Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: What happened to my tail leader?

This is topic What happened to my tail leader? 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=006312

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 06-29-2004, 03:00 AM:

Much to my suprise tonight, one of our prints of Spider-Man 2 had a very big error: Reel 6 was missing the last two minutes and the tail! I don't have a digital camera to show you the image, but the reel just ended halfway through a frame of Alfred Molina and also had thick white tape over a few frames at the end. There was no tail leader, and the tape being there really threw me off. So I checked another print we had and the aformentioned reel was definitely wrong. We ordered a replacement of course, and just subsituted the good reel from the other print for our sneak tomorrow night. Any ideas why this would have happened? Another example of no quality control it seems. Now calling John Pytlak! [Big Grin]

AJG

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-29-2004, 05:40 AM:

I suspect someone else got the missing footage. Likely the the operator taking reels off the processing machine accidently cut the film in the wrong place. Chalk it up to operator error.

Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 06-29-2004, 06:35 AM:

I've had that happen before on a few movies. Right now, I'm just wishing they would pick a direction and go with it. All 5 prints I got of Spider Man 2 were random heads/tails. Sony seems to be bad about that, though other companies are more consistant.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-29-2004, 07:27 AM:

Print orientation depends more on the lab that made the prints than on the distributor. Release print labs usually use either unidirectional "loop" type printers, or bi-directional panel printers. Reels that get selected for inspection projection may not get rewound. It's likely your prints were made on bi-directional printers.

Here is a typical bi-directional printer used for making release prints:

http://www.rtico.com/bhp/6131e.pdf

quote:
MODEL 6131E WITH BI-DIRECTIONAL DRY
PRINTING SPEEDS UP TO 960 FEET PER MINUTE
AND FILM CAPACITY OF 4,000 FEET, PROVIDES
EFFICIENT, HIGH QUALITY, VOLUME RELEASE
PRINT PRODUCTION.

BHP Model 6131E Dry Printers have been
designed to maximize print quality, negative
safety and production efficiency. The simpli -
fied film threading path and fast bi-directional
film transport system provide efficient, high
quality dry release printing. Further use of
the optional electronic fader permits fast
preparation of intermediate negatives with
unmatched quality, accuracy and safety of
original camera negatives.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 06-29-2004, 10:07 AM:

I can't say I pay a huge amount of attention to winding orientation, but I know that TES makes an effort to ensure a consistent orientation when they ship out prints. I don't know if they do so on lab-new prints, though. Did this change with the Sony move to ETS?

The fact is, though, if it were really important, it wouldn't be difficult for the labs to keep it consistent. If they're loop-printing, then all reels will come out the same way, so it's just a matter of starting the negatives the same way.

If they're bidirectional-printed, then they can just sort the reels in two piles, and when they "make" a print, pick head-out versions of all reels or tail-out versions of all reels.

(Same deal if a reel get's pulled for QC. I suppose if all reels came out head-out (loop printed), then the tail-out pile might consist solely of pulled reels, and so if you got one QC'd reel that would mean you'd have an entire print that was QC'd, and that might be either good ("known quantity") or bad ("this reel has been run through a projector; it has greater chance of damage") depending on your perspective.)

But it should be easy for theatres to rewind. In the ideal world, everyone would have a handy Goldberg automatic rewinder (suitably configured to not cinch), and then it's really no effort to toss the next reel on while you're inspecting the previous.

--jhawk

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 06-29-2004, 12:35 PM:

You would think that would be the case...However I used to have to make up my prints off a broken make up table that I used as a rewind bench.
To get it onto the platter I would hold the takeup carriage (potts platters) up with a screwdriver.
Amazingly I never had scratches prints with potts platters and never a thrown print.
Plenty of dumbass brain wraps and rollers fall off though.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-29-2004, 01:01 PM:

Re: winding orientation - TES only makes an attempt on used prints. There is no way they could possibly rewind half of Deluxe's reels before shipment.

Re: sorting reels heads vs. tails - I wish. It'll never happen. I'm going to be the CAP coding would only add to the confusion.

