This is topic Shedding problems! 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=007592
Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 11-07-2005, 05:58 PM:
 
We are running a new print of Good Night and Good Luck. We are running it on a Christie PG35. It is shedding like a snowstorm. It started Sunday afternoon. I ran it 3 shows in a row using FG and the Kelmar cleaner. Shedding continues. The pads (Film-Tech) are getting black fast. Fortunately, it does not look bad on the screen.

The traps and tension bands are clean. I have the tension set at 2.

Anybody got any ideas for me to try? This is the only print we have that is shedding. This projector ran Elizabethtown for 2 weeks, and there was no shedding with it.

Thanks!
 
Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 11-07-2005, 06:24 PM:
 
Same problem here, but John said the print has a special wax coating, which is probably why there's so much powder coming off.
 
Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 11-07-2005, 06:25 PM:
 
This is a print problem that has apparently occurred at most locations around Minneapolis playing this print. Assuming everything is within adjustment in your machine, it ought to be the fault of the film.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-07-2005, 07:41 PM:
 
It is a B&W film...typically gates/traps with lack of edge lubrication are gonna shed. Note, we have the AFI/Silver running this print since its initial release and no shedding or noisey operation...delrin skates and runner strips.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-07-2005, 08:57 PM:
 
I'm away from the office this week, for my daughter's wedding this Saturday.

From the description, it sounds like the projector gate or intermittent sprocket shoe is severely scuffing the back side of the film. Edgewax can only go so far to provide additional lubrication on B&W print film, and mostly helps the emulsion side. Be sure the film contacting surfaces are all clean and free of anything that could abrade the film. Use the lowest tension that still gives a steady image. Additional film lubricant like Film-Guard usually helps. Delrin gates/shoes greatly reduce abrasion of the film -- I recall that Christie offered optional Delrin pad rollers and intermittent shoe:

http://www.christiedigital.com/files/Support/Bulletins/polyester_print.pdf

quote:
CHRISTIE INCORPORATED
10550 CAMDEN DR.
CYPRESS, CA 90630
(714) 236-8610

Technical Field Bulletin
for
Polyester Print Shedding
Date: 2/1/00 No.: FB111
Product : P35GPS/M35GPS
Problem : The “scuffing”, or incidental surface abrasion due to contact of the film
with the projector, can lead to “dusting” or “flaking” of some polyester film stock.
Recommendation:
The following steps can be taken to reduce/eliminate the “dusting” or
“flaking” of polyester film.
1. Make sure gate bands and shoe(s) are in good condition and free from any film
residue build-up. Any “nicked” or damaged surfaces should be replaced. Make
sure that tensions and clearances are set to recommended levels.
2. Delrin pad rollers (598931-762) are available to replace the older metal rollers.
3. A Delrin Ultramittent shoe assembly is available as a replacement for the
standard metal shoe (196362P001). It has visible wear safety indicators and
stainless steel protective runners and is easily installed on any model P35 or
M35 projector.

 
Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 11-08-2005, 07:52 AM:
 
Thanks for all the comments. BUT, Is the base on this B/W film different from what the color stock uses? I've seen a little dusting in the past with color film, but have never seen what this does. The dust is allover the back of the lens, allover the intermittent, allover the trap, and the sprockets. As for the trap and bands, I clean them on every show. I suspected the lateral guides, but have ruled them out.

In the past, any shedding issues were stopped using FilmGuard. This is a first. This morning I will change the pads on the Kelmar cleaner, and see what we do today.

JP: Congratulations on the marriage! Best to your daughter and son-in-law!
 
Posted by Joseph Pandolfi (Member # 223) on 11-08-2005, 04:45 PM:
 
Same thing here. We have two prints and we were shedding crazy on our PG35's on opening weekend. So far we applied FG seven times on one and five on the other. I was there this past Sunday and the shedding has minimized on one with the 7 apps and virtally none on the other.
 
Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 11-08-2005, 06:58 PM:
 
I got to work this morning and ripped the projector apart and checked every inch of the film path. The bands were clean and had no build-up, or rough places on them. The trap has no build-up on it either. I checked out the intermittent shoe too. Nothing.

