This is topic The why, how and because of film work... 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=004374

---

Posted by Alex Grasic (Member # 1371) on 01-01-2003, 01:35 AM:
 
I think there is a real need to put out exactly how film handling should be done for all the rookies who refuse to follow along in doing the job properly. I've been to some theatres where there 'craftmanship' is just crap and even in my theatre, there are people who are stuck on doing things their own way...I just want everyone to put out what they think is the best way to do any aspect of the job from makeups to breakdowns to threading and to cleaning. Anything you want to add...if there's something that's posted that you disagree with...say so...but don't just say "I disagree". Tell us why!! Thanks everyone

1. DO NOT chop ID frames when making up prints.
2. When adding ANY automation cues, ie: foils, add a peice of clear splicing tape underneath it.
3. WASH YOUR HANDS before handling any film (may be 'of course' for some of us but for others...I don't know). We don't want to see your fried chicken dinner while we're watching the movie.
4. When breaking down prints, REMOVE the splicing tape from the splice and always reattach heads & tails with a single peice of spicing tape...

NEXT??!?
 

---

Posted by Josh Kirkhart (Member # 1046) on 01-01-2003, 03:50 AM:
 
Hasn't this been covered?

By all means if your company and trainer does not supply you with the know how or even a guide then a 'do's and don'ts' of the booth may be appropriate for your booth.

Reference frames are a small debate on the forums(not so much for the reel to reel guys). Some , like me believe reference frames are important if you are running anything larger than a twin screen. No matter how dedicated you are there will come a time you can not be there to break down a print. Reference frames make sure that person has less of a chance of screwing up(thats of'course if they cannot read your plainly numbered heads and tails). I also believe its very important to second run houses that often get horribly broken down prints. If the person who built the print knew just that step(reference frames) and nothing else, the print can be put back together properly for the show. Otherwise he/she is in the dark.

I think this site has all the information your looking for in many similar threads and in the directories on the menu bar to your left. You obviously care for great presentation or you would not be here, so you must know most of this. Show your fellow employees that are closed off to learning that you know your stuff and enforce it.

Good luck and keep 'film done right'
 

---

Posted by Alex Grasic (Member # 1371) on 01-01-2003, 08:41 AM:
 
To the topic of reference frames, if they were meant to remain on the head or tail, then I'm sure they would have just attached a dupe 'reference frame' somewhere else in the head or tail. The reason why that frame is on the reel is because it was intended to be on screen with the rest of the print. Some people are probably saying, "it's just one frame" but does anyone remember Knockaround guys? or Not Another Teen Movie? From what I remember there were several reel changes mid sentence and cutting the 'reference frame' out caused part of the dialogue to be lost. I can't help but take those as signs that distributors do not want anyone to cut out ANY frames whatsoever. Am I wrong about this?
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-01-2003, 08:58 AM:
 
We can debate all we want about reference frames, but the bottom line is this: any film editor who places reel changes in the middle of a scene or line of dialogue (or, worse, a piece of music) is just asking for that scene to be butchered by exhibitors. This can happen in any number of ways: theatres with exciter-lamp changeover systems, platter or large-reel houses which leave multiple reference frames attached to the leaders, "souvenir collectors," badly done changeovers, cheap splicing tape that can't be peeled and thus requires frames to be cut off, etc.

Personally, I do leave one reference frame attached to both the head and tail leader of each reel (except the head of R1, of course) when making up new prints for platter shows. I can understand other viewpoints, but my reasoning is this: the reference frame isn't for the benefit of the first person to break down the print--it is for the benefit of the next theatre which runs that print, so that they can be sure that the leaders are attached to the proper reels. When running older prints, I have always appreciated having a means to confirm that I am running the film in the proper order. Also, the loss of two frames at every reel change is quite negligible; in a changeover booth, I know that I am personally only accurate to within a couple of frames, anyway.

I know that Brad disagrees, and I agree that it would be preferable to show every frame for the first run of a print, but I am glad that most people from whom I have received used prints with cut leaders have followed the reference-frame convention.

Much more important to me, though, is that the leaders be re-attached with good-quality clear splicing tape (not the white junk, not masking tape, not Scotch tape, not duct tape). Single-sided splices are fine and should run through most projectors, but I really hate spending time peeling off junk splicing tape and re-attaching leaders for once-only shows. Also, either USE REEL BANDS or TAPE DOWN LEADERS before shipping a print out!

Anyway, all these topics have been discussed (there's a thread on "breakdown etiquette" or something similar that I'm too lazy to look up right now).

And what's up with putting automation cues _over_ splicing tape? I can't think of any reason do this except if the cues are difficult to remove (foil peels off easily; the barcode stickers don't), but I can think of many reasons not to do this (in particular, automation systems which require multiple cues in a row to perform certain functions). I admit that I don't remove the cues when I ship out prints from automated booths, but there are never more than two cues (one at the start of the credits and one at the end of the show), neither of which is visible on screen and both of which are easily found and removed if the print goes to another automated booth.
 

---

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 01-01-2003, 11:06 AM:
 
Big Sky optical cues are very difficult to remove, and do leave a residue behind on the film. Excellent reason to lay down a piece of splicing tape first. Although, many theaters that use Big Sky automation are configured to read several cues in a row (one cue on each frame line, for several consecutive frame lines) to perform ceratin functions, and this would make for a very jumpy scene as all that splicing tape went through the gate! I suppose it all depends on what kind of cue tape you use, and how many cues are required.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-01-2003, 11:24 AM:
 
Scott,

Did your print come with those cues on them? If not, take em off...who are you to add them for everyone else? Generally, the key is to return the print in the manner in which it was received and that wasn't with cue tape.

The only reason I buy into the lack of leaving an ID frame is that it mucks up the sound sync for nearly a second. The lost of visual information is of no consequence. This industry should devise a way to repeat the last couple of frames in the leader to nip this one once and for all.