Re: QC'd reels - I'd much rather take my chances on reels that had never been ran through a projector. It's obvious when this happens, because there are fingerprints and small knicks and marks all over the ends of the reels on those which were check screened at the lab.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 06-29-2004, 01:14 PM:

I had just the oppisite happen on a print last year. At the end of reel 2 it had about two minutes of another reel 2 on it, so it repeated the beginning of the reel again. I'm sure someone else got the other reel with the first two minutes missing. This was a new print.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-29-2004, 02:42 PM:

Normally, the labs print several complete copies of the same reel on each large roll of raw stock, which then is put on the ECP-2D processing machine. After the film is processed and dried, it goes through a high speed viewer (video or rear screen projection) for inspection by the take-off operator. The operator lets one reel wind up onto a new core, then has a few seconds to cut the film between the reels, and wind the next reel onto a core. If the operator is distracted, they may accidently make the cut in the middle of a reel, instead of between two reels. Normally mistakes like this are caught since the reel ID / bar codes will not be on the outer lap of the reel.

In most cases, the lab ships the prints to the film exchange on cores, as complete features (tracking bar codes and/or CAP codes on each reel to be sure each shipment has all the correct reels). The exchange "mounts" the film onto shipping reels, usually by simply putting the two flanges of the shipping reel onto the core. Mounting involving a rewind step is rarely used today. The film is then put into the shipping case / box for shipment to the theatre. (This the practice in the USA).

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-29-2004, 06:00 PM:

Okay, I'm still a little unclear on this. Do you really prefer all reels the same way, even if that way is not the way you want? If so, WHY?

As a reel to reel projectionist I prefer everything tails out as it speeds up the inspection process. But if I have a choice between a few in this time saving orientation versus all heads up I'd rather have the few tails out. Assuming the typical platter operator prefers them all heads up (meaning they don't inspect or prebuild to a platter reel) I don't understand why they would prefer them all to be tails out and requiring all to be rewound as opposed to getting at least a few where this extra labor could be avoided.

Are so many people going through their functions so mindlessly that they'd rather do extra work than to merely look to see which way a reel is wound? [Confused]

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-29-2004, 07:04 PM:

I prefer to have all reels oriented the same way because it saves time when doing "proper" makeup for platters or 6000' reels, since it's faster to rewind one made-up 6000' reel of film than (say) three 2000' reels individually.

When running off 2000' reels, I agree that it doesn't matter how the film comes in (though tails-out would save an extra rewind cycle).

TES makes an effort to ensure that all reels are oriented the same way? Could have fooled me. Do they actually rewind the reels that are oriented in the "wrong" way? If so, wouldn't that clue them in to the problem of leaders attached with masking tape (or not at all)?

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 06-29-2004, 07:14 PM:

Scott, in my experience, leaders attached with masking tape generally (80%) rewind just fine in a rewinder. This is actually the normal case for me, since most titles arrive head-out masking-taped and get rewound before inspection.

(I'm with Steve, the more tails out the better. But us changeover guys must be the minority.)

--jhawk

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-29-2004, 07:56 PM:

The biggest complaint boils down to multiplexes who get their prints on Thursday afternoon/evening, then have very little time to get all of the prints built before the night is over. Having to rewind half of the reels (2K reels at that) takes up quite a bit of time, even compared to having to rewind 6K reels. The basic groups are:

1. Changeover projectionists, of which there are extremely few in the big picture. (Plus they are used to constant rewinding anyway.) We will assume that any changeover projectionists are at least well trained enough to do a full inspection before running the show.

2. Platter projectionists who build straight from shipping reels to the platter. Yeah those guys suck, but it's amazing just how many do it like that. For this group, all heads out is a bonus.

3. Platter projectionists who build onto Goldberg platter reels. For these guys, having all heads out is a bonus.

4. Platter projectionists who build onto large (typically "hour length" reels), then platter from there. This group would generally prefer tails out orientation, but since most platter houses have 2 rewind benches, it's really no big issue at all to start a 6K rewinding on the other bench while you work on the other half of the print. Also, I think more and more of this quality conscious group are switching to platter reels.

Any way you slice it, all heads out is the overwhelming preference. However if the reels cannot arrive all heads out, I do agree that most everyone I know would prefer they all arrive tails out than a mix-and-match orientation. Group 2 in this instance will simply build to 6K reels, then platter and group 3 will build to 6K reels, then rewind to the platter reel.