So, I replaced the black pads on the Kelmar cleaner, and re-soaked them in FilmGuard. First show, the cleaner showed some darkening, but there is no shedding now. The tension is still set at 2, and the screen image is rock steady. The 2nd show showed even less residue on the pads. The Kelmar cleaner was filthy and took awhile to get clean. It had a load of what looked like black mud on the rollers that come in contact with the film through the media roll.

The print is running tonight without the cleaner, as our night crew is not good at rewinding the cleaner between shows. I will check it out tomorrow and report back.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-08-2005, 08:06 PM:
 
With Christie projectors, the likely area causing the scuffing abrasion is the metal version of the Ultramittent shoe assembly. That's why they made a Delrin version available.
 
Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 11-08-2005, 08:51 PM:
 
I saw this film this past weekend at the Brooklyn Academy of Music and the print looked and sounded as old as the story. Almost every frame was filled with what looked like was positive dirt, but I now realize must be shedding.

In addition, the soundtrack was full of noise, which surprised me because I was pretty sure it was presented in digital sound and I don't see how a dirty or shedding print could cause noise in a digital soundtrack. But maybe it was SR analog.
 
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-08-2005, 09:57 PM:
 
That makes at least 3 reports here of sound problems with this movie (Martin, Sam Graham, and me -- see the reviews forum).
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-09-2005, 12:42 AM:
 
Simple Martin, you saw it in analog. Any print that shedds badly WILL have it's digital tracks damaged (except usually dts) because the gate is being clogged with hardened deposits. So running it in analog, the "noise" you heard was dirt on the soundtrack.

There is a setting to adjust the clearance of the intermittent shoe on the Christie projectors. There is no need to go the delrin route...just align the shoe stop.
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-09-2005, 12:45 AM:
 
quote: Brad Miller
just align the shoe stop.
I used to align the shoe stop to where the shoe would retract in half way with the stop closed on the sprocket with film loaded.

-Monte
 
Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 11-10-2005, 06:24 AM:
 
I adjusted the intermittent shoe stop. No more shedding at all since Tuesday. I'm still running the cleaner, because the black crud is still coming off the print. I'll stop running the cleaner today and see what happens. At this point, I think this problem is solved.
 
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 04-23-2006, 03:38 PM:
 
[ Was there another topic more suitable for issues with "Good Night and Good Luck (2005)"? The search finds a topic so-titled, but clicking on it returns "You have requested a topic that does not exist!" I seemed to remember one, though...]

We finally ran Good Night, and Good Luck this weekend, and we ended up with two prints from Swank (via TES. Swank\#0001 and Swank\#0007). Both were pretty bad, and I have to assume this has something to do with the Kodak 2302 stock -related issues.

We run a fair number of Swank films (including, sadly, these occasional "Swank prints" of WB films that WB has given over to Swank and which Swank contracts out to TES to handle distribution of, all to avoid giving non-theatricals ETS prints. I suppose it's a mechanism to segregate the prints, but for us it tends to result in worse prints than we would otherwise see, as well as making it much harder to get quality replacements), but rarely are the prints this bad. That coupled with the my suspicion that this title was not the most popular of bookings and recollections of discussions on FT leaves me with the feeling it was substantially more damage-prone than most.

In our case, both prints were characterized by two kinds of damage. Vertical black base-side scratches and almost-hook-like damage extending from the perfs into the SRD area, in some cases impinging more than half-way through into the SRD block. Furthermore, even the DTS timecode was intermittant and troublesome!

We did see substantial shedding on our Century C's (2K lamps; no FilmGuard) with this print. Since we're a university (second-run venue) and rarely see new prints, it's extremely rare we see shedding at all. I found it necessary to clean the trap and the intermittant sprocket between reels (running changeover). We also found PTRs removed quite a significant amount of particulate matter, enough to justify cleaning PTRs after each reel (rather than every 2 shows -- 1/night -- as usual). Dirt was primarily removed from the SDDS areas (as you might expect).