If dialogue got lost in mid sentance than adding two more frames or 1/12 of a second wouldn't have restored it...that is less than 1/10 of a second and you can't form half a sentance in that amount of time...there was something else amiss there.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Adam Fraser (Member # 1074) on 01-01-2003, 12:53 PM:
 
I believe that removing cue tape would be important for the next theatre also. What if the next guy builds up the print and has automation with cue sensors but does not use cues on every print. That makes him have to babysit the print to make sure that things are going to happen when they are supposed to. One person's curtain opening cue could be someone else's automations show end and shut down the projector cue.
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 01-01-2003, 04:50 PM:
 
Cover cues with splicing tape?? That would be as distracting as putting a splice there- cues should NOT be seen or heard by the audience in any way- if I'm not in the booth, I don't want to be able to tell where you've put the cues.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-01-2003, 05:16 PM:
 
There should be 2 fames left attached to the head and tail peices(kodak notes for reel people some time ago)
I will not accept a print that has the leaders removed and no ID frame
I don't have time to correct some idiots mistakes of wrong leaders attached
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-01-2003, 05:34 PM:
 
Gordon, sometimes you amaze me. Quoting old documents 10, 20, 30 years ago really doesn't affect people too specifically in today's booths.

TWO FRAMES!!!

While I don't support the idea of leaving frames on the leaders, I DO understand WHY some people do it. However there is no excuse in the world to leave two. Not one single valid reason.
 

---

Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 01-01-2003, 07:13 PM:
 
I agree with the practice of placing cue markers over splicing tape - Rather that than removing any frames as in my experience all markers I have seen leave a very sticky residue, much worse than tape.

And what is it with some people that run their cues to about 6-12 frames?? And just to annoy you further, wrap them around the edge of the film. Are they just making sure the sensor spots them or what? I dunno what kind of automation these guys are running, but even my crap system can sense 5mm of foil and act accordingly. I don't know where these prints come from, but they come pretty regular, in fact regular enough that I suspect it must be a UK chain, I see so many prints marked up this way I can't believe it's some renegade independant!
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-01-2003, 07:38 PM:
 
The reasons for leaving two frames was so that there are many who are operators that cut off a frame and pitch it hopefully the next guy has one to check with
As for theatres that are bad Alex's is one of the worst for just leaving the heads and tails loose in cans with no info as to waht reel is which brocken down where ever with no regard for cue marks
I know of several second run houses that will not accept prints form that particular Toronto Cineplex theatre
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-01-2003, 10:27 PM:
 
Alex, if the operators "refuse" to do things they are supposed to do, simply remove those operators from the booth. That's what I do.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-01-2003, 10:36 PM:
 
Heck Gordon, if they are just running the reels down and chopping wherever they feel like and not reattaching leaders, a professional could STILL re-assembled it with relative ease.

Now I am not condoning that kind of practice, but this sort of does happen and it's up to the projectionist at the receiving end of the theater to be skilled enough to get the show on screen until a new print can be delivered and the previous theater be billed for the cost of a new print.
 

---

Posted by Alex Grasic (Member # 1371) on 01-02-2003, 01:22 AM:
 
Gord, you must have the wrong Cineplex theatre. Every print that leaves our theatre has both heads and tails properly reattached to EVERY reel. I make sure of it every Monday morning before they're picked up. The only thing I may be guilty of is sticking with Brad in the belief that NO reference frames should be cut off of any reel. BTW, Gord, where would you get the idea that these prints with unattached leaders are coming from my theatre? Just curious. Over the holidays, I've worked at a couple of theatres and I haven't seen that happen at any of them.
 

---

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 01-02-2003, 09:22 AM:
 

quote:

---

Cover cues with splicing tape??

---

quote:

---

This industry should devise a way to repeat the last couple of frames in the leader to nip this one once and for all.

---

I remember from my early projection training days that I was told that "...The last frame before the leader is actually a duplicate of the frame just before it. This is called an ID frame. We leave them on the leaders to blah blah blah..." It was also mentioned that, "Cutting off two frames is pushing it, three is really bad, and four is inexcusable."

I learned about a year later that the "duplicate frame" thing was untrue. Especially when it was a scene of someone walking across the frame or some other movement. You could clearly see the movement continued on the last frame, and was NOT a duplicate of the previous one.

If I didn't leave an ID frame in the current booth I work at (or build a trailer head with clear tape instead of opaque, or not use edge-mark tape...) I would get my head bit off by one of the hacks going to break down a print with their trusty roll of masking tape and nothing else.

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-02-2003, 12:42 PM:
 

quote:

---

the reference frame isn't for the benefit of the first person to break down the print--it is for the benefit of the next theatre which runs that print,

---

quote:

---

Without the ID frame, we sould never have gotten back to the proper reel sizes since they used 4 different kinds of tape and had apparently broken the film at least 10 times.

---

Big deal. Just look at the film on the platter with a light reflecting onto it. You will be able to see where the reel changes are. Now some of these could be lab splices within a reel, but again no biggie. Just breakdown and stop at each light change and see if it is the reel change. If it has the same picture on either side of the splice, then it is definitely not a reel change. If it has different pictures, look back into the tail of the reel a couple of feet for cue marks if the edge colors aren't obvious enough.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-02-2003, 12:51 PM:
 
The difference in sidewall "shine" you see between reels is due to subtle differences in the slitter knives. Kodak slits 38 35mm strips out of one wide roll of print film, so the chances of two adjacent reels coming from the same slit are only 1 in 38:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/sizesP.shtml#p

The key to seeing the shine difference is good lighting --- a small spotlight or bright flashlight at a grazing angle makes the difference easier to see.
 

