tape splice, whatever that happens to mean, but it comes down to a personal preference.

I make hundreds of tape splices that don't let me down.... so I know them and trust them. I'm happy to stick with the devil I know.

When I make up a print, I make it up with the long term view of it running for many months. We tend to hold onto certain print's for matinee performances etc.

So the bottom line is that lab joins come out!

Posted by Jacob Huber (Member # 1138) on 12-13-2002, 07:38 PM:

We've been having troubles with our Nemesis print, around late reel 4. It seems that there is a few consecutive out of frame lab splices right before the reel ends that were giving us a bit of problems today. We should probably just order a new reel.

Posted by Bob Brown (Member # 1205) on 12-13-2002, 07:47 PM:

Yes, Lab Splices need to go. I had two in reel #5. Both were midframe. I also had one in the credits. Even thou we run in DTS so the sound "pop" in not heard, you still see the splice go thru. I check every print, cant say the same for the rest of the booth staff, but you know how that goes.

As a side note, has anyone else had problems with focus issues on Star Treck? We have prints numbered in the high 4,000's and in our biggest house (580 seats) left and center of screen is ok right side is a little fuzzy. Just ran a RP-40 between shows and all is sharp and clean. Had heard of someother theatres having focus issues in the Chicago area. Just wondering.

Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 12-13-2002, 07:49 PM:

Well thanks for giving me something to look forward to in the New Year...... Lab splices and focusing problems....

Where's the Gin [beer]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-13-2002, 08:57 PM:

I only remove lab splices with an ultrasonic splicer. The majority of the time a lab splice that is cut out with a tape splicer looks like the theater screwed up and had to repair the print, whereas a lab splice is an obvious lab issue. (Yes it is important to me that the patrons who would know such things know the print came that way.) To make matters worse, most of the time if I get a secondhand print and someone previously cut out a lab splice, their splice is so horrid that I end up having to chop out two more frames to make a quality splice. Thus I am not much of a fan of cutting them out with a tape splicer, although I am certainly in the general minority regarding that practice. In the end, do whatever YOU think looks best. I don't think there is any general stance toward handling them one way or another.

A post-processing ultrasonic splice is just as tough, if not more reliable than a properly made tape splice with quality tape.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-13-2002, 09:03 PM:

Bottom line is this 3 lab splices per reel are accepatble practice and an ecconomic necessity. As for removing them they don't have time at a lab to do that so it assumed that on recieving the print a competent projectionist revises the print

Posted by Bob Brown (Member # 1205) on 12-13-2002, 09:44 PM:

I agree Brad, ultrasonic splices are the way to go, but with the company I work for that is ecomnomicly unfeasable. I try to make my tape splices the best I can, I look at the frame line, if I see any light, then I use a paint pen and blacken out the frame line. Trick I learned from a IMAX projectionist. It's all I can do, to make the print as clean as I can with the equipment I have.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-13-2002, 10:16 PM:

Here is the "official" policy on lab splices by the Association of Cinema and Video Laboratories (ACVL Handbook):

http://www.acvl.org/4c.htm

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 12-13-2002, 10:30 PM:

>>>We've been having troubles with our Nemesis print, around late reel 4. It seems that there is a few consecutive out of frame lab splices right before the reel ends that were giving us a bit of problems today. We should probably just order a new reel. <<<

There is one thing you need to watch out for when you run accross lab splices. Doulbe check to make sure that the frame lines did not jump out of position. This can happen if the lab splice causes the film to jump out of position during printing. I have seen this happen a couple of times.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 12-13-2002, 10:56 PM:

Well, TMP, it looks like no one who answered meets your constraint of being someone who doesn't cut out lab splices normally. Those bombs are a regular feature of..who is it?...Deluxe Toronto?--I don't know what they mean though...

Gordon, you said that 3 lab splices/reel is an economic necessity [Confused]

? Did you perhaps mean 3/print? AFAIK, 3/reel means "somebody screwed up." I would reject a new reel if it had 3 splices. It's probably also worth inspecting the areas around the splices very carefully for color variations and other signs of "fogging."

