quote: Wolff King Morrow in another thread

---

The analog sound track will look so much cleaner than some I've seen with large differences in wave-length sizes just from dropping the 2 frames in between each reel.

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

If those extra two frames at every changeover make a noticeable difference to the presentation, then the film is exceedingly poorly edited, anyway.

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

Oh, and that "LFOA" crap has _got_ to go. Anyone who has run the older Kinoton machines or portable machines that don't have changeovers as such and just switch incandescent bulbs on and off or had sticky changeovers in need of cleaning will understand why.

---

quote:

---

I'd like to see anyone on this board who doesn't agree that this is the best overall solution and compromise for all camps on this issue suggest a better solution below that does not involve lab or studio interference.

---

Perhaps you missed stipulation at the start of the thread? Just so you know, the labs have been pressured for years and have already been playing around with ideas to mark the prints in some manner. However nothing suitable and cost-effective on their end has turned up yet, so let's try and organize a standard on our end with what we've got to work with now.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-25-2004, 10:40 PM:
 
To answer Brad's (good) points:

Acetate-base stock is still available for B&W prints (I've handled acetate prints made as recently as 2002) and there are still older acetate prints with uncut leaders that may one day be cut.

Improving presentation quality is _everyone's_ responsibility. That means that it is up to the director, editor, lab, and exhibitor to do everything within their power to increase the chances that films will be presented as close to perfectly as possible, while taking into consideration the fact that "real world" conditions aren't always ideal. Some of us sometimes have to run less-than-perfect equipment that we weren't responsible for installing or maintaining. It's not ideal, but it happens. The fewer obstacles to quality presentation (e.g. "LFOA"), the better.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-25-2004, 10:44 PM:
 

quote: Scott Norwood

---

The fewer obstacles to quality presentation (e.g. "LFOA"), the better.

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

Does anyone have any valid reason (given the current, typical polyester prints being made today) to leave an ID frame on the tail leader, or to leave more than one ID frame on the head leader?

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

If you don't see the problem with the missing frames, then you clearly aren't very picky about your presentation. All of the top notch projectionists I have worked with have seen the benefits and don't even leave a frame on ANY of the leaders.

---

Kindly explain the attempt to characterize me as a sloppy projectionist who doesn't care when I have already said that this is a method that I personally have adopted (since years ago)?

Frankly, I just don't have faith that the average 17 year-old minimum wage earner is going to (a) see the value in saving a frame; (b) go to the trouble of unlearning the old way and learning a new way or (c) take the risk of complicating the breakdown process.

Also, one of the theatres I worked at made it policy to retain a reference frame on each leader. New ideas like this one will probably meet some resistance from some managers, supervisors and trainers who can't admit that there's a better way than their way. For those at the lower end of the totem pole, the prevailing logic will probably be something like this: It's company policy (or "I was trained") to leave a frame on the head AND the tail and that's exactly how I'm going to do it -- 1/24th of a second (of what is quite possibly a crappy movie) is not worth losing my job over.

And there is no need to bootleg. You could prove your point with movies that are currently in theatres. Point out to what to look/listen for on a certain title and a certain reel change. What are we missing?

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: Industry standards are serious things, arising out of research and a documented need and not just because someone in a position of some authority "said so." This may be a terrific idea but unless you do the work and build up a solid case for this proposed standard, I doubt you're going to change people's minds. Surely you would agree that it is worth the effort.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 09-25-2004, 11:58 PM:
 
Assuming this becomes standard throughout the industry, it could also mean fewer prints built up with one or more reels "tails-up". If the ID frame is only at the head of the reel, by logic, the other MUST be the tail.

I know... I know... What stupid idiot can't read the words, "Finish", "Foot", or "LFOA" which are already printed on the leader?! Truth is, despite these, some people STILL build prints with reels backwards! Developing a standard such as Brad's would be yet another clue to help the "mentally challenged".

If a person is taught to find the end of the film that has one frame cut off (when building a used print) before proceeding, fewer problems would occur.

The only detriment I can think of to Brad's idea would be for changeover operators who get a reel that is "Tails-Up". When inspecting a print, it can be wound directly onto the house reel as it is inspected. If it is found to be satisfactory it can be placed in the rack, ready to show. Without the ID frame at the end, if the operator doesn't know how to compare leaders or some other trick he would have to rewind the whole reel to verify the ID frame and then take the chance that it is wrong.

Ok, a shrewd person wouldn't be hindered THAT much but it IS an extra step to go through which could have been saved if there was an ID frame at the tail.

This extra step might not be needed for a person in a platter booth. If he is working on a rewind bench like he should, there will be at least one rewind to the other end of the reel, unless he gets ALL reels tails out. On the other hand, he has to trust that all reels are in proper order with the right tails on them or else he, too, could be in for an extra rewind.

I'm only posing some potential problems for certain situations, however rare they may or may not be.