Not sure if that really answers Steve's question, but for what it's worth.

jhawk - shame on you for rewinding reels with masking taped-on leaders in a rewinder. (Actually, shame on you for using those evil things in the first place, but that's another argument.) Have you never seen what commonly happens to the ends of the reel? The edges get creased, sometimes the film gets flipped over and almost always the film gets a nice fold in it. Of course this wouldn't be an issue if morons would start breaking down with a splicer. [Mad]

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 06-29-2004, 08:02 PM:

Actually, damage to the tail leader is consistently not a problem. (The tail leader is also the section of film one generally cares about least, to boot.)

Perhaps it is coincidental that most of the masking-taped stuff I get is not too far misaligned...

--jhawk

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-29-2004, 11:11 PM:

I'd bet it's 95% Type 2. So I don't know why they wouldn't rather avoid some rewinding.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 06-30-2004, 03:38 AM:

I'm one of those that build on to 60s and then to the platter, so I like tails out. However, mixing and matching stinks because then you just have to think: what's the quickest way to do this. If it's all heads, easy job. If it's all tails, an even easier job.

An update on my original post: my replacement reel came in tonight so our final print is ready to go for tomorrow.

AJG

Posted by John A. Parker Jr. (Member # 1719) on 06-30-2004, 08:36 AM:

Well here's what I got. Reels 1,2,3,4 and 7 were tails out. Every body else was heads up. At times like these, sure love a horizonital mut (super platter). Now in mid reel 7, diagonal scratches and they are printed on the film. Calling Dr. John!

I figure the master was damaged during a previous pass and the ptr's on the printer cleaned most of the debris up because they were nice and clean.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-30-2004, 03:03 PM:

I see two realistic options.

1. the print was used and the last guy made those scratches.
2. you scratched that reel.

To my understanding, there is no place that the lab can make diagonal scratches on their machines.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-30-2004, 03:41 PM:

jhawk--you rewind the reels before inspecting them? Doesn't that risk a) a bad mid-reel splice that falls apart and causes film to dump on the floor (or inside the Goldberg machine), b) a tail leader that is taped to the reel hub, or c) other film damage? I don't really know, as I've never used this method, but I've never had any trouble inspecting the film in whatever orientation it arrived and then rewinding it if necessary.

Brad--how many theatres actually have platter reels? I don't know of any. I bet that changeover houses (including commercial theatres, screening rooms, special venues, etc.) far outnumber platter houses with platter reels. I love the concept, but no theatre that I know is about to spend several hundred dollars on one. And what is this about two rewind benches? I've seen that in large (10+ screens) multiplexes, but they are usually located in different parts of the booth, not all together.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-30-2004, 03:44 PM:

I have been seeing platter reels become more and more common lately. People are wising up! Also, I tend to notice that the better multiplexes are putting at least 2 tables together as a central buildup station, rather than spreading them around the complex. It just makes more sense. That way all the leaders, snipes, trailers, splicing tape, etc are all in one central location.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 06-30-2004, 08:39 PM:

Scott: Generally it's not a problem.

a) Inside the Goldberg it just stops. No big deal. (Remember that accelleration is almost nil once the reel has started going, so there's very little force. It has to be an almost nonexistant splice to be a problem.)

b) Generally taped to the reel hub the tape just peels off. Just as if you're running on a projector and taped to the reel hub. I suppose it might put some excess tension on the last foot of leader, but "that's what it's there for."

c) The only possibility I can think of is what Brad asked about -- misaligned masking tape splices that cause the post-splice film stock to get squeezed against the flange. But this is not a problem.

So what's the rationale? Well, basically, if things are in a hurry during inspection (posit an inspection immediately before a pre-screening), the rewind step is a fixed delay (approximately -- if really in a hurry one can rewind on the rewind bench faster than the Goldberg can). It's convenient to put the fixed delay first, because you never know how long manual inspection of the reel is going to take.

Sometimes it's a breeze. But if it drags out and takes longer and longer, it's great to be able to pull it off the rewinder and thread it up just in time, rather than having to wait to rewind it.