--jhawk

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 12-13-2002, 11:07 PM:

We remove ours. They absolutely drive me ballistic.

The thing that bugs me about lab splices is that they are almost always off the frame line. Is this because the stock is spliced before printing, so frame awareness is not technically required?

After reading the above posts, I guess we were lucky with Star Trek. We only had 3 lab splices in our print... both of them in the middle of the frame, though two of them were in the same reel. [Mad]

We did have to request a replacement of our reel 2. All of the dark scenes had dark, dirt-like smudges running up the left side of the screen. Could this have happened when the print was being developed?

I have to admit to being pretty disappointed that the industry has gone to a cost-cutting procedure that degrades our prints to this extent. The industry might like to assume we all have digital sound and these lousy lab splices don't matter. The fact is that in our area, only one theatre is all-digital. Out of 45 some-odd screens, a little under half of them have digital systems. However, even an all-digital house will occasionally need their SR backup, and it's pretty sad when one of these splices hits the sound head. [Mad]

If this industry's smart enough to (eventually) get digital right, can't they at least figure out how to do a decent pre-production splice?

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 12-13-2002, 11:28 PM:

Jack, it's not just technically. There's no frame reference on the undeveloped stock before it goes in to the printer, so there's really no way to guarantee frame-registration.

Sometimes I think I'd rather have lab splices mid-frame than have them between frames. At least for scope, since a frame-registered lab splice is still visible and you have to take out two frames.

Generally 3 lab splices/print should be the average, since raw stock comes on 6,000' reels and 1 reel is some amount under 2,000'. More than one on a given reel either means "someone screwed up," or the lab in question has started using multiple "short ends" on the same reel. I can't imagine why they would.

--jhawk

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 12-13-2002, 11:47 PM:

quote:
from JHawk:
... There's no frame reference on the undeveloped stock before it goes in to the printer, so there's really no way to guarantee frame-registration.

Yah... thought it was something like that. Thanks.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-14-2002, 02:09 AM:

Just think, when digital cinema takes over, no more lab splices!

That's about the only benefit I can see to it with todays technology (and prices).

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 12-14-2002, 03:19 AM:

But Joe, what about pixels!
Theyll give you something to count while you try to sit through all these crappy movies!
Oh yeah, I forgot, no more need to screen movies.
Down with digital!

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 12-14-2002, 09:44 AM:

It has been stated in other threads about this same subject so I will summerize the info here. All reels are different in size. Raw stock comes in large rolls. When roll nears its end there may be only a few hundred feet left. The reels being printed may be 1600 foot reels. when this few hundred feet runs out a new roll is spliced on. Sometimes you can get many of these small rolls and they get spliced together resulting in more than one splice in one reel.

As far as the sound goes. I bloop the sound track with a black sharpie pen. I cut out any that go into the picture area and the frame line ones I leave in.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 12-14-2002, 12:34 PM:

jhawk -- Hmm. I could have sworn there was another thread with at least a few people saying that they'll never remove a lab splice because it involves removing frames from the print... [Confused]

Oh well.

I'll try and keep an eye on Star Trek tonight. Our "Drumline" print also had 4 total lab splices. 2 on one reel, and 1 more in two different reels. Our "Maid In Manhattan" print was clean! [Big Grin]

I would love to be able to use an Ultrasonic splicer, and if my wage was doubled, maybe I would even consider purchasing one myself to improve my presentation. But alas, all we have is three CIR tape splices which look like they were thrown off the roof for fun and are stocked with plenty of yellow opaque tape. Boss gave me permission to build with clear tape as long as I put at least a foot of yellow edge-mark tape at each reel. Sometimes you just gotta work with what you have.

=TMP=

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-14-2002, 01:35 PM:

I feel very sorry for your situation Thomas. Couldn't you suggest the reel "fill line" marking technique from the tips section?

I have made this comment before and so long as we are discussing it, I would MUCH prefer for the labs to use short ends to print trailers and such on. As a general consensus, does everyone else agree it would be acceptable to have lab splices in trailers instead of the feature?