If my booth was first run and got lots of nice, new prints I would have my people cut only one ID frame at the head. Unfortunately, this is not the case for me. I find myself tossing out dozens of crappy clipped-off frames on virtually every print I get!
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-26-2004, 12:06 AM:
 

quote: Randy Stankey

---

What stupid idiot can't read the words, "Finish", "Foot", or "LFOA" which are already printed on the leader?! Truth is, despite these, some people STILL build prints with reels backwards! Developing a standard such as Brad's would be yet another clue to help the "mentally challenged".

---

Well, if they're missing all of those other "industry standard" clues, who's to say they'll pick up on something like this -- which will never become 100% standard practice among all theatres. This will be even less reliable as a means of identifying heads/tails because you're still going to come across used prints that have ID frames on both leaders.

Anyway, I never thought the intent of this was to identify the head/tail of reels but, rather, a way to maximize how much of the film actually makes it on-screen.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-26-2004, 12:18 AM:
 
Randy, yes I am referring to brand new prints, the first time they are cut. Obviously once they are cut by the first theater, there is really nothing more that can be said/done for the life of that print. Also, nothing can be done for stupid people, so let's leave them out of this.

Manny (from two posts up) trust me, everyone knows that the typical sloppy projectionists are out there. Let's leave them completely out of this, as well as general theater politics. I am only interested in hearing valid reasons as to why this would or would not be the best overall compromise to make everyone happy. Don't put any concern into how to implement it.

Also, I was not speaking directly to you as a "sloppy projectionist". I was speaking in general terms.

And more, sure the typical teenage projectionist won't give a flip about saving a frame or two, but you know as well as I do that those teenage projectionists in all probability won't be around long. Turnover rate is generally high in that age range and common multiplexes.

Manny (from the above post), yes the whole point is to maximise the amount of frames that get shown/preserved on the print to take the audio jump to it's minimal amount of distraction.

Remember everyone, the industry is filled with people who will continue to assemble prints incorrectly no matter what steps are taken. I am trying to propose a solution that at least the people here in general can adopt and be happy with. I have received far more than my fair share of prints with ID frames, and yet the leaders were not only on the wrong reels, but also heads and tails weren't even on the correct ends of the rolls. We have to leave the idiots and the rare occasions out of this discussion.

If this practice is agreed upon, I plan on making some detailed "proper buildup/breakdown procedure" tips pages that will show these standards. Other things such as not using masking tape, etc have already been discussed to death. It is the ID frame issue that still is of great debate. I am willing to consider sliding against my standards and leave one ID frame on the heads of my prints. Are the others here willing to slide the other direction and meet me in the middle of only leaving one ID frame on the head leaders of their prints? And would the sub-run theaters be pleased with this standard?

(Edit - Yes this idea was originally pitched by Dustin and has been discussed in at least 2-3 threads before, but without a resolution. That is why I will play Soup Nazi on this one and start deleting posts if I have to for those who cannot stick firmly to the discussion without wandering.)
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 09-26-2004, 12:21 AM:
 
Not to be arrogant or boastful but a minor note I believe I was the one who first proposed the 'ID frame on head only' a few years back. I've been building all my prints this way since. Unfortunately it would be impossible for me to do a search and find where I posted that since the subject of ID frames has been discussed so much.

As far as the 'LFOA' marks making changeovers difficult I'll hold off on forming an opinion since I've never worked with them. I would THINK that projecting a frame of black would be a big no-no, LFOA marks or not, but again I have no experience with changeovers so will defer to more knowledgable persons.

[ 09-26-2004, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: Dustin Mitchell ]
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 09-26-2004, 01:11 AM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

If this practice is agreed upon, I plan on making some detailed "proper buildup/breakdown procedure" tips pages that will show these standards

---

I for one agree with the practice, and will change to leaving an id frame on just the head, rather than the head and tail which makes no sense now that I think about it. But thats the way I was trained!!
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 09-26-2004, 08:18 AM:
 
Post deleted by Admin, as it is off topic.

[ 09-26-2004, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]
 

---

Posted by Bill Langfield (Member # 818) on 09-26-2004, 08:54 AM:
 
Just a thought on this worn out topic.

Is it possible to attach a poll to a film-tech forum board topic?
To get peoples thoughts, without them having to explain themself?
Like,

With NEW prints, regarding ID FRAMES, WHAT DO YOU DO?
a) Leave one ID frame ONLY on the leader
b) Leave one ID frame on the leader AND tail.
c) Never cut a frame from the head or tail.
d) Never cut a frame but make sure the head and tail of the reel has a big red stick on dot right in the middle of the frame that is marked H1 and T1, near the start and end of the reel.
e) (c) Because only people who know what they are doing get to make-up and break-down.

D was a fun one, I’ve seen it a few times makes CAP codes and change-over cues, a non-issue.
B is my answer. Sorry Brad and others.
Bill.

[ 09-26-2004, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-26-2004, 11:28 AM:
 
Bill, you did not give a REASON as to why you do option b from your list. Why? An answer of "it's the way I was taught / have always done it" is not acceptable. Explain why option b is better than option a please. Otherwise your post holds no water, as it is nothing more than "this is how I do it, but I don't know why".

We are not discussing used prints, so I have deleted that part of your post. This involved the very first time a print is cut ONLY. No exceptions.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 09-26-2004, 11:35 AM:
 
I vote for single frames head and tail but would be satisfied with single on head only.

