quote: Steve Kraus

---

Do girls know about shrinkage?

---

Yes George, they do. Jerry told me.

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-10-2004, 08:54 PM:
 
I have a little bit of nitrate that I cannot project but made it through my KEM ok.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-10-2004, 08:59 PM:
 
From the projectors I have worked with (Gordon will undoubtedly mention a machine no one on the planet has ever heard of), the Century seems to handle shrunken film the best.

You should consider FilmGuarding it first. Anything that has shrank needs to be kept well lubed before and during use.

(Any bets on what Tony will say to that? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? )
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-10-2004, 09:03 PM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

(Any bets on what Tony will say to that?)

---

Which Tony? You mean Uncle Tony? J/C!

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 08-10-2004, 09:13 PM:
 
I think we all know what I would say, right?

The title of the thread does leave an opening, eh? I'll let it go...

But on topic, Trevor, both Dan and Brad have given the best advice so far. Film Guard and a test with a sprocket before projecting. Check all splices.

Most splicers have good registration so I would think that if it fits the pins on the splicer ok it would probably do ok in the projector as well.

Edited spelling on "spoorket"
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-10-2004, 09:51 PM:
 
I've had the best luck projecting warped/shrunken film on a Brenkert BX-80 alot more so than with any curved gate machine. That extra long film gate really does hold things in place. both OF the prints I had that were really bad were Eastmen MAG/OPTICAL. No other machine would run them in a watchable state.

Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-10-2004, 09:58 PM:
 
For really bad 35mm shrinkage, you might see if you can find some of the original sprockets from the nitrate era (pre-1950), which had a slightly smaller root diameter to handle the greater processing shrinkage of that film.

I agree with Brad. Treat the print to lubricate it, and use the lowest gate tension that gives a steady image.

If the print is "one of a kind", be sure to check with an appropriate film archive before risking damage through a projector, just in case it is the only surviving copy of a film.
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 08-10-2004, 11:31 PM:
 
Like Mark, I've had good luck with shruken prints on BX-80s and BX-60s. Centurys and Simplexes aren't too bad either.
 

---

Posted by Trevor Anderson (Member # 2620) on 08-11-2004, 12:46 AM:
 
Thanks for the replies,

Just to clarify. I work for an archive and we have a large lending collection of prints both 16mm and 35mm (I also work a shift a week at the local art house and have installed projection and audio equipment). These are never preservation copies (ie one of a kind elements).

So what I am getting from the posts so far is that nobody seems to measure shrinkage before screenings and that would be what I would expect from my experience working here and in Asia.
We measure the shrinkage of films as a routine part of our film examination at the archive.

What brought this question up for me was that I sent some films to a local lab for copying and they weren't able to run them through their printer at around 1.3% shrinkage so I'm assuming that projection equipment wouldn't be able to handle anything at that level of shrinkage as well but we don't have the data to back that up.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-11-2004, 01:31 AM:
 
My motiographs have regular projected nitrate that is so shrunken the perfs are visable on screen
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-11-2004, 03:09 AM:
 
When Leo Enticknap weighs in on this thread, I would also be interested in knowing what he used to repair dameged perfs. Did Jack Roe sell him CineBugs, Per-Fix machines & tape? The artsy craftsy method of fooling with slivers of splice tape gets on my nerves.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 08-11-2004, 05:21 AM:
 
I know how the National Film and Television Archive repairs perforation damage, even when it is so bad that the whole edge of the film, outside the perforations, is missing for several frames. They keep a supply of old film, of various vintages and degrees of shrinkage, and find some which closely matches the film being worked on. They cut suitable patches from the edges of this, and cement it in place on the base side of the film. Of course, they are working on material to be printed from, not projected.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 08-11-2004, 05:24 AM:
 
i'm pretty handy with the "artsy-craftsy" method, but i'd love to have a perfix machine or cinebug. i've got a reel with 45' of stretched sprockets on it and i'll be damned if i'm going to pore over that inch by inch.

carl
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 08-11-2004, 07:21 AM:
 
I always imagined preservation specialists had special "shrunken sprockets" for just this problem. No?

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-11-2004, 07:37 AM:
 
As I noted, intermittent sprockets for 35mm nitrate film which had considerable shrinkage during processing had a 0.935 inch base (root) diameter. Modern sprockets usually have a slightly larger base diameter, typically 0.950 inches.