---

Posted by Alex Grasic (Member # 1371) on 01-02-2003, 04:14 PM:
 
Well it's good to see that I have ONE person who agrees with me here on the no ID frame concept. I'm absolutely against ID frames because every time I get a hand-me-down print there are more than one frame cut...I've seen as many as 8 cut off from each head and tail. To me it seems that people are either a) stuck on old ways which are not necessarily good ways or b) too lazy to peel tape.
I laughed when one of the other projectionists at my theatre said that breaking down a print with ID frames on the leaders made the job easier. This coming from a guy who spends the majority of his day just watching the movies rather than working. No one ever said this job was supposed to be easy....did they?
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-02-2003, 04:40 PM:
 
If you are like sometheatre with your print delivery time is 650pm for 7pm shows you do not have time to be dealing with Is it right questions but put it on the bench check the head splice and ID frame and put it on the machine and then check reel2 head splice and ID frame. If the ID frame matchs then the odds are in favor of CO cues being present from the lab
Bottom line is the next theatre is entitled to a guarentee of a good print.
It is often that I will open the cans and find no bands or heads or tails just the ends taped down and the leaders all loose
The recomended industry standard is that ID frames are left on the leader. Those who choose not to are the ones bucking the industry standard. Also most company policys are for there to be an ID frame left on leaders
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-02-2003, 05:12 PM:
 
Gordon, I'm going to be a tad bit sarcastic here because you keep making this exact same post and never back it up.

Industry standard you say? Yeah well I also thought industry standard was to return prints without scratches and damage? Surely any bible of "industry standards" would have "thou shalt not damage film whilst it is in your possession" somewhere in there. Why do you even bother quoting the all powerful "industry standard" document that does not exist? Who exactly published this book of "industry standards"? Just how old and out of date is this fantasy publication? And more importantly, why have I never heard or seen it? Maybe it's because it doesn't really exist. Then again, maybe it's because the damn thing is so outdated it isn't worth the time spent reading it. Yeah, whatever, heck it isn't even worth my time trying to figure out where you are quoting this from.

If I am sent a print of a movie and I don't like the quality, it is not every time I am able to get a replacement print. Likewise if you get a print one day without ID frames you may not be able to whine about it and get a replacement print. Sometimes you have to show what the studio sends you. Personally I will laugh when the day comes that I hear of a theater in Canada that rejected a flawless print solely because there were no ID frames and the operator was too lazy to get in there and do his job. Yeah, I'm sure the studio will really be happy to back you up on that one. That would be sort of like if I was to reject a print because half of the reels came tails out and I am just too important of a person and my time is just too damn valuable to have to deal with the rewinding of a reel! It's all part of the job.

If the studios really want ID frames cut, then show me some documentation from the studios. Also, they should print that ID frame somewhere on the leaders if they were really worried about it. Until that day, please, please, please stop this whining. Cutting off ID frames is cutting out part of the movie. It is no different than the teenage projectionists who cut out random frames from a print to sell on eBay as "film cells". There are still bits of the movie missing.

You know only ONE TIME in close to 20 years have I received a print that had the wrong leaders on the wrong reels. ONCE! (Shame on whoever broke down that Two Towers screening print at Cinemark.) And it was painfully obvious as I was building up the print too as the color edges did not match up. It was after I noticed this that I actually bothered to look at the ID frames that were left. Regardless, I would not have needed the frames to figure it out. This isn't rocket science. All it takes is two eyes and a little bit of paying attention. Of course under your reasoning, I guess I should have turned to the New Line people and flat out refused to run that print. After all, it had ID frames cut off of the film. Same reasoning, different logic.

Let me give you another way to look at this. Remember the "industry standard" when platters first were introduced was to thread from the payout platter to the projector, then thread the projector and motor the film down onto the floor, then finish threading the film path. Then someone came along and changed the "industry standard" by saying "that's stupid, because it would be much simpler to thread the entire platter's path, then thread the projector". Great, a nice timesaver was introduced and many of the better operators who were not locked into believing that there was no possible way that there could be a better way to do things improved their operation from it. So now I come along and say "that's stupid, for the leader is getting onto the floor which transfers dirt onto the print and projector", and I have been pushing "bottom up" threading now for over 10 years. But according to your hardlocked "industry standard" rules, people should ignore my recommendation and continue to dump the leaders onto the floor during threading. Oh please!
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-02-2003, 05:41 PM:
 
What is with people and ID frames? You'd think the world was going to end if they didn't have them. On a used print that already has many splices throughout the reel, I can certainly understand ONE frame. Also, if you are using an ID frame that means you EXPECT to have a film break during the films' run and you will need the ID frame to distinguish splices from one another. Not very much confidence in your own booth, I must say. In all the times I have been working projection, I have never received a print that had the wrong heads and tails attached to it. Not even at my current art theater, where 65% of our prints are used!
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-02-2003, 06:11 PM:
 

quote:

---

Industry standard you say?

---

I may be talking out of turn, but I think he means SOP (i.e., standard operating procedure), not necessarily a hard and fast rule, but something that has been done over the years as a preventive measure.

I, for one, was always a little bit easier in my mind, after building up a print that had intact ID frames.

Joe, try working at a drive-in! You'll receive 'em out of order sooner or later.

 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 01-02-2003, 07:32 PM:
 

quote:

---

from John P.:
The difference in sidewall "shine" you see between reels is due to subtle differences in the slitter knives.

---

Thanks for that, John. I always wondered.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-02-2003, 08:38 PM:
 
I support the idea of one frame left behind on both the heads and tails. It is just another means of cross-check while assembling a print. All too often I get a second run print heads up. Without an ID frame, there is no way I know of to determine reel 3 from 4 (or whatever) unless the tail matches. If there is no ID frame on the heads or tails, you are !!!!

If the wrong leader is on the wrong reel (which happens way too much) and it has an id frame left behind, there is a better chance of determining what reel it actually is.