Rest of post deleted as rendered meaningless by Brad's edit of Bill's post.
 

---

Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 09-26-2004, 11:42 AM:
 
It's possible option b got started in order to identify the end of the reel on breakdown if by chance extra splices had to be made in the movie. You know, where you reach a splice that might be the end of the movie, but when you check the id frame on the reel, it turns out not to be. I've actually had this happen a few times on some really awful used prints I received. Is this the end of the reel? No. Is the the end of the reel? Not yet. Is this the end of the reel? Finally yes.
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 09-26-2004, 12:04 PM:
 
Identifying the end of a reel on breakdown requires you to look at the HEAD of that reel, not that tail. No verification should be necessary when attaching the tail of the next reel since you have already identified the splice when you attached the head of the last reel.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-26-2004, 12:21 PM:
 
You guys can do however you like -- and I particularly like the idea of having an ID frame printed elsewhere in the leader -- but, if 2 frames make that big of a difference, then we probably shouldn't be blinking while watching movies!

Reels get handled, and things can and do happen at the heads and tails - probably no more or less than in the old days. Consider who's running the majority of booths today. YES, producers should know this and not put vital action or music on reel changes, lest it be missed in some venues. They can easily balance reels to avoid it. This used to be SOP.

While changeover houses have gone by the wayside, the threat to reel-change timing today lies in the minimum-wage factor. It is very much in force, and it ain't going away. So, you lost frames on c/o's in the old days. Today, it might be from a kid who let the MUT get away from him, or who just cuts 8 frames in because he's missing the football game. It's the practical reality. Point is, while you guys are good (most of you are excellent), you are also rare in the grand scheme. And you can't control what the other people do.
 

---

Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 09-26-2004, 02:41 PM:
 

quote: Dustin Mitchell

---

Identifying the end of a reel on breakdown requires you to look at the HEAD of that reel, not that tail. No verification should be necessary when attaching the tail of the next reel since you have already identified the splice when you attached the head of the last reel.

---

My bad, you're right on that. I was thinking of it backwards. I guess the only real excuse for leaving a tail frame is so that you easily can grab the next correct reel without having to unravel the tail leader on breakdown. In other words, there probably isn't a good enough excuse for doing it.
 

---

Posted by Scott Balko (Member # 438) on 09-26-2004, 03:22 PM:
 
I would do the ID frame on head only if that was the standard. Personally, I don't leave any ID frame on head or tail. Would it be considered bootlegging, or copyright infringement, for those who have the ability to make a digital scan, or photo, of the first frame for ID purposes? Then no frames would have to be sacrificed and a positive ID would be available to those who rely on them.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-26-2004, 04:01 PM:
 
The studios are all pretty cooperative about ID frame scanning, so long as they are not high resolution. They are archived here under the REEL ID link, and prints shipped from TES (orange cans) can have ID images faxed by calling their 800 phone number.

So far the on-topic posts seem to be as I suspected. The people who like to leave an ID frame on the head and tail are accepting of just leaving an ID frame on the head leaders, and the people who don't like leaving any ID frames are accepting of leaving one on the head leaders. This is good, as it shows that a compromise standard can be achieved that will benefit all.
 

---

Posted by Ian Joseph Parfrey (Member # 2682) on 09-26-2004, 04:24 PM:
 
Sorry Guys but Bill's on the money here.

Personal experience has shown me that by not having any identifying frame on a leader or tail is courting disaster. Why? How's this for an explanation?
Whilst doing Melbourne International Film Festival stints this year, we had delivered no less that 6 prints that had no ID frames head or tail. Those prints were also on flats without cans but layed on top of each other.
Three prints had all the heads and tails bundled on top of the reel stack in the box, again without ID frames.
As couriers seem to enjoy throwing these print boxes around with the verve and vitality of Arnie Schwartzenegger on 'roids it was not surprising to find reels that had uncoiled on lost their individual leaders. Oh Yes! Fun, Fun, Fun!

No ID frame was on any of these leaders or tails.
How are you expected to make a print up when you don't know which reel is 2,3,5,15 or whatever?

This is a common problem that can EASILY be avoided by doing as Bill suggests and leave an identifying frame Head and Tail.

Brad, it is not because "that's the way you have been taught". We do it that way because it is a fail safe system that eliminates the chance of stuffing up a print build.

Little red stickers on Heads and Tails is a dumb idea. They fall off and like to get stuck on sound drums and caugh in gates.
Chinagraph pencil is a dumb idea. They rub off and you're back to square one.

Prints DO get mishandled during transport, prints DO lose their Heads and Tails, Heads and Tails DO get mixed up in Projection rooms and because of that, prints DO get made up incorrectly.
Any system that can avoid this problem has got to make sense.

Mind you, if all prints came on 6000' spools to begin with then this problem really wouldn't be an issue, would it?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-26-2004, 04:37 PM:
 
Calm down Ian. There ARE other methods of positively identifying which leaders go onto which reels, and had you been reading in many different threads on this forum, you would know. I'm going to be mean and make you look it up though to make you a better projectionist. Also, Bill has yet to give a reason, so as far as I am concerned if he doesn't, his post gets thrown out of this discussion.