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-14-2002, 02:18 PM:

I have seen trailers with lab joins, though I can't come up with any specific example right now. I remember thinking, "It's pretty sad when they're too cheap to throw away a teaser trailer's length of stock." Then I threw it away for them.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 12-14-2002, 03:40 PM:

It seems like there might be some practical difficulties associated with relegating short ends to trailers. To clarify, I'm speaking to the issue of one short end being joined to a new 6k reel, and not to whatever weird cases resulted in multiple short-ends per reel.

In order to use short ends for trailers, the lab technician would have to monitor the supply reel of raw stock running into the contact printer, and stop the contact printer at the end of reel whenever the supply falls beneath the length of the printed reel (presumably there's no automated device that measures this trivially, so some human guesswork would be involved; they might even need to check more frequently than once every 2 reels. I suppose if the length of the reel is known, they could simply do the math...). Then the tech would have to dismount the core of the shore tend and mount up a new core, thread it through the printer, and only then restart the printer.

Just think, they might have to pause as much as 2 minutes every 3 reels. Compare that to now where the contact printer does not have to stop at all! And then they'd have to re-seal the short end in a light-proof container and deal with managing them...

Not insurmountable, but not necessarily a trivial change to existing processes, either. "Follow the money."

It would be curious to see if any studios would be willing to pay for lab-splice free reels. Probably not in today's economic climate.

--jhawk

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-14-2002, 04:16 PM:

I have not worked in a printing lab, but it would seem to me that it wouldn't be hard to have their machine (perhaps with modification) stop at X number of feet on the 6000 foot pancake of unexposed film. Then the operator simply removes the remaining X amount with the core and sets it aside. While waiting for the next reel to unspool, he could then splice whatever was left onto an ever-growing 6K spool, which could then be used for trailers, or better yet...commercial rolling stock!

Anyway, since they have to have someone there to remove the core, load up a new pancake of film and make a splice, I don't see why it would be such a huge issue to remove the core with a little bit of excess film that could be used elsewhere at the same time. In reality with all of the reels that have to be reprinted due to digital dropouts and various defects surrounding a lab joint, the lab SHOULD try and do this. In the end, it could very well save them money, and would certainly cut down on the last minute hassle of replacement reels.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-14-2002, 04:20 PM:

Per 2000' reel 3 lab splices is deemed aceptable
Most film rolls do not add up so ends are spliced togather to make up rolls as required.
So if 6000' roll A has 500' left over, 6000' roll B has 1000' left over, and 6000' roll c has 500' left over they get spliced togather to yeild a 2000' roll

The odds of a lab splice being on frame lines is 1 in 4 since the splice is made in almost total darkness and there is no frame line reference on raw stock

This issue has been discussed repeatedly on this forum so before any one else goes on again on a rant on this issue read the other posts as it is not going to change if every projectionisdt demanded it or not. Also you would probably get billed for a replacement reel if you reject one on the grounds of 3 lab splices.

Also it is up to the company paying for the prints to determin the accepted amount of splices. The producer can pay for splice free prints such as is done for screening prints or in other cases some indi's will to save money have the whole thing printed on short end and have 12 or more splices per roll sometimes changing brand of stock [puke]

That is the nature of the game the projectionist must make the best of what they recieve

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-14-2002, 04:27 PM:

That's fine and dandy Gordon, but the odds are that 3 splices per 2000' reel will not be acceptable due to some other issue. Assuming that I got a reel with 3 lab splices in it and the digital tracks did not drop out during any of them, I would keep it. However the great odds are that at least one of them will have fogging or some other noticeable defect that warrants replacement.

I agree with John Pytlak though that 1 splice in approximately every 3 2000' reels is acceptable and understandable, but not 1 in every 2000' roll. That's ridiculous.

By the way, is this whole 3 splices per 2000' reel thing something exclusive with Deluxe labs? I have seen this multiple times personally, and they are always on Deluxe prints. I don't think I have ever seen a Technicolor print with more than one lab splice in a given reel. Is there anyone out there that has anything to do with Technicolor labs that could answer this? Any forum members ever seen a Technicolor print with more than one lab splice in a reel?