I actually hate building a second run print because of some doofus upstream could care less about what he/she is doing.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-02-2003, 10:07 PM:
 
Actually until 4 years ago we had a theatres act that did mandate that a ID frame was left attached and also all heads and tails must be attached with with tape on each side.
The complete theatres act was basically tossed out regretably and now there is no minimum requirement for operators anymore and print destruction is a rule.
Until the demise of actually trained and licensed projectionists prints in circulation in Ontario were always in good shape and usually when prints were needed for foregn markets they raided the depot here first
And my demand for id frames on a used print is no more different than the comment I will reject a print over 3 lab splices
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-02-2003, 10:15 PM:
 
No Gordon, I NEVER said I would reject a reel if it had 3 lab splices in it. I said that THE ODDS ARE that there will be a legitimate lab defect in a reel that contains 3 lab splices that would warrant a reject. Even still, that defective reel has to be played until a new one arrives. Your stance is more along the lines of "fuck it, I won't waste my time".

If you are going to quote, do it right. Don't twist it around to try and find a valid argument for your stance.

I've never heard of this "theaters act". A Canadian thing perhaps? Even at that, it sounds like whoever wrote it was more interested in simplifying the projectionist's job so he can be more lazy. Perhaps you would be so kind as to email me a copy so I can peruse the entire bible to see if there is anything good in there?

Paul, the best all-around compromise of which I wouldn't be too opposed to is to always leave precisely ONE (two or more gets the death penalty) ID frame on the HEAD leader of every reel...but NO ID frames on the tail. The idea here is that ANYONE can figure out that the leader is on the correct reel by the head leader's ID frame and with that logic there is no reason at all to chop a frame from the tail. Also, that helps changeover houses in their timing by not losing frames that they are relying on for a smooth changeover. Again, this is the only compromise that I have ever heard pitched that actually makes sense.
 

---

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 01-02-2003, 11:06 PM:
 
In regards to Andy's comment about receiving prints with long lengths of cue tape... There are some automations out there that require a certain length of tape along the inboard and outboard edges. I worked with one a few years back that needed exactly 4 1/2 inches. If it was too long it would cause the automation to blow a fuse, too short and half the time it wouldn't sense it.

The automation where I currently work uses this type but I only need a couple inches. One thing about these type is that the cues are prone to wear and need replacing often.(Of course, those cues should be removed and you may never have known about that type of automation.)

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's come across what appears to be copper changeover tape. That stuff does not come off (well, not easily). Ever see prints come in with chunks missing from the beginning of the credits? I'll bet ya that it's people cutting that stuff out rather than trying to remove it.

I've found that in this business there are so many types of systems that something might seem really stupid or goofy but there's usually a good reason behind it. I trained on platters and learned changeovers a few years later. Therefore I never understood why we'd receive prints that had obviously been run but the tail of three and the head of four weren't cut but the rest had been. (Ahh, 6 k's.)

I worked with this idiot popcorn-jockey once who had been a projectionist at another theatre. He told me that it would piss him off that reels would come in tails-out and he thought it was being done by the previous theatre to make his life more difficult. He thought that he was getting back at them by shipping the prints out without leaders attached. What an idiot.
 

---

Posted by Peter Schoell (Member # 919) on 01-02-2003, 11:15 PM:
 
Too many times I've gotten prints without heads or tails attached, just coiled or balled up in the cans. If I can't find an ID frame I have no way of telling what goes with what. I've received prints that were torn torn down with the "fill the reel, then cut" method. When I get prints without ID frames it's just a crap shoot as to whether the movie is in tthe right order or not. Since I've also gotten prints that were intentionaly sabotoged, I'm always leary when I can't reference to the head and tail. In further defense of ID frames I can't imagine that anyone but the most anal-retentive is going to notice the loss of 2/24 of a second, particularly when it comes at a scene change. I remember way back when while watching movies on TV, when I saw the reel change marks on the screen, I knew a commercial was coming which was also a pause in the story.
Hollywood does have a solution to all these problems...digital projection. That will elimanate all these problems and alot of theatres too, but what the heck per-capita profits will be up.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-02-2003, 11:25 PM:
 
Brad, you haven't seen these buttholes in action up here. It sounds like some came from Peter's area. Some don't know the difference between reel 3 and reel 4 if it had teeth and bit them in the butt!
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-03-2003, 12:00 AM:
 
There seems to be a point missing in the ID frame advocates...

You CAN tell which leaders go with which reel based soley on appearance without an ID frame. So all the various comments about a "crap shoot" without ID-frames is plain wrong...just open your eyes and look.

As to the anal-retentive comment...I agree nobody is going to miss the 1/12 of a second of picture missing but some can tell that the sound is out of sync by 1/12 of a second for nearly 1-second. If you leave two-frames you have made the sync error 1/6 of a second which geometrically will cue off more people about the sync. It makes the reel-change progressively more noticable. This progresses as one increases the ID frames left behind.

The other arguement takes on the stance...our operators are incompetent so please degrade your FIRST-RUN show so I have piece of mind on my sub-run since I pay for lesser people.

That just isn't a valid arguement in my book at all.

So with the 1/12 second loss (one frame at each end) we are within 2 of a frames...depending on your threading and the size of your theatre and where you sit in the theatre...it may or may not be noticable so that is not very visible to the audience at all. Brad's only ID the head of the film reduces the time to 1/24 which certainly improves the situation and has No down side...you've IDed the reel.

Steve
 

---

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 01-03-2003, 12:31 AM:
 
Maybe in the tips section we should have "Identifying proper heads and tails without ID frames 101" with pictures so everyone can see how it works.
I've only built up one used print that had no ID frames, and the only way I knew they were right were because the soundtracks matched.
That and I knew where it came from.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-03-2003, 01:39 AM:
 
Actually, Steve has managed to phrase my comments into words much better than I could. His comments are fair to both sides of the argument.