The question remains, and it is the same one it has always been on this thread but I am going to reword it AGAIN because apparently only a couple of people that have participated on this thread are capable of actually reading.

If you received a print with all of the leaders rolled up in the bottom of the film cans and no markings whatsoever, BUT each head leader had one ID frame on it, could you assemble the print properly? Yes or no? If you cannot, explain specifically why.

This is a worst case senario and gets directly to the point. It's really as simple as that and I am going to start deleting every post from this point on that does not answer THAT question in boldface above at the start of their post. The following posts need to either say "YES" or "NO because...."
 

---

Posted by Ian Joseph Parfrey (Member # 2682) on 09-26-2004, 04:59 PM:
 
Hi Brad.
Very easily.

Remainder of lengthy and unnecessary post deleted, as it is off topic. An answer of "yes" was given. Ian is done providing input to this thread.

[ 09-26-2004, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 09-26-2004, 05:14 PM:
 
Post deleted because it did not answer the question clearly put forth.

[ 09-26-2004, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 09-26-2004, 05:38 PM:
 
Yes
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 09-26-2004, 10:32 PM:
 
YES!... obviously.

quote: Scott Balko

---

I would do the ID frame on head only if that was the standard. Personally, I don't leave any ID frame on head or tail.

---

With all due respect, Scott... leaving the next guy a way to verify the sequential integrity of his print has been a defacto standard just about as long as we've been splicing studio reels together... certainly much longer than the ID frames have been posted on this board. While some here have frame-accurate changeover methods, the ability is not typically widespread. The studios have recognized that fact since films went past one reel... mainly because (I doubt) even the best manual projectionists wouldn't be consistently frame-accurate to the point of projecting that very first frame. Therefore, I'd consider it safe to assume that NOBODY would ever miss that first frame... making it much more valuable as a reassembly tool.

As for your personal practice... I'd suspect you'd change it pretty quickly if you got a print that had no ID frames and was assembled wrong... and you had about 15 minutes to get it built and mounted on a platter. The service here on the FT board is a great tool, but nobody here is obligated to continue it for any length of time. I've used it, but considering the uncompensated effort that must go into it, I'm not going to intentionally put myself into a position where I might lose a show if these guys get tired of the trouble.

If I got one of your prints, and it wasn't put back together right, and you didn't leave me any way to fix it for the sake of one solitary frame... 1/24 second, you'd appear in the "you suck" thread. And if it shut me down while I waited for a properly handled print... well, let's just say I'd be looking for the source of my troubles.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-26-2004, 10:53 PM:
 
I would not use the term "properly handled print" on a print that had no ID frames left on it, because every print I have shipped for the last 10+ years has had no ID frames on it and they leave in pristine / like new condition. Proper handling of a print has nothing to do with sloppy breakdowns or an ID frame preference. Let's please distinguish that.

Also remember, if the ID frames are unavailable online or via fax, and assuming you don't know how to "read" the analog track, you always have the unique edgeprint code numbers on the edges of the film printed every several feet throughout the reel to provide positive verificaition with.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-26-2004, 11:23 PM:
 
IF, only the leader contained an ID frame, AND the person that broke down the film first went to 6K reels and then spun them down to shipping reels such that all reels are tails out, then they would be presented with no usable ID frames to assmeble their print with.

Normally I'd prefer to go to 6K reels on build-up and enjoy an all tails out print.

I've used the edge-code numbers myself to positively identify reels when leaders have been mis-spliced (wrong leader to the reel)

Do ALL film stocks contain unique edge code numbers today? That is, Kodak, Fuji and Agfa? Is it a standard for them to do so?

In order to have a standard that ultimately may depend on edgecoding to uniquely identify a reel if the one "standard" ID frame is lost due to misuse/abuse, then the edgecode requirement standard would need to be there first. What about multiplexes that get 5 prints of the same title and don't match the film can to the particular print they are tearing down two-weeks later so the edge codes no longer match?

My question to those that hold their multiple ID frams near and dear....what are you going to do if a film balances their reels such that most or all are on fade-outs and fade-ins? Do you become artistic and cut the fades too in order to get a visible frame? Or do you pay attention to the leaders and tails and note that they uniquely go to their respective reels.

So long as the one ID frame per reel is held sacred and is preserved with the print on each reel, all reels may be properly identified and the ID frame at the end of the reel is not necessary.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Josh Kirkhart (Member # 1046) on 09-27-2004, 12:03 AM:
 
YES, you can rebuild that print the way you described.

BUT, if this is only about the one theatre experience, leave no reference frames. Let the next guy/gal decide to leave a reference frame if they like.

 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 09-27-2004, 12:32 AM:
 
There is no such thing as a subsequent user leaving a reference frame. If it's not contiguous to the leader (that is, if there is a splice between a frame and leader black) then it proves nothing. You'd have to assume that it's the correct frame and then you might as well just assume leaders are on correctly. Only an uncut frame serves the function.