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-14-2002, 04:49 PM:

If you read the link John posted it says 2 per 1000' and a lab reel is still officially 1000'
Yes I have had tech prints with 3 splices per reel

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-14-2002, 05:01 PM:

I was referring to John's postings in the archives regarding one stock splice roughly every 3 reels. However...

quote:
In release printing, it is recommended that there be a maximum of two splices per 400 feet of 16mm or 1000 feet of 35mm. These two splices may be insert splices, or one of the two splices can be a raw stock splice. There should never be two raw stock splices in the same reel.

Even if this was "law" so to say, that would still only be two.

Also this just proves my point that "short ends" could be used to print up ads and trailers.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-14-2002, 05:25 PM:

"Even if this was "law" so to say, that would still only be two"
Yes but 2000' shipping reel is actually 2 1000' reels
The norm is 1000' per roll of cut negative
That is why many prints are actually labled Head 1A and at the other end Tail 1B
Or some labs still lable a 2000' shipping reel as the head leader printed as reel1 head and at the end of 2000' reel 2 tail

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-14-2002, 06:10 PM:

Gordon, do the math. Again, assuming this was "law"...

quote:
There should never be two raw stock splices in the same reel.

Now given that this "law" means 1 reel = 1000 feet of film and the reels we generally speak of are 2000 feet (1A+1B, etc), that still only adds up to TWO acceptable splices per 2000 foot reel. 1+1=2 not 3. Thus 3 stock splices within a conventional theater reel is unacceptable.

Posted by Lindsay Morris (Member # 1430) on 12-14-2002, 07:34 PM:

I have encountered quite a few prints from season to season with "daggy" looking lab splices which if they don't feel too rough going through the fingers on makeup stay IN the print.
BUT some I do remove and those are the ones that have huge flashes of white for a few frames or have obvious great lumps of no optical sound or if possible I bloop those out.
By the time I get a print it has been around a bit and for me to see a whole series of white flash type frames here and there in a full feature when that print had been to one or more complexes BEFORE my showing I cringe at what it had been like on their screens. I refuse to show that to my patrons so out they go (not the patrons that is).
I have a board above the winding bench with odd chunks of rubbish I have chopped out and one of the most memorable is a piece from High Fidelity that was a lab splice which was one whole perf out. So in the middle of a reel you are suddenly out of frame. When I located that one after the first showing I could not believe what I was seeing as there was 4 perfs, frame line, 3 perfs, lab splice,4 perfs, frame line and normal again?? I expected to find a poorly made tape splice instead a lab splice and how could that be??
The other ripper was about 1 metre of totally BLANK film, no sound no image no nuttin in the middle of another feature with a lab splice in it all.
Got me beat how that print ran for weeks at a Perth complex and NEVER was removed. I was so intrigued by that one I actually checked who the complex was who had it before me. I was the SECOND user of that print... does not say much for screen quality does it?
I am probably wasting my time removing rubbish splices as most of the stuff I run goes back almost ready to be junked but I am determined that what goes up on our screen is as good as I can get it. Patrons pay good money to see a film and they should not be subjected to crappy presentation from whatever source it may come.
Lindsay

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 12-14-2002, 07:49 PM:

Gordon, I don't think there's been any previous discussion about more than 1 lab splice per reel. I can't find one, can you post a more precise citation?

I don't see how the discussion of single reels has anything to do with this. You're not seriously suggesting that the lab contact prints n copies of 1A, and then contact prints n copies of 1B, and then makes n splices, and then rewinds half? That seems implausible to me...

Surely 1A and 1B are spliced together much earlier, presumably on the camera negative if not on the interpositive, or at least the interneg?

I have to also question the contention that a 500' short end from A gets spliced to a 1000' short end from B and a 500' short end from C. Surely the 500' short end from A gets spliced to the new 6000' D, and then there's 1 lab splice somewhere in the first reel that gets printed from that, and then another one 6000 later when a new 6000' E is spliced on.

But I was under the impression that the splice takes place as the reel is running into the printer on an elevator. That is, as the reel has 200' or so left on it (if the printer runs at 180fpm), a bell rings, and after the reel end runs through into an elevator, the operator splices the new 6k reel on...