James, believe me that has been on the "to do" list for some time now. I just have to figure out a way to translate it so it is understandable for the web. (I think I've figured out a way, but at this point my days are booked and I won't have any spare time for at least a few weeks. We'll see how it goes.)
 

---

Posted by Jacob Huber (Member # 1138) on 01-03-2003, 01:54 AM:
 
I've had to use the following method to identify reels even with an ID frame on the leader:

We had two prints of Ice Age and one was severely damaged from the lab (or maybe we did it, I didn't build it up). The problem was that whomever built it up forgot to right the print number on the tape on the tail, so we didn't know which one was which to breakdown into the right can. I found the heads for the last reel (leaders where in the right cans), and had to match up which print was which by the numbers on the SDDS-track area which identify the roll from which it was cut. Just match up the numbers on the leader with the numbers on the reel, and you're in business. I'm assuming that this method could also be used for reel # identification.
 

---

Posted by Alex Grasic (Member # 1371) on 01-03-2003, 03:40 AM:
 
Brad, your idea of "cutting one ID frame on the head". Would it not be more logical to cut the one frame from the tail rather than the head though? I mean, scene end, everything's wrapped up, you're not losing much but on a reel change, you could cut into dialogue and although I don't understand Steve's point to much...yet...would it not help make the situation a bit better?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-03-2003, 03:59 AM:
 
I say head because:

*The majority of prints are shipped "heads out". When breaking down from a platter, the reels are "heads out". Reel to reel houses using large reels will generally break down the movie back to shipping reels right after it's last run, also ending up "heads out". About the only time film is shipped "tails out" is at changeover theaters running 2000' reels, which is rare. (Yes I intentionally did not mention brand new prints from the lab, as this whole issue is not an issue at that point.)

*If this practice ever became commonplace, there will still be theaters buying crappy tape. A lot of the tape out there is so nasty that the next operator has no choice but to whack off another frame. I would rather see this at the beginning of the reels, rather than at the end. The odds are greater that interruption at the head will be less of an interruption in continuity (just watch for this the next several movies you screen). Also, this will preserve the changeover timing for 2 projector booths.
 

---

Posted by Alex Grasic (Member # 1371) on 01-03-2003, 04:19 AM:
 
FYI, Theatres Act Ontario

Ontario Theatres Act (Sept 18, 2002)
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-03-2003, 11:16 AM:
 
Traditionally films have been edited for changeover operation and it is simply impossible to show every frame while running reel to reel. There is always an overlap of a few frames at each end. Most films are still cut with this in mind as many of the most important screenings a film will ever have (studio execs, ratings board, critics) will run reel to reel. In this case the loss of a single frame at each end represents no loss at all.

However it is also true that given the overwhelming use of platters films are being cut tighter than ever. There should still be allowance for some loss of a few frames. If one standard (editing leaving plenty of slop for changeover) is being replaced with another borne of platter operation (editing with tight reel breaks) then it's worth pointing out that the new standard still must allow for loss of a frame or two, whether for the safety and comfort of ID frames, the reality of having to deal with tape residue, etc. (Brad, doesn't your ultrasonic splicer cost a pair of frames with each use?) Sure, there are some badly edited films that don't even allow for that much but that is exactly what those are: Badly edited, generally by people who have no knowledge of how film works. I'm not sure how far it is necessary to go to accomodate them.

As others have said it's almost always possible to determine reel ID, whether the look of the film, the sound pull-up, ID info from the depot etc. The danger comes when one doesn't realize that a situation even exists. The ID frame earns its keep because of its glaring visibility as an indicator of error.

Note that the idea of printing a duplicate frame in the leader to positively ID the reel is a great one but until this can be done inexpensively (like maybe when all films go through a digital intermediate stage) a more realistic solution is to have the editors simply leave an extra couple of frames at the beginning and end of each reel than they would choose to if they were editing for a single unbroken strand. I would submit that in the vast majority of cases, they already are.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-03-2003, 11:29 AM:
 
Steve,

It is certainly possible to show every frame whilst running a changeover show. This is true for both automated and manual changeovers. One thing I hate about showing "previously enjoyed" films is that on changeover, you will see the picture rise up on the outgoing reel and come back down on the incoming reel....just like there was a single splice there. I have been known to alter my thread up or start time to ensure this is just a single hop.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-03-2003, 11:28 PM:
 
I invite you to demonstrate your technique the next time I'm in DC, Steve.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-03-2003, 11:32 PM:
 
Steve, this is yet another reason why I do not leave ID frames on the leaders. It would only be 3 perfs of it. On breakdown though, there is no loss, so the prints go back missing the last black frame of the head leader and the first black frame of the tail leader. Big deal. That is a far worse offense than someone chopping off an ID frame.

Get yourself a couple of reels of uncut film. Your local depot may be able to arrange for you to have a couple of reject reels from some random movie. Place a nice big "/" across the last frame on the outgoing reel and place a nice big "\" across the first frame on the incoming reel. Now practice. When you see an "X" on changeovers, you are now worthy of calling yourself a Guttag.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-04-2003, 10:13 AM:
 
I'm not saying it's impossible to show every frame. It is certainly not the norm.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-04-2003, 10:24 AM:
 
Unless the changeovers are automated or you are Steve Guttag , I completely agree it is next to impossible to run a manual chaneover show and get frame accuracy. Ignoring the cues on screen and making my own marks not visible to the audience, I have been able to get to what I believe is within 2 frames (and probably on occasion frame accurate), but it is very difficult with human timing.
 

---

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 01-04-2003, 10:35 AM:
 
Brad and Gord...

I do agree with leaving one reference frame on the head and tail....

