Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: TES newsletter

This is topic TES newsletter - June 2004 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=006263

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-10-2004, 05:33 PM:

Here is Technicolor's pdf version of their newsletter that is being faxed out today. Thanks to Ginger Fulton for providing it for those theaters where the projectionists don't ever see faxes.

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 06-10-2004, 06:09 PM:

You'd think it'd be easy for them to dump the bands and just start using the tape. I'm surprised the whole newsletter wasn't a tearful goodbye to reel bands... Every TES delivery I've opened, I've been hoping not to see any bands, Riddick was another letdown today.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-10-2004, 09:02 PM:

Woo..Jhawk's brush with greatness.

"Check if the leaders are attached"

Define attached, TES.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-10-2004, 10:04 PM:

Originally they said they were going to use four inches of tape. Now according to this, it's two inches "centrally positioned." Note also they tout how wonderfully the stuff "removes" from a wide variety of surfaces, but not a word on how well it "sticks" after repeated uses.

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-11-2004, 12:39 AM:

I wonder if

is angry that they credited him as "John Hawkinson" instead of "JHawk"? I know I'd be pretty pissed if someone didn't get my fake name right.
[av=k]

Posted by Ky Boyd (Member # 23) on 06-11-2004, 01:03 AM:

So as part of the "QC" TES will verify that the print has the right number of reels, but not that they are the right reels. Apparently QC doesn't involve checking the quality of the actual reels, just the film on the reels. Of course that statement presumes that TES uses quality reels to begin with...what was I thinking! The easy circuiting tips seems doesn't seem to include shredding the redundant fax about the circuit.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 06-11-2004, 02:11 AM:

good to know that TES cares about green scratches. I guess any other type of scratch isnt distracting enough.

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 06-11-2004, 09:03 AM:

What's next a half inch of tape, positioned to the left of the end of the reel?

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-11-2004, 09:05 AM:

I wonder if this applies to Technicolor Canada's opperation

Older prints the reel bands in Ontario were the actual censor certificate for that reel

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 06-11-2004, 11:07 AM:

Chris, I was thinking the same thing. So, we can make base side scratches and it will pass, a-ok. [thumbsup]

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-12-2004, 10:15 AM:

quote:
The most efficient mode of delivery is by broadcast FAX.

What?! Are the still in the Stone Ages?!

Posted by David Graham Rose (Member # 1450) on 06-12-2004, 02:30 PM:

Greetings All from Cambridge

What on earth is the point of TES checking prionts when they are returned? We have no such facility here in the UK. Films are despatched direct from the depot at Perivale to theatres. They are then returned and should a print be needed at another theatre, then they are sent directly back out. If the film is still playing at a theatre Thursday night, then it is despatched over night to the next theatre for a Friday playdate. Any defects are reported to the renters London office and replacement reels are then despatched as necessary. Sounds like TES are just adding to the cost of film transport by employing personnell to check prints.

Regards

David

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 06-12-2004, 05:14 PM:

quote: David Graham Rose
If the film is still playing at a theatre Thursday night, then it is despatched over night to the next theatre for a Friday playdate. Any defects are reported to the renters London office and replacement reels are then despatched as necessary.

David, consider yourself and other UK projectionists lucky. Replacement reels in such a case in the US are rare.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 06-12-2004, 08:47 PM:

Gosh, Joe. I'd be angry if they creditted me as "JHawk" instead of "jhawk," but actually they asked me.

The intent of this section in the newsletter, by the way, is to document the existing practice, not to describe a practice in the future. I guess Ky is being tongue-in-cheek, but the process does involve verifying "that they are the right reels."

David Graham Rose asks, "What on earth is the point of TES checking prionts when they are returned?" It's worth noting that they are not checked on return, but they are checked on departure (except for the first departure). And of course, the point is that theatres often do really bad things to prints and the idea is to make sure that prints that are send out to theatres not on-the-break meet a certain minimum standard of quality.

When delivery is just-in-time, finding out that you want a replacement the day of your show is not an optimal situation.

Having the exchange do the inspection also means knowing which of the two theatres damaged the film, instead of, e.g., having an unscrupulous second theatre claim it was the first theatre's fault...

--jhawk

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-13-2004, 04:19 AM:

I see plenty of damaged film, I had a print yesterday that took me four hours to make up onto 6ks, but I've only once had a wrong reel; it happened in April this year, and was in the second 'Lord of the Rings' films.

We were due to run all three films on a Sunday. The third film had been running earliier in the week, the other two were for the Sunday only, and had been delivered on, I think, the Friday. When I arrived on the Sunday morning, The first film had been made up, and I had to do the second one while the first was running. Near to the end, I think it was part 8 of 9, when I took the film out of the can it was tail out, emulsion in on a two inch core, all the other parts had been head out, emulsion out on three inch cores. As I unwound the tail it said part 6. The tail had not been cut, so it had not been spliced incorrectly. I wound the film onto a spool and the leader, also uncut, also said part 6. All of the other parts had been cut, so this was obviously a replacement reel. Checking the ID frame from the leader of the part 6 that I had already made up, it was iidentical to the first frame of this part; We had a wrong reel, but it's the only time I've ever seen it happen.

I 'phoned the manager as soon as I discovered it, but there was only about half an hour before the film was due on screen, so there was no way we could get it replaced in time, so we had to cancel the show.

Checking the can for this reel again, the label on top said part 8, but the one on the edge of the can, which I had not looked at previously, said part 6.

Enough care had been taken to replace a damaged part, but, unfortunately, with the wrong part. I guess it was just bad luck that the can was labeled incorrectly. You couldn't expect the depot staff to check a brand new can of fiilm to make sure that the label matched what was inside.

Just hope it was a one-off, and it doesn't happen again.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 06-13-2004, 07:31 AM:

Stephen Furley: "You couldn't expect the depot staff to check a brand new can of fiilm to make sure that the label matched what was inside."

Well, over here, you can. TES says that the rate of "mixed reels" (as they call them) from the lab is sufficiently non-zero to make it worth checking, and so they do.

--jhawk

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-14-2004, 08:23 AM:

Each reel is printed separately, often on different days and on different equipment. Most of the labs have a computerized tracking system using barcode on each reel, to be sure each shipment contains the correct reels. But mistakes do happen.