I mean, sure, they'll have a short end when they stop production and shut down the machine, but that should be rare.

Brad, I didn't understand your comment about 3 lab splices meaning you'd like reject a reel anyhow. Assuming it doesn't have any safelight fog, what else would be wrong with it that would make you reject it?

--jhawk

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-14-2002, 08:08 PM:

Assuming there were no picture defects (not counting the flash of the lab splice itself) and no audio defects (not counting a pop in the analog), then no I would not reject it. I would keep it. My comment was that the odds are that a reel with 3 splices in it will have at least a major defect around one of them.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-14-2002, 10:16 PM:

Some labs use printers where the sound and picture negative for each reel are in a loop, and the raw stock is fed on through an "accumulator" or elevator, to allow time for making the ultrasonic splice. If they are printing 2000-foot reels, on average, they will have only one splice every three reels, since they typically use 6000-foot rolls of raw stock. Operators have only about 30 seconds to make an ultrasonic splice in "darkroom" conditions.

Many labs still use bi-directional panel printers. On these, the "short ends" must be spliced "off-line", and the lab usually tries to tailor the length to minimize the number of splices in any given reel. Not all release prints labs have a constant trailer business, so short ends often do need to be used for feature reels.

Kodak print film costs about 9 cents ($0.09) per foot, so a short end of about 500 feet is worth about $45.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-14-2002, 11:26 PM:

Back to Brad's comment about lab splices in trailers: any trailer with a lab splice in it would automatically go in the trash can in any booth that I work in....

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-14-2002, 11:42 PM:

I'm dying to know here...so Scott you are saying that you would run a feature with a lab splice, but not a preview? I understand the trailer is only a few hundred feet vs. 1500-2000 feet, but you are saying that warrants a complete reject, whereas you would play a reel of a feature and not consider that a complete reject?

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-14-2002, 11:59 PM:

John said"Gordon, I don't think there's been any previous discussion about more than 1 lab splice per reel. I can't find one, can you post a more precise citation?

I don't see how the discussion of single reels has anything to do with this. You're not seriously suggesting that the lab contact prints n copies of 1A, and then contact prints n copies of 1B, and then makes n splices, and then rewinds half? That seems implausible to me...

Surely 1A and 1B are spliced together much earlier, presumably on the camera negative if not on the interpositive, or at least the interneg?"

It has been mentioned several time in the past
Several labs I service still used old BHP bidirectional printers and they will splice short ends as required
Sometimes due to delays in editing partial 1000' reels are still printed. The 2 splice per reel still refers to the old standard of 1000' reels The two 2000 reel a theatre recieves is actually 2 reels
And as I said there have been several low budget productions that have used 10 or more splices per foll to acomodate cheap shortend printing, and I doubt they would tolerate a projectionist refusing to show it

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-15-2002, 12:40 AM:

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that a shoestring production's print be refused due to lab splices. We are discussing MAJOR multi million dollar mainstream movie prints.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-15-2002, 05:08 AM:

Any studio can demand that certain prints are made from unspliced stock. It costs more, but as Brad says, on multi-million dollar productions, the cost to make splice-free prints from full rolls as opposed to those that use short ends is insignificant. They do it all the time for "show" prints. It all depends on what the studio demands and what they are willing to pay. You can bet that at premiere screenings and major openings, the projectionists doesn't get short end prints with lab splices and the attendant junk around them.

Frank

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-15-2002, 08:19 AM:

Brad--yes, I'll refuse to run a trailer with a lab splice. It's just pathetic that someone would allow their _advertising_ material to be less than perfect to save _at_most_ 100 feet of raw stock ($9).

As a practical matter, I can't reject feature reels with lab splices, but I can almost always find another copy of any given trailer to replace defective ones.

I can deal with occasional lab splices in the middle of a 2000' reel (since it would be crazy to waste several hundred to a thousand feet of print stock...and all Technicolor prints have lab splices every 1000', anyway), but lab splices that are fifty feet from the beginning or end of a reel do irk me, since the cost savings is so minimal. Same for trailers, which are, at most, 200 feet or so.