There were a couple of times when I recieved a used print of a new release that had been butchered! I had to use these prints until a new one could be sent...otherwise I would have had dark screens. Prints were so badly butchered...believe it or not...that the distributor had to fax me photos of the beginning and ending frames so that I could i.d. reel sequence! Part of the butchering included not leaving reference frames and not putting heads and tails back in their proper local! Not to mention that some major damage had been done and film was "repaired" with countless splices!
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-04-2003, 11:27 AM:
 
So it never dawned on you to check the color of the SDDS and SRD tracks, as you do know that each reel is slightly different, right? How about looking at the actual optical soundtrack? Almost always you can identify the proper leader by looking at it's activity. the wav patters are normally pretty discrete from reel to reel. If one of those two super quick tricks has you baffled, then there's also edgeprint information you could have used to your advantage, of which you will find those numbers exclusive to one particular reel in your print.

Bottom line is that all you have to do is look. I know high schoolers that can do this with ease. I see no reason why someone like you can't.

So could you have put it together if there was an ID frame on the head, but not the tail?
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-04-2003, 12:08 PM:
 
OK, I'm convinced.

I have always left an ID frame on the head and the tail but after reading Brad's post a couple of pages back, I will now change my S.O.P. to leave an ID frame on the head only.

As for you guys who have only received one print (or none) with its leaders mixed up in 20 years....I can remember two times in the past year that we've received such prints...and I only run one or two prints per week! Of course, the prints involved were from Technicolor.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-04-2003, 12:59 PM:
 
When we were running second run we averages one print every two weeks with the wrong leaders attached or no leaders attached
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-04-2003, 01:08 PM:
 
Wow, I guess I can generalize then that you Canadians as a whole really don't know how to run film, eh? This problem is not near as big of a deal in the gold 'ol U. S. of A.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-04-2003, 06:49 PM:
 
This business about the film shine on the sides of the reel is very interesting. Would it be possible for the labs to somehow print a reel number on the SIDE of the reel? -- that's one big piece of the film real estate that so far has never been utilized. Could they use some kind of a buffing process that could buff the reel number on the side wall so all you needed to do was look at the side of the reel and there would be the number, plain as day -- title too. Hell, even without some kind of sophisticated polishing technique, you could use the low-tech, lowly white grease pencil and just write the damn number on the side -- grease pencil is harmless to film and can easily be removed with any film cleaning solution. I am saying that kind of tongue-in-cheek, but you see my point. If the reel number (and any other format information that you needed) could be made visible on the sidewall of the reels, by polishing it in the side of the base, or using some kind marking solution, then all this business of how to identify the reels by frames and such would be moot.

In fact, I always thought that, at least for flat releases, the reel number could easily be printed in the wide frame line in the frist few feet of the heads and tails, or perhaps even through the entire reel. Hell, in the 1.85 hard matte, there's enough room to print the reel number, the title AND the entire screenplay! But seriously, that space could certainly be used for reel ID information. Scope features would of course be a bit more of a problem -- however, now that the septum between frames is a bit wider due to the 2.39 spec, there may be enough geography in that space that a reel number could in the frame line; yes, it would be nearly microscopic, but no reason why you couldn't use a magnifying glass to read it when the need arose....missing leaders, etc.

Third possibility....the DTS code contains reel information in the code pattern, no? Is there any chance that code can be read by humans? And if not, could a simple addition of a combination of dots and dashes be added that COULD be read? Or how about Dolby putting the print number in the digital track next to their double D? Put some thing USEFUL in there. If they could, then you would just get out your loupe and there it is, DD3, DD4, etc., or check your DTS dot and dash chart and bingo, you translate it into the reel number.

If the industry actually WANTED to find solutions, it could by just thinking "outside the box." Any of these methods would certainly give a positive way of IDing reels without the need for ID frames, which, as can be seen from our discussion, is at best, probematic way of reel ID. It's just a matter of industry priorities. But I guess not much effort would be invested in improving film, given the fact that DIGITAL will solve all of these problems (with none of its own, or so they seem to think).

Frank
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-04-2003, 07:02 PM:
 
Yes, Frank, humans can read DTS timecode. I suspect it's not worth the bother given the plethora of other methods, but you can do it.

First, transcribe the bits. This is a bit non-intuitive. A zero is two units (either of black or of white). A one is one unit of of one color foll.owed by one uit of another (e.g. black/white or white/black).

Timecodes are seperated by 5-unit dashes. An individual word of timecode is 20-bits long, and is read from tail to head. The first 4 bits of the timecode are the reel number, and the next 16 bits are the position within the reel. Every so often there's a timecode with reel #0, wherein the position bits are instead the DTS serial number. For features, this occurs one every 15 timecodes or so. For trailers, they alternate.

So transcribe the first 4 bits from the long marker to find the reel number.

As for your other choices, well, I doubt many of them are practical. If you can't get ID frames in the leader, I don't see how you're going to get any text outside the aperture window on the film, especially if it is contact printed. I guess printing the reel number in the dolby digital seems vageuly plausible, though I don't know enough about how the sound negatives are produced. Of course, perhaps the truly inventive can simply decode the dolby digital by hand.

--jhawk

edit: Hmm, Michael, do you "see" an echo in here?
 

---

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 01-04-2003, 07:48 PM:
 
In the Dolby Digital track, there are tiny dolby 'double D' symbols inside each data block. Perhaps some of these could be changed over to reel numbers.

A few frames of reel number could be printed a few feet into each reel both at heads and tails.
 

