This is topic Lab splices removal: good or ugly? 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=005164

---

Posted by Elena N. Solovyova (Member # 1636) on 08-01-2003, 02:25 AM:
 
Two month ago at our theater we started to remove "out-of-frame" lab splices. Since then, we have an increasing number of patrons complaining on "ugly spliced film", citing frame skips as the main annoyance.

The splices are quite neat and does not cause any "jump" in the gate.

Is there anybody here who gets annoyed by 1-frame skips in continuity so much? We are not talking about subruns -- only "mint" prints are considered.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 08-01-2003, 02:45 AM:
 
We don't have complaints about that here. I only cut the ones that go across the picture area out but I leave the ones that are on the frame line in and bloop the soundtrack. I used to cut all of them out when acetate film stock was in use, because it was always better to lose one frame than ten feet do to a lab splice causing a split in the film. The projector run down would eat up about 10 feet of film.
 

---

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 08-01-2003, 04:42 AM:
 
I always remove out-of-frame lab joins. I can't believe that this would actually cause a complaint! Surely a *slight* skip in the action (and I *do* mean slight) is preferable to an ugly horizontal glitch in the picture? My advice is that next time you receive a complaint, ask them if they would prefer a huge glitch instead. That's basically their two options covered. Weigh it. And if neither is acceptable to them, well...then we can't help them, unless you ordered a replacement reel. But that's just silly.

I would take any complaint about a clean join removal (especially if your own re-splice doesn't cause the picture to jump at all) as the highest form of praise. Why? Because if they can complain about something that slight, your presentation must otherwise be brilliant! I'd come and see a film at your theatre anytime!

(I mean, imagine if the print was actually dirty or something, with an audience that's THAT fussy???)
 

---

Posted by Erik Stevens (Member # 1497) on 08-01-2003, 04:56 AM:
 
I have instructed all of our staff to remove all lab splices that are accross a frame. They look pretty crap on screen! . I also ask all staff to do a proper splice over lab splices if they are on the frame line. We have had a few instances that the lab splice is quite weak, and breaks mid session.

At the end of the day, the presentation is much better than having an ugly line across the screen, or the feature stopping .
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 08-01-2003, 06:06 AM:
 
It is difficult to believe that customers are perceiving the 42 millisecond "gap" in continuity from the missing frame. It seems more likely they are perceiving the audio effect of the splice (are you running in analog or does your digital fallback across the splice?), if any, or the visual anomaly from the splicing tape.

Is your splicing tape dirty? If rolls are stored unwrapped on their edges, then the tape can easily get dirty causing the edges of the splice to be much more visible.

Also, your tape splices replacing lab splices should be comparable to your splices between reels. The splices between reels should outnumber the lab splices. So perhaps customers are coincidently commenting on the quality of your splices in general?

How many lab splices do you see per-print? In the US, I think we come pretty close to the theoretical average of 1 every 3 reels.

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-01-2003, 07:32 AM:
 
Here is the recommendation for lab splices in the Association of Film and Video Laboratories (ACVL) Handbook:

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

If the ultrasonic lab splice is on the frameline, and appears to be reliable, it should be left. "Bloop" the analog soundtrack if there is a light area that may cause a "pop". The added thickness of using tape over an existing ultrasonic splice to "reinforce" it can be an issue.

Mid-frame splices should be removed, and the film respliced on the frameline, either with an ultrasonic splice or a clear tape splice. At most, you will lose two frames of continuity. For 35mm splices, a 1.5-inch wide "frameline" tape splicer will put the edges of the tape in the frameline, minimizing visibility of the tape edge, but most still use 1-inch wide tape.

SMPTE Recommended Practice RP111 specifies the dimensions and properties of both cemented and tape splices, including thickness and dimensional alignment requirements.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 08-01-2003, 10:45 AM:
 
I try to look at the scene to determine whether to remove it or not. 9 times out of ten, it's ok. But occasionally I've ran across a lab splice in a scene where there's just two people talking. I take a close look at the soundtrack to see if cutting out the lab splice would cut off a syllable in the speech. An example would be one where I saw a woman about to say "What was..." I removed it, and then when screening the print in analog, it chopped her words to "W--was..."

Can't remember the movie, but I remember the scene with the splice. That's bad.

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-01-2003, 03:07 PM:
 

quote:

---

It is difficult to believe that customers are perceiving the 42 millisecond "gap" in continuity from the missing frame. It seems more likely they are perceiving the audio effect of the splice (are you running in analog or does your digital fallback across the splice?), if any, or the visual anomaly from the splicing tape.

---

quote:

---

...making an 8 perf version of their splicer.