While I can certainly see how the shedding issues could lead to damaged SDDS and even SRD tracks, I wonder how they might be more inclined to lead to damage in the image area (vertical scratches). Is there some vector I'm just not thinking of?

Is it possible there was some sort of misprocessing of the 2302? I know that in the FITA topic Good Night and Good Luck, John P. notes various heat-related issues, and that the print was subject to RP151 edgewaxing. Is the edgewaxing responsible for the shedding in the perforation area? [I would not think the wax would migrate in that far?]

Similarly, I wonder, what would it have taken for WIP to have produced 2383 (or 2393) prints of this? While they might not look quite as good pristine, I have to wonder if they would not have held up better, such that a 6-month old print would look a lot better (it could hardly have been worse).

Would it have been necessary to strike new intermediate elements, or could color prints have been made from the existing internegatives? (I see from Kokak's datasheets that 2302 and 2382 have different trim/tape values, esp. that they are uniform for 2302 whereas 2383 has a blue bias.)

According to the Box Office Mojo statistics, Good Night, and Good Luck had a relatively slow widening (at least, by comparison to many films these days):

quote:

Week 1: 011 theatres; Oct 7-9, 2005
Week 2: 068 theatres (+057); Oct 14-16, 2005
Week 3: 225 theatres (+157); Oct 21-23, 2005
Week 4: 272 theatres (+047); Oct 28-30, 2005
Week 5: 657 theatres (+385); Nov 4-6, 2005
Week 6: 668 theatres (+011); Nov 11-13, 2005
Week 7: 803 theatres (+135); Nov 18-20, 2005
One might think (naively, I guess) that there would have been time for the first hundred theatres to have given feedback to WIP that the prints were problematic, and time for them to decide to try 2383 instead. [Maybe they did?]

Is there a significant price difference between 2383 and 2302?

Hmm; quite a lot of questions here, I guess. Sorry to "wax" so much...

--jhawk
 
Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 04-23-2006, 09:17 PM:
 
Some of the GN&GL problems were posted on the Universal and Cyan thread
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-24-2006, 01:35 PM:
 
Release prints should be properly edgewaxed, per Kodak's H-24.02 processing specifications and SMPTE Recommended Practice RP 151:

H-24.02 Processing Specifications

quote:
Edge Coat
The 35 mm and 70 mm films for theatrical projectors
need additional waxing for satisfactory projection life.
This additional wax is coated on the film edges since
theatrical projectors require an amount of lubricant
that would cause mottle on the picture area and in the
sound stripe.
The edge coat waxing equipment described by Perry
and Mino is recommended. Variations of these units
can easily be made an integral part of the processing
machine to reduce handling costs and increase the
speed of production. In the basic design, rotating discs
apply the lubricating solution to the area of the film
that lies outside the picture area along the perforations
and edges. These discs usually rotate in a lubricant tray
and they depend on surface wetting to pick up and
transfer the solution to the film. The applicator discs
should be coupled into the main drive to assure that
film speed and applicator speed remain equal.
Wax is usually applied only to the emulsion side of the
film. The drying rate of the edge coat formula should
be low enough to allow transfer of wax to the support
side of the roll. Some laboratories lubricate both sides
of the film directly.
Proper edgewaxing is especially important for B&W silver image prints, as they absorb more heat, and have actual particles of silver in the emulsion.
 
Posted by Chad M Calpito (Member # 3736) on 04-24-2006, 01:40 PM:
 
Last night, while working my closing Booth shift, I noticed that the movie Silent Hill shedds terribly. I contstantly have to clean all of the heads after each show & the movie is in Theatre #10, which is the biggest auditorium. Of course, as we all know, this is a new movie.
 
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 04-24-2006, 02:28 PM:
 
I was kind of hoping for a more direct response, John. [Frown] Maybe
you didn't see my longer post on the previous page?

Is it possible that these prints were misprocessed somehow,
or is it normal to see more damage in the picture area with 2302?

I understand how there'd be more buildup and soforth on the edges and the soundtrack area, especially if shed particles adhere in the trap, etc. But is there a vector that would lead to verticle base-side scratches in the image area?