I understand the economic reasons for lab splices in feature reels, but I have a hard time accepting that Warner Bros. is so hard up for cash that they wanted the lab to save that extra fifty feet of raw stock.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-15-2002, 10:20 AM:

quote:
lab splices that are fifty feet from the beginning or end of a reel do irk me

Among the 4 lab splices I noticed in Star Trek Nemesis, 1 of them was between the reel change cue marks at the end of a reel.

To me as a "viewer" it generally seems less distracting to have a 1-frame blip at the splice than to remove 1 or 2 frames and have a jump in the action. Some lab splices look much worse than others though and if there's a major white flash on the screen it might be less distracting to viewers to just excise it. Tough call.

[Aside from the lab splices, the Nemesis print looked GREAT. Very fine-grain, extremely sharp, excellent contrast & color rendition. Best looking movie I've seen in a while. This was on only a 30' screen, but the image quality reminded me of 70mm on larger screens.]

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-15-2002, 10:45 AM:

Scott, for all you know maybe the lab does routinely set aside the 50 foot short ends (they probabably can use them for tests etc) and is only joining short ends of significant length. But with continuous printing it's not easily predicted that the join is going to end up just 50 feet from the head or tail of the reel.

Say you're printing a 1700' reel and you have a 1600' short end (which I'm sure you would agree they should not waste) depending on when it's fed into the mix while the odds are such that it will likely create two reels with joins somewhere in the middle it's also randomly possible that you'd end up with a single reel that has two lab splices very near the ends. Say one at 30' in and the other at 70' in. You might get that and say, "Gee...is [studio] or [lab] so hard up that they can't afford to waste 30' ($2.70) of film?" Yet in reality there was never a 30' short end involved. Maybe there was never anything involved in this scenario except a couple of nice full 6000' rolls joined by one 1600' not-so-short end.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-15-2002, 12:17 PM:

Steve--good point. I'd like to see how a high-volume lab operates someday; I've only seen smaller 16mm labs that were doing, at most, a handful of release prints. Certainly nothing like 8000 prints of Harry Potter.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 12-15-2002, 01:28 PM:

Frank, I don't believe that showprints and select prints have any relevence to lab processes here. There are two easy ways to keep get splice-free reels in small quantities: 1) Keep track of which reels lab splices happen on 2) Watch for lab splices when you're grading the reels.

Since select prints are graded anyhow, watching for lab splices should be trivial. And of course, keeping track of which reels have splices in them is trivial too.

The only cases where it becomes hard are when you want more than 1/3 of the reels to be splice free. That's what we're talking about here.

(Obviously the solution is for bookers to start sending the squeaky wheels select prints...)

--jhawk

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-15-2002, 10:52 PM:

Actually it would add to to alot on an average major release to pay the extra for splice free prints. The production company's are aware of what they pay for and they choose to save the money and order as such

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-17-2002, 07:41 AM:

Scott Norwood wrote: "...and all Technicolor prints have lab splices every 1000', anyway), but lab splices that are fifty feet from the beginning or end of a reel do irk me, since the cost savings is so minimal".

Release prints made by Technicolor North Hollywood or Mirabel (Montreal, Quebec) will typically have only one ultrasonic lab splice for every 6000 feet of prints made. But the splice may end up anywhere in the reel, even near the beginning or end.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-17-2002, 07:58 AM:

John--sorry; I was referring to "old" (pre-1974) dye-transfer Technicolor prints, not the current Eastmancolor prints. I don't remember if "new" dye-transfer prints are printed in 1000' sections or not. Anyone?

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-17-2002, 01:36 PM:

I say the lab should splice the smaller rolls of film together and use that for trailers - then, yes, throw the ones that actually receive the splice away. Or, pay for the shipping to send them to the theater. I'll be delighted to throw them away. I can't stand lab splices. If they aren't the definition of a huge distraction, I don't know what is.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-17-2002, 02:45 PM:

J/SMPTE carried a description some years back of high volume printing and the lab...I think it was an English lab...would monitor splice location when joining raw stock and make sure they fall on the frameline. Of course that requires winding through the film which may be an otherwise unnecessary function if rolls are joined on the fly with elevators etc.