Oh, and that function is, in my way of thinking, twofold: ID the reel (which we all agree can usually be done if need be by other means) AND act as a red flag, batantly obvious to all but the comatose, that there's an incorrectly leadered reel. The backup methods of ID are just that: Backup methods. Although if a computer was handy near where the work was being done and it was one that was available here on F-T I could see maybe taking a glance at that when dealing with a no-ID-frame print, even if there was no reason to be suspicious. But more than likely most people are going to build as leadered.
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 09-27-2004, 12:37 AM:
 
If you received a print with all of the leaders rolled up in the bottom of the film cans and no markings whatsoever, BUT each head leader had one ID frame on it, could you assemble the print properly? Yes or no? If you cannot, explain specifically why.

yes, Just identify each reel with the heads and then assemble.

Hopefully this is still on topic, but assuming that you fill out some sort of print inspection sheet when you build up, you simply write down how many splices were made in each reel(hopefully only for lab splices). Then when you go to tear down you look at the sheet and you will know where the reel change splices are and where the defect splices are.

I don't know how that method could be standardized but it is easy for a theater to do it.

It is not necessary to leave the frames on. I have never seen a reel change in the middle of a camera shot and I have never seen a lab splice at a camera change.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-27-2004, 12:38 AM:
 
Chris, double check your post because I think you misunderstood the question to be "if you got a print with no ID frames".

The question is if you got a used print and the tail leaders all had no ID frames, but every head leader DID have an ID frame, could you assemble it properly? The part about the leaders being in the bottom of the film cans is just to take the example to an extreme situation.

quote:

---

What about multiplexes that get 5 prints of the same title and don't match the film can to the particular print they are tearing down two- weeks later so the edge codes no longer match?

---

quote:

---

So long as there is one id frame left on the heads, the people "who have always done it this way" (back from the days when there was long quiet stationary shots at the beginning and end of each reel) will have their precious ID frame crutch,

---

Mea culpa!
 

---

Posted by Joshua Lott (Member # 240) on 09-27-2004, 03:18 AM:
 
Yes... And I had to just a few weeks ago.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 09-27-2004, 03:27 AM:
 
yes, a print w/ 1 id frame at each head can be assembled.

while it's probably true that most any "big" release film could survive losing a frame or three at each r/c, it really isn't true for all films. in particular, a lot of the recent political talking head documentaries have had talking over the r/c's. when i've seen these at theaters that leave a head and tail id frame (and use opaque tape) there have been definite interruptions and elisions. very annoying.

i can often distinguish lulls and ambient noise in the soundtrack from "content", but i generally leave no id frames whatsoever when building, to be sure. if it looks like there's dialogue, i try to match up the incoming and outgoing soundtracks. some films are rather sloppily edited/printed though. on a recent film, i left 1 frame at the head to eliminate a repetition in the soundtrack. at the next reel, i saw i would have had to include a number of frames of black in the built print to get all the sound in (i didn't, though).

labeling heads and tails and reattaching them correctly during breakdown is a no-brainer. i know people f*ck it up but i don't understand how.

if your print comes in 15 minutes before the show, i agree id frames can help speed things. but sometimes you just have to accept that you aren't superhuman, the show will be a little late, and it's not your fault or the previous theater's. if you get the print 15 minutes after the show start time, it's the courier's fault for being late. same thing if you get it 15 minutes before. the courier was late. you do your best.

carl
 

---

Posted by Matthew Jaro (Member # 1786) on 09-27-2004, 09:26 AM:
 
Yes you can assemble a print. It is a question of how long it takes to do so. With SDDS tracks, it is often next to impossible to read the edge codes, and some prints I have seen did not have edge codes. I have received prints with the leaders and tails tacked on with masking tape and it is a real mess to match things up with a seven reel film. This is just the reality. At disassembly time, you want the correct tails on the correct reels no matter how you received the print. Certainly a frame marking standard would help. Currently, the reference frames for both heads and tails are very helpful.

Finally, most reel ends are at fade-outs, scene changes or quiet moments. They are seldom in the middle of a scene with dialog. Consequently, I think that deleting a frame at these points would have minimal impact. I vote to retain the current method (one reference frame for each leader and tail) until an ID system is in use.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-27-2004, 12:58 PM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Do ALL film stocks contain unique edge code numbers today? That is, Kodak, Fuji and Agfa? Is it a standard for them to do so?

---

quote: Matthew Jaro

---

With SDDS tracks, it is often next to impossible to read the edge codes, and some prints I have seen did not have edge codes.

---

quote:

---

Theatrical Projection Technology (P3)

The application of the General Scope as it pertains to the mechanisms and practices used in the non-television distribution and presentation of motion pictures. Also included are the specification of image areas intended for projection, projection reels and containers, and print identification and leaders.