--jhawk
 
Posted by Cory Isemann (Member # 2517) on 04-24-2006, 03:40 PM:
 
FWIW, the print I had a couple of months ago had made the rounds, believe me, it was well used. It shedded like crazy and eventually got better after repeated FG treatments.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-25-2006, 11:24 AM:
 
To be effective, edgewaxing must leave a wax deposit in the areas of the print most subject to abrasion by the projector gate. History and experience shows that the deposit of paraffin or carnauba wax in the perforation area helps lubricate the surface, reducing abrasion and scratching of the print. Of course, the surface finish, temperature, tension, and design of the film-contacting surfaces of the gate also have a significant effect on how much they may abrade the film.

I would not attribute scratching of the image area to a particular cause, based on limited experience with one print. Ideally, good projection design avoids contact of the image area with anything that may scratch the film.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-25-2006, 02:13 PM:
 
quote: John Hawkinson
I wonder, what would it have taken for WIP to have produced 2383 (or 2393) prints of this? While they might not look quite as good pristine, I have to wonder if they would not have held up better, such that a 6-month old print would look a lot better (it could hardly have been worse).

Would it have been necessary to strike new intermediate elements, or could color prints have been made from the existing internegatives? (I see from Kokak's datasheets that 2302 and 2382 have different trim/tape values, esp. that they are uniform for 2302 whereas 2383 has a blue bias.)
Yes, B&W images can be printed onto color print film, as has been done for some features in the past. But it is very difficult to maintain an absolutely neutral B&W image, and a slight tinting is usually visible. So some filmmakers prefer to use "real" silver image prints.

The B&W print film stock is about $0.03 (3 cents) more per foot, and special processing arrangements need to be made when thousands of prints are needed, since most labs have limited B&W processing capacity.
 
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 04-26-2006, 03:58 AM:
 
john, can you elaborate on the "special processing arrangements"? are they special because they are inferior (but "necessary" due to the high print demand)? or could it be that these arrangements are typically not made when they should be?

it does seem that large b&w print runs lately have routinely been bad. jhawk's problems mirrored ours with that film. i heard similar stories about "celebrity" several years ago. on the other hand, small runs like "elevator to the gallows" seem fine.

jhawk, we ran nearly every showing of gngl through a media cleaner, and it kicked up quite a duststorm. the side of the cleaner itself became caked with dust, and it seems likely that dust might also have been propelled into the image area, where it could conceivably have caused scratching on subsequent passes.

carl
 
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 04-26-2006, 04:04 AM:
 
Perhaps it is a problem with your equipment being rough on the film?

I ran "goodnite" for a 7 week run, and it was a USED print. It ran it through media/filmguard for the first 4 shows, then only through the cleaner ONCE A WEEK thereafter. My Century's stayed perfectly clean. [thumbsup]
 
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 04-26-2006, 08:12 AM:
 
FWIW, my experience was based on two prints of Good Night, and Good Luck, both damaged in essentially the same way. I realize that's still not statistically significant, but, coupled with the anecdotal comments that I seemed to recall from folks on F-T, it seems awfuly suspicious.

--jhawk
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-26-2006, 08:13 AM:
 
We had GN&GL from October until a couple of weeks ago. Aside from a light roller scratch (not my fault), it stayed in excellent condition throughout the run, with no dirt and minimal shedding after the first week or so. No film cleaner, no FG, no PTRs. The SRD track went bad after about a month, however.

Why didn't they print this on acetate-base 5302 (which, as far as I know, is still available, or at least was very recently)? That doesn't seem to shed.

edit: correct product number

[ 04-26-2006, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Scott Norwood ]
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-26-2006, 11:56 AM:
 
The "special processing arrangements" might mean temporarily converting a processing machine from the ECP-2D (color print) process, to the D-97 B&W process. Many labs have only one machine dedicated to B&W, and they usually run quite slow, so an order of over a thousand prints usually requires more B&W processing capacity.