How about this: The manufacturer warrants that the rolls are cut to a whole number of frames (4 perf multiples). Perhaps they already do this. If the lab removes the beginnings and ends of rolls (not sure if they do) they do so in whole frame increments. Printers get threaded so these joins fall on the frame lines.

That doesn't eliminate the glitch entirely especially on Scope but it certainly makes having them go by much less of an irritant.

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 12-17-2002, 10:29 PM:

quote:
I don't remember if "new" dye-transfer prints are printed in 1000' sections or not. Anyone?

No, the recently revived (and possibly yet again defunct) dye-transfer process is printing in 2000' rolls. In fact, I was quite impressed with the print of "Apocalypse Now Redux" I ran... not a single lab splice in all 10 reels. Kudos to Francis Coppola and Vittorio Storaro for a film print done right.

I wonder if it would be so hard to keep track of the rawstock frameline with even a simple footage counter? In fact we don't need a footage counter, just a sprocket with markings every four perfs. Since we're talking about loop elevators, I assume the lab always leaves the film path threaded to avoid the time-consuming hassle of rethreading. This might also explain why labs still splice the rawstock even if only a few feet are being saved-- the short end would have to be unthreaded and a new roll rethreaded, anathema to a lab cranking out 8,000 prints of the new "Potter" flick. (Now that I think about it more, if the roll runs out just before the reel finishes printing, which may be either direction, you're out of luck anyway, and even if you had calculated in advance, what could you do-- the "short" end would in fact be nearly the length of a reel!)

Anyway, when initially threading the printer, it would seem relatively easy to establish a frameline reference between framing sprockets mounted at the printer (or framelines on the contact printer's printing sprocket itself, perhaps?) and in the darkroom where the splices are made. The lab technician would thereafter know exactly where the framelines were going to occur in the rawstock.

Of course, these ideas are speculatory and I too would love to see exactly how it's done at a major lab. One question in particular: with a large print run at a loop-elevator-equipped lab, how is the printing negative handled? Is it run reel-to-reel, with a technician having to rethread the neg for each new copy, perhaps in a bidirectional fashion? Or is the neg itself in some kind of loop cabinet?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-17-2002, 10:48 PM:

Seems to me that if Kodak was to bring back the tiny hole between perforations on the inboard side (think 70mm here) that making lab splices on the frameline would be relatively easy. How about it John?

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-17-2002, 11:35 PM:

Strictly speaking you wouldn't even need a sprocket to track it as this can probably be done with IR sensors.

Brad that's a great idea but it won't happen for the same reasons they got rid of the 70mm index hole. And it's a shame too because of its obvious advantages not just with raw stock but tracking frame lines on black or clear processed film as well.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 12-18-2002, 12:14 AM:

If it's not a solution for scope, it's not a solution.
Frame-registering the lab splices just means you have to pull two frames instead of one.

--jhawk

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-18-2002, 07:04 AM:

It's a solution in the sense that while it's still a glitch it's not shockingly disruptive like it is across the middle of the frame.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-18-2002, 07:47 AM:

Brad asked: "Seems to me that if Kodak was to bring back the tiny hole between perforations on the inboard side (think 70mm here) that making lab splices on the frameline would be relatively easy. How about it John?"

Perforating that tiny reference hole was a source of increased dirt, and a primary reason it was eliminated for 70mm. But even if only perforated along one side of the film, bi-directional printing would place it in conflict with the Dolby Digital track half of the time.

The labs using loop printers with feed-on elevators DID try to index the lab splices to the framelines, but in the dark and with only about 30 seconds to make the splice, it was very easy to have an extra perf of slack while pulling the raw stock onto the splicer throw the indexing off, even with a metering sprocket. When making the splice, the operator discards a short length of the outer convolution of the raw stock roll, and leaves a bit on the core of the roll just used, so "exact to the frame" lengths from Kodak wouldn't solve the problem.

To answer Christopher Seo's question --- the labs that are using loop printers thread both the picture and sound negatives into a loop cabinet with enough capacity for a full reel's length.