---

Posted by Alex Grasic (Member # 1371) on 01-05-2003, 08:06 AM:
 
#1 reason why I hate ID frames...I just received a second print of Chicago a couple days ago...USED. People get so used to the ID frame idea that it just seems easier to cut than peel. Now, Brad, you may want to look away to avoid a heart attack of something but...there were 9...yes count them...9 so-called "ID" frames cut off of EACH HEAD AND TAIL!! I believe that when someone sees one ID frame, they just keep saying what the hell, I'll cut another and another and another. They are not necessary! I sent this print back within the hour asking for a new one and got one within a couple of hours after that. Now, after seeing something like this, I can only think that ID Frames can properly be known as "lazy man's way of doing film". How can you not be left with that impression after something like this?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-05-2003, 08:37 AM:
 
I ran a print of "Vacation" several years back and there was about 2 feet of ID frames on each head and tail. Then of course there was a menagerie of masking tape/splicing tape fanfolded mess, where people did not always cut one frame over, but sometimes would skip 3-4 frames. That was the worst I have ever seen it. Anyone remembering Vacation knows that was a film made back in the day when they would hold a shot with extra throwaway footage at the reel changes, but this was ridiculous.

Originally that print threw me as to why someone would leave so many ID frames and then a friend reminded me that it was almost certainly due to an older projectionist who worked with a cement splicer where 2 frames were lost every time it was cut and he was trying to ensure that even after the film was ran many times that there would still be at least one ID frame preserved down the road. Sounds like your Chicago print came from an old geezer with that mindset. Good to hear you rejected the print.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-05-2003, 10:28 AM:
 
Steve K:

You did say "it is impossible" to show every frame...now you changed your stance that it is possible just not the norm. Now that I can give you. However, when you have a feel for a pair of projectors you can get get it pretty well dialed in.

With an automation you can guarantee it will be nailed every time too.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-05-2003, 02:13 PM:
 
I'll stand by my assertion that it is impossible for a manual operator, even you, to show every frame of every reel (with the corollary that no frames of leader appear on screen either). Over the course of multiple screenings you may eventually be able to nail it pretty well but hitting every frame of every reel of a previously unscreened print? That aint gonna happen!

Human judgement is simply not that accurate, especially when you consider the variations you'd have to accomodate even if you've taken careful measurements during the inspection (C/O to end distance 24 frames inclusive vs. exclusive, differing numbers of frames missing on "previously enjoyed" prints, etc.)
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-05-2003, 02:46 PM:
 
What I do is I put a lable on the leader of each reel with the reel number on it and it is place so when it is over the apperture the changeover will be dead on
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-05-2003, 04:02 PM:
 
I dunno Steve, I work a screening room where one of the quirks is that the changeovers open faster than they close....you better hit CO right on if you don't want to double image.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-05-2003, 04:30 PM:
 
Open faster than they close must be Kinotons
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-05-2003, 07:43 PM:
 
Gordon, why do you limit yourself to only 2 ID frames per head/tail? 3 or 4 is much better! An old (literally) union projectionist at the very first theater I ever worked at left 4 (FOUR) ID frames for each head and also each tail. I am not joking at all. I guess you can never be too sure.

I think the best solution would be to cut only one frame off and load THAT onto the platter and leave the rest behind on the reel as ID frames.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-06-2003, 08:06 AM:
 
Michael Barry suggested: "In the Dolby Digital track, there are tiny dolby 'double D' symbols inside each data block. Perhaps some of these could be changed over to reel numbers."

A good idea that's been suggested before. The reel number could replace the double-D symbol every fourth perf, to aid as a frame indicator in dark scenes too. At next week's ITEA Projection Seminar in LA, I'll ask some of the folks from Dolby (Ioan Allen, Ted Costas, Bobby Pinkston) whether it's feasible.
 

---

Posted by John Hazelton (Member # 898) on 01-07-2003, 08:42 PM:
 
Alex Grasic commented:

quote:

---

People get so used to the ID frame idea that it just seems easier to cut than peel. Now, Brad, you may want to look away to avoid a heart attack of something but...there were 9...yes count them...9 so-called "ID" frames cut off of EACH HEAD AND TAIL!!

---

quote:

---

I sent this print back within the hour asking for a new one and got one within a couple of hours after that.

---

quote:

---

I ran a print of "Vacation" several years back and there was about 2 feet of ID frames on each head and tail. Then of course there was a menagerie of masking tape/splicing tape fanfolded mess, where people did not always cut one frame over, but sometimes would skip 3-4 frames.

---

quote:

---

"I ran a print of "Vacation" several years back and there was about 2 feet of ID frames on each head and tail. Then of course there was a menagerie of masking tape/splicing tape fanfolded mess, where people did not always cut one frame over, but sometimes would skip 3-4 frames.

---

quote:

---

Brad's idea that it's always possible to figure out which leader goes with what reel is fine in concept, but doesn't always work in practice.

---

quote:

---

Further, the edge shine has disappeared due to handling and wear, so that tactic doesn't work.

---

quote:

---

The key here is to get people to consistently use better build-up and break-down practices, to avoid the loss of multiple frames.

---

ABSOLUTELY!
 

---

Posted by John Hazelton (Member # 898) on 01-08-2003, 03:49 PM:
 
Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were using "then" as an intensifier, more like someone saying, "It was raining and miserable, then, of course, the that was the week my heater was broken." Not saying the heater broke after it was raining and miserable. I thought you meant the two feet was cut and fan-folded. Sorry about that.

I still think the issue you describe is not one of ID frames, but just sloppiness. I see prints that fade to black at the end of a reel, and the splice is somewhere mid-fade. That isn't a matter of leaving ID frames, it's just someone who couldn't be bothered to find the actual last frame, who rolled back far enough to find an easy frame line to cut on.

The main reason you get fan-folded horribleness is because someone doesn't want to undo an existing splice. They can't go back up into the leader to make a new cut, so they go down into the picture.

quote:

---

Yes it does. It ALWAYS works.

---

quote:

---

Get better lighting.

