Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The Crazy Things We Find in Film Cans

This is topic The Crazy Things We Find in Film Cans 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=006252

Posted by Greg Routenburg (Member # 1742) on 06-08-2004, 12:56 AM:

Isn't it amazing, the little pieces of history that can be found in film cans. Here is something I just recently found tucked into the side of a can that's probably been there for a number of years. I thought some people might appreciate it.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 06-08-2004, 01:55 AM:

I saw that same note in the same can four times in one year a while back.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-08-2004, 03:46 AM:

That definitely dates back into the 90s!

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 06-08-2004, 03:52 AM:

Maybe even earlier that that. Possibly the late 1980's? I am trying to remember - I think it was the movie Free Willie that was the first polyester print I ran in Cinema 5 of Mount Vernon.

Whenever it was, there was a sticker inside the can that was very similar to what you posted.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-08-2004, 03:54 AM:

Nope, The Fugitive was the first big polyester release in 1993 and there were major problems with it being too tough (platters getting turned over), too staticky and color bleeding issues. That note was mid-90s for sure.

Within an hour or so, John will be by with a link reminding everyone that the prints of the Fugitive were NOT on Kodak stock. [Big Grin]

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 06-08-2004, 05:09 AM:

Are you sure? The reason why I ask this is because Plitt bought us out around 1990 or 1991, and I told him to cram it shortly thereafter. I am positive there was poly print I ran well before that. I thought it was Free Willie (which was filmed part in the Puget Sound area.) When did that film hit, anyway?

Maybe I am starting to suffer from Alzheimer's disease.... [Eek!]

Maybe I ran that thing in Southsound....Jeeze, I must be gettin' old. [Big Grin]

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 06-08-2004, 05:34 AM:

I believe our first experience with the new film base was around 1968 when we got a Mr. Magoo cartoon on it. The senior operator cut off the tail to attach the trailer/dater pack when he discovered that it did not cement with our chemical splicer.

He left us all a note, "Warning, Cartoon has no tail".

The booth got some "press-tape" splices to use on the few films that required them. We never did get a tape splicer before the theatre closed in 1972. Since it was first run and reel to reel there was no need for making lots of splices.

KEN

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-08-2004, 05:57 AM:

Kodak has made print film on polyester (ESTAR) base since the 1950's. It was used primarily for small gauge films (16mm and Super-8 prints) and for special venue (e.g., 70mm IMAX films, theme parks).

Agfa-Gevaert was the first to really promote the use of polyester (GEVAR) base for 35mm theatrical prints. "The Fugitive", "Free Willy", "The Magic Garden", etc. were some of the first releases on Agfa polyester print film. Fuji followed suit with "The American President" in late 1995. A film on the earlier Kodak polyester print film (2386) was "Ace Ventura - When Nature Calls" in November 1995.

Kodak had concerns about the static performance and projector abrasion issues of polyester prints, as well as the need for proper tension-sensing failsafes. I worked on a report on a survey of polyester print use in theatres for the movie "Mr. Wonderful". My report to ShoWest in March 1994 reported the issues of shedding, static, and fear of equipment damage. Improvements were needed.

Kodak spent well over $200 Million addressing these issues, building a completely new ESTAR base manufacturing plant to add an abrasion-resistant, transparent, conductive anti-static backing to polyester film, found on the current Kodak VISION Color Print Films 2383 and 2393:

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr19960509-01.shtml

That note is from the mid-1990s, BEFORE Kodak had introduced the significant improvements that VISION Color Print Films brought to the market.

Posted by Peter Hall (Member # 695) on 06-08-2004, 08:36 AM:

In NZ years ago we used to put all sorts in the film boxes, mainly for crossovers to friendly theatres. Typical were beers, film reviews, our thoughts and in once case I received a couple of porno mags to make the midnight shows seem shorter !

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 06-08-2004, 12:12 PM:

quote:
DO NOT LUBRICATE THE PRINT. It is not necessary. The print should run smoothly and quietly without additional lubricants.

Can someone explain how this statement could have made sense?

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-08-2004, 12:17 PM:

Was any advice given to projectionists when triacetate started to replace nitrate? Or were any articles published in trade journals at the time? It would be interesting to know what people thought of safety stock when it first came into widespread use.

The strngest thing I ever found in a film box was a mouse (alive).

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-08-2004, 01:24 PM:

quote: Christopher Seo
Can someone explain how this statement could have made sense?

Ten years ago, prints were more likely to have been properly edgewaxed by the labs. People were trying to lubricate prints with WD-40, or mineral oil, which could leach out the oil-soluble dyes and cause mottle.

quote: Stephen Furley
Was any advice given to projectionists when triacetate started to replace nitrate? Or were any articles published in trade journals at the time?

Lots of publicity at the time. Kodak published numerous technical papers and informational publications. Here is the current publication:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/corp/environment/kes/pubs/pdfs/H182.pdf

Posted by Robert DeLoss Marken (Member # 2440) on 06-08-2004, 01:30 PM:

Stephen - To comment on your question about when safety film started to show up. I was a full time projectionist late "40's" and "50's", my HS and college days. My poor memory, I'm 70 now thus 50 years ago, tells me that safety was considerable thicker than nitrate, so plate tensions had to be constantly adjusted and sprocket wheels had to be turned or replaced much more often because the thicker film gouged the teeth faster. When I left the job and entered aviation, mid-"50's", about half the stock was still nitrate, but these things I mentioned where becoming big problems for the "moving picture machine operators". as we were called back then.

