Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: ELR's: try again?

This is topic ELR's: try again? 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=004583

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-20-2003, 08:32 PM:

Since it looks like film will be around a tad longer is there any movement to try again on "big" reels for distribution? Or perhaps going right to platter sized rolls? That create an even bigger universe of non-compatible theatres but given the commonality of platter exhibition (at least in the US) the neatness of a single strand solution would be mighty tempting even if 20 minute reels must coexist for some users.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-21-2003, 03:11 AM:

I think shipping anything larger than 24 inch reels is just asking for problems. The ELR was a wonderful idea, poorly executed. (Those reels sucked!) I agree that I would LOVE to see the idea brought back and done properly. With the current condition of the 2000' reels and shipping cans, now is a great time to start switching over. However since the studios won't put their foot down against their filmmaker's completion date and keep letting them deliver later and later, this won't happen. Everything just has to be last minute.

Posted by Mark DeLettera (Member # 125) on 02-21-2003, 02:12 PM:

Platter-sized roll [Roll Eyes]

!

1,000 feet of 35mm Polyester = 4.2lbs

Average feature would weigh from 38 - 50 pounds, without it's shipping container! [Eek!]

Just my $.02! [beer]

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 02-21-2003, 03:12 PM:

What?! There are people in the large format industry that can't grasp the concept of properly packaging a full print ... and we've been doing it for 30 years. I can't imagine what a popcornjectionist would do with a whole print shipped pre-assembled.

Posted by Tom Fermanian (Member # 1094) on 02-21-2003, 03:17 PM:

Details Details Details, you guys built this? [beer]

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 02-21-2003, 03:25 PM:

Mark,

A feature still weighs the same regardless of weather it is on one big-ass reels or 6 normal 2000' reels.

[Big Grin]

Cutting a feature up into more than one reel doesn’t make it weigh lighter. It will still weigh 38 - 50 pounds.

I don't know what happens overseas but in the UK generally all reels (cans) are shipped together in one box.

So there would be no issue of weight. The problem with shipping a feature on one reel relates to size and shape.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 02-21-2003, 05:11 PM:

The metal shipping cases used in the U.S. normally hold three or four spools, so a typical feature comes in two cases, but the spools and metal cases weigh more than the cores, plastic cans and boxes which we use.

If you think 35mm is heavy, try moving a 70mm print. I've only done that once.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-21-2003, 06:26 PM:

As always, I'm ambivalent on this topic. ELRs would be convenient (though not much of a time-saver) if they used standard aluminum Goldberg floating-hub 6000' reels as long as they were shipped only to theatres which could accommodate them. Regular prints on 2000' reels would have to be provided to theatres which couldn't accommodate or didn't want ELRs.

Having said that, there are still some problems: a) double-inventory problem--distributors and depots would hate this, and it might prevent some theatres from getting prints that they want to show because they can't accommodate ELRs; b) extra cost--the best 2000' shipping reels cost about $10-20 each when brand-new, compared with $200+ per Goldberg 6000' reel (though admittedly theh Goldbergs would probably outlast plastic reels)...who is going to pay for this?; c) splices made at film depots are invariably awful and need to be remade, though this wouldn't be an issue of the ELRs were printed as continuous rolls; d) replacement reels would be a pain and an added expense if entire 6000' segments needed to be replaced.

I do agree with Brad, though, that most of the plastic shipping reels in current circulation are beyond terrible. A couple of years ago, I would have no problem running films off of shipping reels (after inspection, of course)...I wouldn't think of doing this now, though.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-21-2003, 11:46 PM:

New Line and Warner Bros. were the biggest proponents of trying ELRs. As Brad noted, a great idea, but the final implementation did not use the rugged reel and shipper design worked out by the Inter-Society committee (Bobby Pinkston and others). Unless all theatres and film exchanges are willing to convert (a costly venture), ELR implementation is unlikely without the studios championing it. Dual inventory (having features on both 2000 and 6000 foot ELRs) is a non-starter. Waiting for the titles and credits would delay an ELR release, whereas with 2000-foot reels, labs can print the middle reels first.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-22-2003, 01:39 AM:

Here's a dumb question, could the studios still not print up reels 1 and 2 (movie without credits) and then in the corner of each ELR case enclose a trailer length'ish roll of film tagged "reel 0" and "reel 3"? When the theater is ready to send the film back, they just send back reel 0 and 1 as one reel, and reel 2 and 3 as one reel. Or is that just way too simple?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-22-2003, 09:35 AM:

Supplying the titles and credits as separate rolls would be "simple" for an experienced projectionist to handle, but is asking for trouble in theatres run by inexperienced "button pushers". And the extra handling involved with the small rolls would negate the advantage of less handling with ELRs.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-22-2003, 10:12 AM:

Whoa...hold on here. During the brief ELR experiment did anyone actually print anything as a 6000' reel? I thought they were simply assembled by the lab or the exchange. While long strand printing should be the eventual goal if they're still printing as 2000' rolls and assembling then I really don't see your point about credits. The labs can still print the bulk of the film early then assembly can be done when the first and last reels are available.

I would imagine this affects end credits more than heads so the Big R1's can be set to go and Big R2's tails out sans last reel waiting to have it slapped on. And to borrow a bit from Brad's idea, if ELR's became the norm and credit print was an issue the films can have the final reel break at the start of the credits so only minimal amount of film has to be printed and added to each Big R2 before they ship. The idea of minimal theatre handling is preserved.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-22-2003, 10:33 AM:

Yes, most labs still printed in 2000-foot lengths, so ELRs were spliced together in "positive assembly". But if the titles and credits were delayed, you could not begin the splicing until the first and last reel were printed and processed. With 2000's, the prints are shipped to the exchanges as soon as all the reels are in hand.

Rank (Deluxe) labs in the UK did have a system for printing feature-length rolls in one pass, which won an Academy Scientific and Technical Award in 1982:

http://wwwdb.oscars.org/scitech_db/index.html

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-22-2003, 03:15 PM:

I was only suggesting that for those big movies where the director can't get his shit together until the last second to use the reel 0 and reel 3 idea. Regardless, it would still help with future film handling, as those splices would no longer be handled for buildup and breakdown in the future.

FWIW, both ELR prints I received had no splices in them.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 02-22-2003, 03:27 PM:

It's bad enough to have a 2000' reel come apart when picked up but I had one of those 6000' el Busto reels drop its' load. Also if you're less than 6ft 5in carrying one of those cans was mostly dragging it. Tote one up 56 steps and you will quickly appreciate being able to split the weight in to two 3 or 4 reel cans.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 02-22-2003, 03:32 PM:

The first movie I got on ELRs, "Fire Down Below", looked like it was printed as 2 continuous reels but still had the changeover cues onscreen where they'd normally be. The tail end of the first reel said "reel 3" and the beginning of the 2nd big reel said "Reel 4" too.
If they do ELRs again they should print them without the changeover cues!

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-22-2003, 05:07 PM:

Jesse suggested:
If they do ELRs again they should print them without the changeover cues!

I like the dots when I'm part of the audience; it helps me track the progress if the movie isn't interesting enough!

Posted by Scott Balko (Member # 438) on 02-23-2003, 03:05 PM:

If I remember correctly, "Mad City" was printed on a non spliced ELR (continuous strip) and I don't think it had cue marks either. I know the reel heads were just 1 and 2.