---

In other words, a splicer that uses 1.5-inch wide splicing tape that has the edges fall on the framelines. Today's more common practice of using 1-inch tape leaves the edges of the tape in the image area and visible on the screen.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-01-2003, 06:56 PM:
 
Maybe keep the excised lab-spliced frames, then next time someone complains, show them what you remove and ask them which do they think would look worse on the screen: the mid-frame lab splice, or a proper splice with a single frame missing?
 

---

Posted by Elena N. Solovyova (Member # 1636) on 08-02-2003, 01:35 AM:
 
Michael, we play our prints in SD-D and the momental fallback to analog is kept to minimum (of course, it may occur from time to time).

The problem is probably that tape edges are really that visible. It is impossible to keep them on framelines with our tape splicer.

And the picture jump is indeed perceivable, though it is not noticeable so much from the booth.

Another thing that I realised that there are not only mid-reel splices causing complaints, but also those that actually between reels.

I tend to think that our "hypercritical" customers were just sent in by competing theatre

And yes, our presentatons are near perfect, though we suffer from slight horizontal image weaving.

John, "Mosfilm labs" and "Novosibirsk Kinocopy" prints have an average of one splice per 2-3 reels (less splices for Fujifilm prints, more for Kodak).

London Deluxe prints usually have at least one splice per reel.
 

---

Posted by Bill Langfield (Member # 818) on 08-02-2003, 08:44 AM:
 
Years ago, around 1979 when I was still learning the ropes we heard about this new fim that was 'unbreakable', problem was that it could not be cement spliced. When I mentioned the tape splicer, to my co-projectionist (I think he was getting it on with my mother, the manager/licencee - but it turned out he was gay!) he said he'd throw the tape splicer out the window if I ever got one.

Needless to say polyester film happened. But what has annoyed me from the day it came out, WHO-THE-HELL decided the width of the tape? No matter what you do the edges of the tape will be in the image area. (Some places use the 16mm version, and MUCH likely to break apart)

Even with a CLEAN roll of tape it IS going to pick up junk on the edges.

With John's mention of 1 1/2 inch tape, Ive never heard of it, (like CDS sound) I can't believe it's taken this long for it to come up.

I like Brad's idea of hassling Newmade(sp?) of getting splicers made that cover two full frames.

Though at first I thought it might have had something to do with that much tape might make it hard for it to curl around some tight sprocket turns. -But Nah.

I think I'd be able to get one of those approved in a heartbeat, considing all our splicers are those crap Italian things. (The one's with the spring loaded knife REALLY piss me off!)

Bill.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-02-2003, 09:11 AM:
 
8-perf splicers are nothing new. CIR has had them for decades. However, you are going to trade issues...yes the tape falls on the frame lines but your Dolby Digital track is going to suffer since it WILL drop out with one of those (if you use Dolby Digital). It also is a long big wedge to go through the gate and that will also be visible as the tension bands move to accept the thick area and contract when it passes.

I haven't seen one going through a Century SA but I'd say it will be a little more dramatic with it's small feed sprockets.

If you want invisible splices...go ultrasonic.

As to using 16mm tape and worrying about it pulling apart...IMAX uses 8mm tape, the skinniest of them all and they rarely if ever fail...then again they use a zig-zag splce too (can't hinge).

Steve
 

---

Posted by Tom Kroening (Member # 201) on 08-04-2003, 02:25 AM:
 
How exactly does everyone have the time to remove all these lab splices when you have 5 films to make up and 6 to break down? I suppose not having a rewind bench makes it even harder, but do you seriously slo-mo it through the entire reel of every movie looking for a lab splice that's in the middle of a frame?
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 08-04-2003, 03:09 AM:
 
It's easy to find lab splices at the same time that you are checking every single perferation for damage, all at the fastest speed you feel comforable with and that is 'good' for film tension etc.

Make good use of your time and five prints in, six out shouldn't be too big a deal. Of course, having a booth without a rewind table is just plain wrong.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-04-2003, 04:20 AM:
 
Tom, look at Building 101 for examples of print inspection. A reel of film can be inspected in 2-5 minutes, depending on experience.

Of course a rewind table is pretty much a requirement.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-04-2003, 05:55 AM:
 
I agree, a rewind table is a "given" for "Film Inspection Done Right". It's almost impossible to properly inspect a print for damage using only a make up table (MUT). A rewind bench allows "hands on" winding through the film with good light and plenty of room for tools like splicers.
 

---

Posted by Tom Kroening (Member # 201) on 08-04-2003, 11:16 AM:
 
Well, I would really love a rewind bench but there just isn't room for it in our satelite booths. I know how to do print inspection but we just don't staff a full time projectionist that works all day on thursdays so unfortunately we just have to deal with those ugly yellow lab splices. I also have to say that the strong MUT is about the worst invention ever... where the heck are you supposed to put the splicer?
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-04-2003, 11:59 AM:
 
Tom Kroening wrote:

quote:

---

Well, I would really love a rewind bench but there just isn't room for it in our satelite booths.

---