Now I'm curious what Steve does, though.

If you guys are so curious, why not ask Goldberg how many platter reels they've sold. I bet they'd share a ballpark figure (100, 1000, 10,000, etc.).

--jhawk

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 06-30-2004, 09:06 PM:

I just screened "the clearing" with changeovers last week, and I found a tail leader and some picture attached before the head leader - somewhat confusing as I was rewinding the reels from head-up-on-core to head-up-on-housereel. This was a new print with no splices or cuts, I would say definitely a miscut from the printer.

Posted by John A. Parker Jr. (Member # 1719) on 07-02-2004, 10:10 AM:

Beep, wrong answer. Sorry Brad. Scratches are there, but no physical damage to my print. Have been trying to get to another theatre to check out their reel 7. Will try to get a digital camera to photograph. [Big Grin]

John A. Parker Jr.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-02-2004, 12:04 PM:

I check the head for a splice. If there is one I check it and very often remake it. Like often it's a single side and needs to be backspliced but there is a remnant of the old platter splice sticking out I'll peel the whole mess and remake. Multiple cuts get removed as does anything with opaque tape. Anything where framing is not visible across the splice has to be checked with the framing checker. Also, I don't want any adhesive stickiness exposed to the gate runners. Edgemarking tape or whatever it's called gets pulled off. That's almost always an indication that Classic Cinemas Elk Grove handled it for a trade screening. (It shifts the picture, throws it out of focus and obliterates SDDS for people who use it. Film done wrong!)

Wind to tail. Check splice if any. If it needs to be made/remade I'll single side it unless backsplicing is indicated to cover old adhesive. Check the dots. Scribe with Sign-O-Marker if visibility is in doubt or if they need to be made in the first place. Back to heads on a house reel. I take up on directly on shippers and despite their bad condition I think I've only had one fall apart on the projector once or twice in many thousands of reels and it still didn't disrupt the show. Last reel I'll check the end for last item although sometimes if I'm busy or lazy I may wing it.

There's more of course but that's the basics.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-02-2004, 02:57 PM:

Well John if I'm wrong then fine, but I just can't imagine where a diagonal scratch at the lab would come from other than *maybe* a film jumped off of a roller, but unlikely. They run scratch tests every X number of feet and that would've showed up, which would've sent them looking at the last X number of reels so they could be tossed.

I emailed John Pytlak. Maybe he can shed more light on this one.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-02-2004, 03:06 PM:

(I'm home on vacation today)

A scratch on the printing negative would normally show as white on the print. Labs normally handle film in a conventional roll-to-roll fashion, or in a helical loop over many rollers, so a diagonal "platter scratch" would be unlikely. The only possibilities for a diagonal or horizontal scratch would be film riding up on the flange of a roller, or an operator flattening a dished/coned roll.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-07-2004, 07:14 PM:

Steve (et al.)--have you noticed whether or not leaving opaque head and/or tail splices causes the SRD track to drop out? Normally, I'd advocate removing the white or yellow crap, of course, but when I have ~30 minutes to get the print to the booth and inspect the first couple of reels' worth of film before going on screen, I don't mind leaving the leaders attached with the opaque tape as long as the splice itself is well made, since those frames will never be projected.

I haven't run that many shows in a changeover booth with SRD, however, and will definitely start re-making those splices if they cause the track to dropout (this is with cat. 702 penthouse readers, in case it makes a difference).

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-07-2004, 08:44 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
I don't mind leaving the leaders attached with the opaque tape as long as the splice itself is well made, since those frames will never be projected.

Oh the shame! Want a sloppy joe to go with the sloppy changeovers? [Razz]

Don't worry about the tails, just the heads.

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 07-07-2004, 09:47 PM:

One thing I've noticed running WinDRAS is that reel change splices, even made with clear tape (and yes, even Neumade tape) increase the Block Errors count by usually 3-4 each time. It seems like opaque tape wouldn't be much more of a problem in that regard. But I guess even one more block error could be too much. Or am I misinterpreting the WinDRAS information?

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 04-12-2007, 02:21 PM:

It has been 1008 days since the last post.