---

 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 09-27-2004, 01:30 PM:
 
Yes, You could return that print to a runable condition. If you had one frame to use as a ID on the head or tail leader. When I was training to use platters. I was told to leave one frame as an ID on each leader. The only exception to that rule for studio projectionists came from the studios when you ran a premiere or special all media type screening, cast and crew screening. (I'm not talking about those sneak previews or other radio promotion screenings that you guys do) We were told never to leave an ID frame on those prints. Since they were special EK/Wetgate showprints they were used for special venue screenings. (DGA, WGA, Academy or guild screenings). That came down from the studios post-production departments. When you do double-system screenings at theatres with platters. You can't leave ID frames on the leaders. Otherwise your mag or digital reproducer will be out of sync.
As to the original post, my answer was towards having the 'LFOA' marker printed on the frame and changeovers. I have never had a problem of it being seen on screen.

Sorry Brad, If you did not like my first post or answer.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-27-2004, 02:08 PM:
 
Matthew, the one ID on head and one ID on tail is common, but by no means any sort of standard. (That's the point here, to try and find something everyone can agree upon, then publish some documentation on this site, then the proposal can go on to other places such as John Pytlak mentioned if so desired.) FYI - I get more prints in with no ID frames at all or 2+ ID frames on each leader to believe that the vast majority of people only leave one on each leader.

Bill, on this particular thread comments are welcome, but only if the question has been answered in the post. That's why I wiped your earlier post and not this one.
 

---

Posted by Tommie Evans (Member # 2674) on 09-27-2004, 04:36 PM:
 
Yes! you can assembly a print correctly using only one ID frame on the 'head' leader.

How difficult or cost-consuming is it for labs to print the ID frame somewhere on the leader or tail, may-be between the head/picture - foot/picture frames?
Could they not print a picture of both head and tail frames somewhere on or inside the shipping cans or box?
I guess someone somewhere will always cut into the reel
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-28-2004, 12:09 AM:
 
Yes...you could. And you could do it quite easily, provided the reels are heads out. Tails out complicates matters somewhat but it could still be done.

I was happiest when I received a print that was tails out. If I received a used print that was tails out but only had the ID on the head leader -- and none of the leaders actually attached -- I would be highly annoyed at having to rewind all those reels to be heads out just so I could identify which was which. In such an instance, I would be grateful if ID frames were left on both head and tail leaders.

I personally used to do it the way that Brad is promoting but, then, I would also put the film back together properly before shipping it out.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 09-28-2004, 02:34 AM:
 
having already answered the question, i won't do so again.

obviously this wouldn't be an issue if prints always had their leaders correctly reattached upon receipt. in the case of the leaders not being attached at all, there is clearly the potential for film damage beyond a frame or two. encouraging proper reattachment of the leaders is a more important issue than leaving id frames or not. someone who receives a print with leaders unattached (or mixed up) and no id frames, having to go to greater effort at buildup, might make a mental note never to let a print leave the theater in that state.

that is, not leaving id frames might encourage more consciencious film handling.

carl
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 09-28-2004, 09:10 AM:
 
If one builds upt to 6K reels when recieveing a tail up print then to the platter ID frame at the head only requires a second rewind
The best is at both ends
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-28-2004, 11:59 AM:
 
Actually, with the situation of a tails up print and only ID frames at the head...you do run the risk of a second rewind on only some reels.

Lets say you feel that tail of R-3 is correct so you start your 6K build up...rewind R-3 onto the 6K reel and at the head you will either find it is indeed R-3 or not...if it is, proceed to R-2... and so forth. The probability of an incorrect reel will decrease as one builds up. Also the last reel will typically (though not always) be the only one with end credits so it is pretty well identified.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-28-2004, 12:37 PM:
 
Gordon, you seemed to imply that you could positively assemble a print with an ID frame at the head leader only, but you were not clear. I'm looking for a flat out YES or NO, or the post will be deleted like the others who did not directly answer the question before making further discussion.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-28-2004, 04:03 PM:
 
Gordon's statement is his opinion of which is the best way. FWIW, I think that's valid. Or is it more important to simply agree? (If this post gets deleted or edited then I guess we'll all know the answer to that question.)

As far as the example, I don't think anybody on here is going to say that they would not be able to build that print. We're flogging a dead horse here.

Life is complicated, so let's complicate the example and really put this idea to the test:

A. What happens if some head leaders and some tail leaders are missing from those cans? Might it not be helpful if all of the leaders that DID make it into the cans had a reference frame?

B. What if the example were modified so that the print arrived tails-out with leaders attached. With no ID frames on tail leaders, we would have to rewind every reel to be sure that the previous theatre re-attached the leaders to their respective reels, whereas a reference frame would provide a definitive answer in less time, with less effort.

There is always more than one solution to a problem and it doesn't always come down to one solution being the best. I think it's a great idea to be searching for ways to improve presentations, but I don't truly believe that the "missing frames" are hurting presentations as much as poor splicing technique, improper masking, focus issues, scratches, dust, image instability or volume settings. It seems odd to me that THIS should be the current fixation when there are so many more urgent problems out there that are actually being noticed by customers.

As for being specific -- I asked about specific examples of reel-changes that are being hurt by these "missing frames." What crucial action or sound is contained on the two frames at the changeover point?