Posted by Jean-Michel Grin (Member # 1360) on 01-15-2003, 02:08 AM:

Some examples of Lab Splices in LOTR2. The projectionist who's handled this movie for a press presentation, din't remove it ! [Eek!]

What a shame [Mad]

Bye,

Jean-Michel

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 01-15-2003, 03:01 AM:

quote:
...from Steve:
It's a solution in the sense that while it's still a glitch it's not shockingly disruptive like it is across the middle of the frame.

Except for the hugely annoying pop that these splices cause in analog sound systems. [Mad]

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-15-2003, 05:23 AM:

Is it just me or do lab splices always seem to look worse on Fuji stock than on Kodak stock?

I sent Brad two examples of really horrible lab splices over a month ago and he _still_ hasn't scanned and posted them. :razz:

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 01-15-2003, 06:55 AM:

Jack wrote:

quote:

Except for the hugely annoying pop that these splices cause in analog sound systems.

The sound shouldn't be a problem if you bloop the splice. Whether a splice, mid frame or otherwise, is better or worse than removing frames from the print is debatable; I would be very reluctant to do anything irreversible to a print in my possesion without permission from the owners. Is any guidance given by the distributers on this matter?

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 01-15-2003, 07:03 AM:

Just "bloop" the splice!

All of our Local 35 IATSE projectionists were required to bloop the sound tracks when making cement splices way back in the dark ages of mono sound.

KEN [beer]

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-15-2003, 12:49 PM:

Our theater still runs mono. [Roll Eyes]

=TMP=

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-15-2003, 04:46 PM:

Jean-Michel, it looks like instead of removing those lab splices, a piece of tape was put over them -- even worse! Now not only is there the disruption of the lab splice, there's the disruption of the focus plane from the splicing tape...to no benefit.

And in the bottom right frame, it appears that the not only was the frame with the lab splice removed, but the frame above it as well [Frown]

--jhawk

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 01-15-2003, 05:45 PM:

Tape over lab splices does not make a focus shift if the tape is placed ONLY on the base side (facing the lens).

Sound bloops are easily accomplished with acetate waterproof "India" opaque ink in a draftsman's pen with #1 point. This ink was developed for drawing on frosted "Mylar"(c) drafting film. Earlier forms of india ink were effective on the silver tracks of the mono days.

The closeups of the frames show the gunshot, full volume, soundtracks which emulsion removal splices create.

Bang or Bloop ... Your choice!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-15-2003, 06:18 PM:

quote:
Tape over lab splices does not make a focus shift if the tape is placed ONLY on the base side (facing the lens).

That depends on the model projector, Kenneth. Also, regardless there will be two horizontal "tape lines" across the screen. Unless the lab splice is made crooked or otherwise unplayable, those lab splices on polyester stock won't break. (Back in the early 90's and previously though I could understand why someone would want to reinforce the lab splices, but not with today's filmstocks.)

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-16-2003, 06:51 PM:

Building up our print of "A Guy Thing" I noticed there was a lab splice in Reel 2, among others. I got it to the point where the splice was to see if it needs removing, and lo and behold:

A SCRATCH! Excuse the bad pics, but as you can somewhat see, there's a nice green scratch that starts right after the lab splice!

Here's a close-up. Unbelievable. It looked like it disappeared for a minute, but...

It "pulsated" on and off through to the end of the reel. Came and went, sometimes green, sometimes black.

My manager promptly called Technicolor for a replacement reel which should arrive tonight or tomorrow morning.

"YAY!" to Deluxe Toronto! [Mad]

=TMP=

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-17-2003, 01:27 PM:

If you still use a white light (tungsten exciter lamp) reader, any blooping ink used for silver + dye analog soundtracks should be opaque to infrared light (i.e., be carbon-based like India Ink). Any dye-based ink is transparent to infrared, and will be ineffective.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-17-2003, 02:33 PM:

Scott Norwood asked: "Is it just me or do lab splices always seem to look worse on Fuji stock than on Kodak stock?"

Kodak worked to optimize the ultrasonic splicing characteristics of Kodak VISION Color Print film, and reduce sensitivity to "safelight" fogging.