Standard is SMPTE 242

The sprocket tooth pitch is measured at the midpoint of the nominal film thickness:

Pitch = ((Root Diameter + Film Thickness/2) x Pi)/(Number of Teeth)
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 08-11-2004, 10:03 AM:
 
Cinemeccanicas are also generally good with shrunken prints. I ran a badly shrunken acetate print (top and bottom frame lines visible almost all the time) which was heavily lubricated, and it ran just fine on a Victoria 8. The film was twisting like a party streamer on its way to and from the platter. Maybe I'll run it again one day and take some video. A sight to see.

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 08-11-2004, 01:47 PM:
 

quote: John Pytlak

---

The sprocket tooth pitch is measured at the midpoint of the nominal film thickness:

Pitch = ((Root Diameter + Film Thickness/2) x Pi)/(Number of Teeth)

---

since the diameter of the sprocket + film includes 2 thicknesses of film, shouldn't it be

Pitch = ((Root Diameter + Film Thickness) x Pi)/(Number of Teeth)

?

carl
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-11-2004, 02:02 PM:
 
I looked up the standard, and you are correct.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Jonsson (Member # 1902) on 08-11-2004, 02:52 PM:
 
Mark
I´m just curious, how long is the film gate
on the Brenkert BX-80?

Thomas
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-11-2004, 06:13 PM:
 
Leaving aside the issue of dealing with shrinkage in the context of archival preservation, I agree that the characteristics of the projector being used are a key factor in determining what you can get away with in projection. Obviously, pitch/width of sprocket teeth and gate pressure are the main things. An FP-20 would always be my mechanism of choice for running significantly shrunk 35mm prints on account of its small teeth and the insanely low gate pressure which which it can project a steady image.

Using a shinkage gauge, standing orders at the only cinema I've worked at which was licensed to show nitrate were that 0.6% was the maximum permissable. For info, the National Film Preservation Foundation's Preservation Guide advises that:

quote: Page 15 of manual

---

Once a 16mm or 8mm film has shrunk beyond 0.8% (1% for 35mm), it may be damaged in projection. Beyond 2%, even skilled laboratories can have trouble copying the film. At this point the film generally exhibits additional decay problems beyond shrinkage.

---

For a cinema which regularly shows older prints, a 'shrinkometer' might be a useful thing to have in the booth. Although you get used to what your projectors can and can't safely deal with over time, having a percentage figure for a given print would help in replacing some of the gut instinct with hard data...
 

---

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 08-12-2004, 02:00 AM:
 
I hate to toot my own horn, but the brenkerts are pretty incredible when it comes to running damaged/shrunken film. I have a small roll of film I call my 'can your projector do this' reel. I doubt it would run through the machines at work, but runs through mine just fine. Runs gooky nitrate as well
Part of their saving grace is CS like sprokets that every brenkert I've ever seen had. much more tolerance for slop in there.

For the record the gate in my BX-100 is 5 7/16" long (from the top of the loop 'horns' to the start of the intermittant shoe.)

Josh
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 08-12-2004, 02:51 AM:
 
Same here Josh. We used to have a few beat to hell, brittle, half the sprockets missing, Christmas cartoon reels that would run through BX-60s just fine, but didn't have a snowballs chance in hell going through a Simplex or Century.
 

---

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 08-12-2004, 04:28 AM:
 
damn.. I need to take a pic of my "torture loop" that I ran through my Pro35 a few dozen times.
Just for fun I made a loop of old brittle acetate, then i took a foot or so of the sprockets off one side with scissors!
Yes it ran through without breaking.
Update, here is the pic. This only shows half of the sprocketless film.


[ 08-12-2004, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Dan Lyons ]
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-12-2004, 05:06 AM:
 
I've never seen or used a Brenkert - I'm not sure that there even are any in Britain. But I'll take your word for it! Of the projectors that are commonly found in Britain and Europe my choice would be FP-20s for any booth which would regularly be showing older prints but not 70mm, but there may well be better options elsewhere.

Agreed with Josh - 'Fox hole' sprocket teeth are a good way of preventing perf damage on older acetate elements (not just shrinkage, but severe deacetylation brittleness as well). The Vic 8s at one place I worked had them on permanently, and they didn't seem to cause any stability problems or perf damage to unshrunk prints with full-size perfs, either.
 

---

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 08-12-2004, 05:08 PM:
 
Funny, that machine is 50 years old, yet it still puts out a better picture (stability wise) than most of the screens I have ever been in.

JJ
 

---