Can nobody provide even one example?
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-28-2004, 04:09 PM:
 
"Super Size Me" and "Spellbound" (both shot on video) are both examples of poorly edited films where the loss of two frames at every reel change is noticeable. It's not horribly bad, but, having plattered both of those titles while leaving one reference frame on each leader, I can say that the presentation would have been improved if I hadn't left reference frames at all.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-28-2004, 04:09 PM:
 
Thanks, Scott.

What crucial information was contained on those frames?

How do you know that leaving the frames in would have made the cut less noticeable? Did you try it on another print, or did you see it at another theatre where the frames were left in? Or are you operating under an assumption?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-28-2004, 05:21 PM:
 
Manny, you have now made your post a couple of times and I am respectfully asking you to exercise a little patience. I'm sure when Scott answers it will be due to a jump in the dialogue, because it is generally impossible to tell if there are missing frames picture-wise at a changeover due to the camera angle change. With you being a video editor, you should know better that if you remove 2 frames (do it on a 24FPS timeline) from a line of dialogue that there is a noticeable jump cut. If that has not yet occured to you, crack open your Final Cut Pro and do it. You will soon find that so long as there isn't any dialogue right where you chop out the 2 frames that it generally goes unnoticed, but it's those reel changes where there IS dialogue going on that is the problem. Remember, the sound is cut ahead of the picture, so any reel that begins without at least a full second before the dialogue starts will have a jump in the audio. This is becoming more and more common these days.

In the meantime, have some patience. I, and probably others, will make some example posts as they turn up. Also, once someone answers the question put forth, if they have any concerns at that point they may address it, but you seem on a mission of attacking me here without being patient enough for me or anyone else to provide this "proof" you demand. Then you are making a stink about other issues with presentation. Well guess what, if some theater runs a print of "Manny's Big Birthday", then I get it after them to run, I couldn't care less if their theater had blown speakers, or a torn screen, or a burned lens or any of that! All I care about is how MY presentation is affected, and if there are missing frames at the changeover and the ends of the reels have dialogue or a rhythmic beat of music, then that does indeed screw up my presentation (amongst other film damage of course). THAT is what this is about.

Please be patient.
 

---

Posted by Edward Jurich (Member # 1787) on 09-28-2004, 10:51 PM:
 
Assuming a new print that has not yet been cut, I always check the optical track for modulation before cutting. If there is sound on the track I don't cut any frames off. It's simple to keep tails and leaders in order by taping them back onto the empty reel and marking them 1, 2, 3 etc.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 09-29-2004, 12:21 AM:
 
Can a print be built up with only one ID fram on the head/leader? Yes!

Is it a better way to do things? Yes!

Would *I* like to get prints that have only one ID frame? Yes!

However, Brad and some other people have a great luxury of being able to be choosy about who works in their booth. He has more time to train people to work the way HE wants. If one of his guys screws up, he can spank the guy.

I, on the other hand, have to work with college students. As good as they can be, sometimes, I have to take what I can get. I only have a couple-three hours per week to train them. When I can train them, it's between classes. I require my workers to do the best job they know how but, let's face it: They just aren't going to be as professional as the guys Brad hires.

I NEED to be able to hand my guys a set of keys to the booth and be reasonably certain that they can do their jobs with a minimum of intervention on my part. If I can't I'm only letting myself in for another 15 hour day ON TOP OF a week where I'm probably going to be working 50+ hours. I am probably going to have to make a few compromises to make things easier for my guys and, ultimately, myself.

If I got a print that didn't have ID frames on the tails I doubt if I would complain.

However, if a print has changeovers where one or two lost frames would be a problem, why not just designate it, "TIGHT CHANGEOVERS! NO ID FRAMES!"

The only problem there would be getting people to honor the request... Which is the same problem you will have getting people to honor the request of making only one ID frame.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-29-2004, 12:47 AM:
 
The problem is, by the time somebody realizes the changeover is tight and would be damaged by leaving ID frames, the world has built them all up. Prevention is the best cure.
 

---

Posted by Brent Neal Jones (Member # 1048) on 09-29-2004, 03:34 AM:
 
I say, re-equip your booth with a cue dot cutter like I did. This is an uphill battle, Brad I'm sorry to say, unless you always run brand new film or well handled film change-over. I enjoy change-over as much as the next man, believe me...so I've just learned to deal with this problem. It is an annoyance with missing pieces of dialog, yes but, you can still make the best of it by making the smoothest changeover possible.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 09-29-2004, 04:13 AM:
 
i trust you're kidding about "cutting" cue dots.

anyways, i looked through my notes of the past 4 months, and these films had dialog (or other significant soundtrack) elision at one or more reel changes:

godzilla (original version, "new" print), imelda, america's heart and soul, the corporation, my sister maria. i also remember spellbound, though that was longer ago.

i should note that i didn't handle these prints (edit: except corporation, which came from another theater on 6k's). i simply watched them at other theaters. it's possible many frames were missing at reel changes.

i left out films i saw projected changeover, even if it was 6k changeover.

carl

[ 09-30-2004, 04:18 AM: Message edited by: Carl Martin ]
 

---

Posted by Ian Joseph Parfrey (Member # 2682) on 09-29-2004, 04:44 PM:
 
I've been told that I have finished commenting on this but I have one question which no one seems to have considered.