Bob Marken

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-08-2004, 01:39 PM:

quote: Robert DeLoss Marken
My poor memory, I'm 70 now thus 50 years ago, tells me that safety was considerable thicker than nitrate, so plate tensions had to be constantly adjusted and sprocket wheels had to be turned or replaced much more often because the thicker film gouged the teeth faster.

One issue during the conversion was that nitrate prints had much more shrinkage than triacetate prints. So projector sprockets designed to handle nitrate film which had shrunk about 0.3 percent during processing did not handle triacetate film (which only shrunk about 0.1 percent) as well. Kodak published work showing that triacetate film performed best on 16-tooth sprockets having a root diameter of 0.943 inches, rather than the 0.935 inch sprockets used for nitrate film.

Posted by Peter Mork (Member # 1336) on 06-08-2004, 01:40 PM:

A faded sticker in a very old can said:

SAVE COPPER DRIPPINGS - HELP WILL ROGERS HOSPITAL.

I kept that one, and always put my copper drippings in an envelope and send 'em off.

Posted by Don Sneed (Member # 955) on 06-08-2004, 01:40 PM:

When I was a young projectionist in the early 70's, I finish high school in 1973, I wrote inside the can lid Don Sneed Sr. "73", Galveston Texas...about 9-10 yrs latter while working at a drive-in theatre I recieved the same film can with about 20 names & dates written under mine, what is the chances of that happening again, I thought that was too cool back then, I wonder how many names in it now ??

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 06-09-2004, 01:02 AM:

Nitrate's shrinkage issues were a consideration sometimes even before the print hit the projector.

The pre-talkies Pathecolor stencil process had to utilize detailed scales for shrinkage of the nitrate stock during the process of cutting stencils & applying color.

I've only seen a few examples of Pathecolor on video, but reports from those who've seen examples of it projected are that it was very consistent & good.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 06-09-2004, 02:07 AM:

Was pre-compensation for shrinkage (e.g. use a slightly smaller -sized polyester raw stock) not considered?

--jhawk

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-09-2004, 08:29 AM:

Polyester (ESTAR) base prints are very stable dimensionally, and show little shrinkage during processing or aging. The perforation pitch is still 0.1870 inches (KS-1870 perforations), as you need to maintain the proper relationship on the contact printer sprocket. Consideration could be given to revisiting the diameter of the projector sprockets to optimize wear characteristics, but with the strength of polyester print film perfs, it's probably unnecessary.

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 06-10-2004, 02:55 AM:

Recently I opened up a Technicolor can and saw the familiar label:
"Please return your dts discs"
and underneath it a new label:
"Fuck You"

Oh how the creative solution eludes us...Although I think the name in the can is definitely cool.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-10-2004, 07:52 AM:

Stephen: there was a huge amount of training material produced by projectionists in Britain during the time of the nitrate/acetate transition. Among the issues addressed were (i) new cement formulations for making joins, (ii) the need to maintain full scale fire precautions until nitrate had completely disappeared from circulation and (iii) identifying different sorts of element and how not to be fooled by a 'nitrate' or 'safety' edge mark printed through from a previous generation. In stark contrast to the protracted cyan tracks conversion, the trade papers reveal that (in Britain, at least) the nitrate to acetate conversion was pretty rapid: the first prints entered mainstream circulation around November 1949 and nitrate base ceased being imported into the UK by June 1950.

Posted by Jeff Joseph (Member # 511) on 06-13-2004, 01:09 AM:

There were certainly "mixed" prints in this country; I once saw a dye-transfer "Annie Get Your Gun" that was part nitrate, part safety.

And there were some nitrate trailers still being used for reissues in late 1950s. In one case, we've got a trailer with a replaced (safety) end title (the issuing company of the film had changed). But the bulk of the trailer is nitrate.

Jeff

Posted by Peter Kerchinsky (Member # 1098) on 06-13-2004, 04:47 AM:

In the good old days, we used to find stickers inside the top lid of the film cans asking for your vote for a certain business agent or some union offical.
Now, I pray when I open a film can from TES that it's the right film!

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 06-14-2004, 08:31 PM:

From a film can, circa 1976...

/Mitchell

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 06-15-2004, 01:09 PM:

Should be ITS, not IT'S.

Posted by Rob Butler (Member # 2274) on 06-15-2004, 02:00 PM:

quote: John Pytlak
Ten years ago, prints were more likely to have been properly edgewaxed by the labs. People were trying to lubricate prints with WD-40, or mineral oil, which could leach out the oil-soluble dyes and cause mottle.

WD-40 on the prints? did that work? I'm pretty sure WD40 has a slight tint to it that would probibly darken the image on screen. Also, at one point it would seem like a bad idea to have an aresol can of WD-40 sitting next to a projector running nitrate film.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-15-2004, 03:32 PM:

WD-40 should NOT be used on film! [Eek!]