---

I don't know of any way it could be any better.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-08-2003, 03:54 PM:
 
If you can't see the differences in the reels as the print lays on the platter, the lighting most certainly could be better. I have a pretty low-budget booth, with poor lighting for the most part and I can see each reel without any problems.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-08-2003, 04:05 PM:
 
Sometimes a flashlight is the right tool; or at least, the convenient one that's the least effort (kind of like vice grips). Hard to believe everyone doesn't carry one in the booth [ok, this is a deliberate exaggeration].

BTW, John P., Frank Angel suggested the number in the DD before Michael did, in his long post...

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-08-2003, 04:51 PM:
 
John Hazleton,

Please leave that kind of sarcasm at the door. There is ALWAYS the magenta edgeprint info that can be used as positive identification. Looking at the analog waves or edge colors are only a couple of additional ways to id leaders to reels. I explained this before, hence there was no reason to say the same thing again. The bottom line though is that it does always work. Now if the projectionist is lazy and won't take the time, then that's another situation.

Also, if you can't see the color difference in older prints, you are not positioning yourself against the refraction of the light off of the surface of the platter. The trick is to set up a light (if existing booth lighting is not sufficient) and move yourself around until you see it. Then you can set up your MUT and/or change your light to suit your needs.
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-08-2003, 05:12 PM:
 
In at least the last 10 years (before that I just don't remember), I've never seen a print that you couldn't see the different reels based on 'edge shine', even while they were lying on a platter with absolutely no light other than the projector lamp 10 feet away (boy does that booth get dark when all the shows end).

If you're using 6000's, you've got it even easier, just hold a flashlight (or other light) behind the reel. Not only can you easily identify reels, you can identify acetate from estar.
 

---

Posted by Jacob Huber (Member # 1138) on 01-09-2003, 12:59 AM:
 
We've got one print right now where there is abolutely no way to tell the reels from one another. The print in question is Wild Thornberrys and somewhere along the film path, the soundtrack side got lightly shredded, just enough to where the print runs fine, but the entire print looks exactly the same, no matter what the light brightness or angle. I believe it had something to do with the terrible angle of our top magazine roller, because the projector would be extremely "hairy" with bluish-purple "hair".

I for one am also with Brad in that AT MOST one frame per reel of ID, as it's not that difficult to use edgeprint ID.

Side note: how many of you actually use cotton gloves while in the booth for normal operation? I feel this would be a vast improvement over bare hand film-handling and save a lot of time since I'm constantly washing my hands (15-20x per shift).
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-09-2003, 01:32 AM:
 
I don't use gloves and NEVER have to wash my hands unless I need to work on the Simplexes... then it takes days or weeks for the dirt to fade completely from my hands. Actually I do wear the gloves when I work on the machines, as that keeps my hands amazingly clean... and any dirt that does get through washes off easily.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-09-2003, 02:44 AM:
 
Try running the print soundtrack down on the platter for one show and see if you can see the difference between reels. If so, then make a note to whoever runs the final show to do so. However depending on the kind of edge damage, it could make it lay worse, so I would do a test first.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-09-2003, 07:39 AM:
 
Obviously, severe scuffing (or as Jacob Huber termed "shredding") of the film edge during "Film Done Wrong" projection will "erase" the subtle slitter knife cut differences. It also can generate lots of dirt and "hairs" as Jacob notes.

Brad is correct, all current prints on 35mm Kodak VISION Color Print film have magenta edgeprint that provides a way to positively match leaders to each reel, since each roll of raw stock has a unique identification code. The only way it wouldn't work would be if different reels of the same print happened to be printed using the same roll of raw stock (very unlikely). Of course, if there is a lab splice, different magenta codes will be on each side of the splice, since the splice joins different raw stock rolls.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-09-2003, 11:42 AM:
 
Not everyone uses Kodak. In particular, Fuji doesn't have a useful edgeprint that varies from reel to reel.

We use cotton gloves while hand-checking and in a few other weird cases (running loops...), but that's about it. There's not much point in wearing gloves just to handle the leaders.

You'll see a lack of consensus as to whether gloves are necessary when hand-checking. I'm a firm believer. They keep the oil off the print and reduce the possibility of scratches/cuts to your hands; I also find they increase my sensitivity. Some others believe that the dirt/oil on the edges of the print is insignificant, and prefer the the barehanded approach. I think it has been asserted that gloves may serve to move dirt around, though I don't think there is much credence to this that assertion.

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by John Hazelton (Member # 898) on 01-09-2003, 01:02 PM:
 
Brad,

I wasn't intending to be sarcastic. Based on the dismissive reply to my post, that really did seem to be your argument. I always intend to discuss things in a rational way. I can understand if you've had to argue this issue with others many times in the past, and are tired of it.

I'm interested in getting other points of view, and I'm not dogmatic about my beliefs. I also tried to explain how I misunderstood the post that I quoted, no sarcasm intended.

You make some excellent points, but I disagree with your statement that "it ALWAYS works."

I gave an example in which I was sent a print that had the leaders from a different print of the same title. If it were missing a few frames, the sound tracks wouldn't match, the edge codes (if it has any) wouldn't match, the edge striping wouldn't match, nor would the edge shine match. I'm not saying this happens all the time, but I have had it happen.

I just pulled a couple of reels here in the booth to check edge codes, and there's nothing useful on "Cabaret" or "Kiki's Delivery Service." Neither one has unique edge striping, either.

Accept my apologies for being unclear in my intent above. I always want to promote reasonable discussion about all topics.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-09-2003, 01:03 PM:
 
jhawk wrote: "Not everyone uses Kodak. In particular, Fuji doesn't have a useful edgeprint that varies from reel to reel."

Kodak has invested tens of millions of dollars in improving its worldwide motion-picture finishing operations (slitting and perforating), greatly improving quality (e.g. much less dirt). Part of that investment was the very useful magenta programmable edgeprinting technology.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-09-2003, 07:33 PM:
 

quote:

---

"I gave an example in which I was sent a print that had the leaders from a different print of the same title."

---