What about the scourge of "Rejuvenated Prints"?????

How many of those have chopped frames head and Tail??
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-29-2004, 07:03 PM:
 
Sure it's possible to make up a film with an ID on the head-end only, or no IDs at all, as long as too much footage isn't missing. Occasinally we'll get a print where the previous "projectionist" has just cut wherever he feels like it, thereby rendering the IDs useless anyway. In that case, it's easy to match up the soundtrack.

quote: Carl Martin

---

i trust you're kidding about "cutting" cue dots.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Carl - A cue cutter is a little thingy with 4 holes it it that correspond to film frames, along with a little round pencil-like thing with a blade...

---

quote: Matthew Jaro

---

Adding an extra frame won't work, because projection of new prints using changeovers with the leaders uncut would now have an extra frame instead of missing a frame. So we would still have a problem.

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

Before prints are rejuvenated and sent overseas, did you know that any ID frames are cut off at the specific instruction of the studio?

---

Forget overseas, when we got a print of Finding Nemo second-run, I noticed this too. Any ID frames were removed, and the film was ultrasonically spliced back on to the leader. Soundtracks were way off, so I didn't leave any ID frames and used them all (since I'd be the one breaking it down and I've built up and broken down 2 prints of this before). The result was still a HUGE jump in sound and action at the reel 1/2 changeover:

The kids are going to "The Dropoff" and Nemo is trying to catch up. He's supposed to say, "Hey! You guys! Wait up!" -- Instead, it was "Hey! You g***ait up!"

1 or 2 frames is ok, but it looks like 6 or 7 were lost in this little ditty.

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-02-2004, 12:29 PM:
 
Scott, the prints are inspected from one end to the other through a footage counter to make sure there isn't any missing footage (more than a frame or two - can't remember the limit), the leaders are ultrasonically or double taped back together (ID frames lost), the print is rewashed, then the print is Photoguarded, then the print is physically screened.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-03-2004, 05:08 AM:
 
From another thread on the same topic....

quote:

---

What is needed is an obvious clear frameline seperating the last frame of picture from the leader, both head and tail. That makes it easy for the lazy platter people and the sloppy changeover guys.

---

quote: David Buckley

---

Newbie question - whats an ID frame.

---

quote: Chris Hipp was the last to post

---

If you received a print with all of the leaders rolled up in the bottom of the film cans and no markings whatsoever, BUT each head leader had one ID frame on it, could you assemble the print properly? Yes or no?

---

Yes.

And yes the one ID frame on the head seems like an excellent compromise to me. Ideally, I agree there should be no need for ID frames, but the "1 frame on the head" idea is a good compromise.
 

---

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 10-05-2004, 12:13 PM:
 
We could eliminate the desire for ID frames if every reel was uniquely identified and marked with a footage count.

I remember seeing prints in the early 1980's that were marked this way. Reel one at "Picture Start" was edge labeled "A0000" and incremented "0001" every foot. (The first frame of picture (FFP) was "A0012".) Reel two started "B0000", three "C0000" and so on.

This system instantly identifies the reel number and allows the determination of the length of missing footage at any splice.

If this could be printed in magenta (like the manufacturer's latent image ID code), then this shouldn't interfere with SDDS.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-05-2004, 01:15 PM:
 
Almost all 35mm Kodak VISION Color Intermediate Film is manufactured with EASTMAN KEYKODE printed along the edge:

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/postProduction/keykode/35mm.pdf

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/keykode/id.shtml

So the duplicate negatives used for printing already have unique sequential footage numbers latent-image printed along the edge of the film. Labs could use the contact printer edgelights to print-through the KEYKODE onto every release print, EXCEPT that it would be printed through as light letters against a dark background, which would likely interfere with the reading of the Sony SDDS digital track, even if printed with green light (magenta dye).

AFAIK, the reel/footage numbers that Jeffry remembers were ink printed onto the edge of the duplicate negatives. The issue with today's SDDS track would be the same.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-05-2004, 01:34 PM:
 
Interesting point, John. If SDDS is the only issue, then why not print the Keycode numbers (which I agree would be useful) through on non-SDDS prints? It's been ages (okay, maybe six months) since I last handled a print with an SDDS track, but I don't believe I've ever seen (or at least I don' t remember seeing) a 35mm release print with Keycode numbers printed through (not even answer prints, surprisingly).

(Yes, I know that this is getting off topic and Brad will surely delete my post very soon.)
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 10-05-2004, 08:43 PM:
 
Mr. Norwood, I'll save you those worries by getting the topic back on track right now...

In answer to Brad's question - yes.

However I'm with other posters who raised the time / additional winding issues that might occur should there be only head ID frames.

This issue is stemming from Editors not balancing reels properly and is something that needs to be to taken up with the ACE and also the MPSE. Not only is it poor technical practice but it's bad artistically as well. Non-linear Editing systems are the baddie here, as they allow editors cut and play back their work continuously, without reel changes.

I believe the existing head + tail ID frame convention is foolproof as long as the reels are correctly balanced.
 

---