Yes, Kodak sells both acetate (5302) and polyester (2302) versions of B&W print film. Both should be properly edgewaxed, as B&W emulsion needs the added lubrication (due to the issue of added absorption of radiant heat and the presence of actual silver particles in the processed film emulsion). The variability of both edgewaxing and projectors in reducing projector abrasion is seen from the variety of both good and bad experiences mentioned in this thread.
 
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 04-27-2006, 03:08 AM:
 
well, our print was used and abraded when we got it, with a gouged out srd track. it would have been interesting to see what would have happened with a new print. many theaters rarely if ever clean out their filmpaths, so any deposits would be left to abrade the film on the next run. when we got the print, it was already leaving huge crusties in the gate after every show. the media on our cleaner would get progressively dirtier and saturate over the course of a show. i'm sure film-guard would have helped. oh well.

carl
 
Posted by Ian Woloschin (Member # 3709) on 05-02-2006, 09:16 AM:
 
We just ran Good Night and Good Luck Sunday night. I was in the booth for the first showing, but I was busy on the computer, and not paying attention except for changeovers (we're a university as well, no money platters).

We have two Norelco DP70 projectors, entirely stock except for new cyan dye track readers (the Kiniton model made specifically for DP70s).

I did notice the film was somewhat scratched in the image area, but not anymore than other films we've gotten from Swank, though I didn't notice any problems with the audio, except for a funny warbling, but that's one of my projectors not reading the sound track right, not the film.
 
Posted by Robert Burtcher (Member # 3227) on 06-09-2006, 07:49 AM:
 
I've got some issues with BAD shedding on another movie, The Break Up. Last night, when I got to the projector to thread up, there was a ton of black dust all over the place, as if someone had taken a jar of ground pepper and dusted it all over the projector. We're out of FilmGuard, but I don't trust our PTR rollers, so I threw the Kelmar media cleaner on with a full roll of dry media and let it dry-clean the film. The pads came out almost totally black the first run. The film continued to shed.

I set the gate band tension on the Cinemeccanica Victoria 5 to the lowest possible setting while still maintaining a steady picture, and ensured that the constant speed sprocket pad roller was properly adjusted away from the sprocket (2 thicknesses of film). Still no improvement.

Anyone else having a similar problem, and/or anyone have any tips for fixing this problem?
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-09-2006, 10:09 AM:
 
quote: Robert Burtcher
Anyone else having a similar problem, and/or anyone have any tips for fixing this problem?
One likely cause of sudden shedding is that the film contacting surfaces in the gate have been damaged (e.g., a burr or rough spot), or have hardened deposits of gelatin emulsion. Hardened deposits can form when the gate is excessively hot (too hot to touch comfortably). Be sure the heat shield behind the gate is not allowing too much spill light to heat the metal gate. For larger lamps, use a water cooled gate. Clean off any hardened emulsion buildup by using a hard plastic or wood tool to scrape it off, and then a hard bristled toothbrush. A non-metallic scouring pad (e.g., 3M Scotchbrite pad) can be used to remove hardened residue, being careful not to scratch the gate rails. NEVER use a metal tool, abrasives, or steel wool, which could nick or damage the film-contacting surfaces. Excessive humidity in the projection room can soften the film emulsion and make it more likely to abrade and form hard deposits. A light coating of a hard wax like paraffin or carnauba on the film-contacting surfaces between shows can help provide additional lubrication.

You are correct in using the lowest gate tension that provides a steady image, and clecking for proper clearance and alignment of the film over sprockets.

The additional lubrication provided by FilmGuard or edgewax helps minimize projector abrasion of the film surface.
 
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 12-31-2006, 03:23 AM:
 
brad says of the good german in the FITA forum:

quote:
They should've just printed the films without putting that extra wax on it.
is there any hazard that the edge wax will react in some way with filmguard and have a negative effect?

who here is running filmguard on this feature? how are the results?
 
Posted by John Alan Petrey (Member # 3906) on 12-31-2006, 04:41 AM:
 
Lots of shedding with "THE HOLIDAY".
Running "HAPPY FEET" on same projector, no problem.
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2