quote:

---

Fight Club's a great flick...except it refers to cue marks as cigarette burns. It's stupid and they've never been referred to as that in my lifetime as a projectionist.

Well, not before Fight Club, anyway... [fu]

---

I get the 'cigarette burns' from people outside the industry all the time - all of them have seen Fight Club too.

I also occasionally get asked if I have ever spliced porno frames into Disney movies.

Another pet peeve are the idiots on eBay that call frames 'cells'...

-Aaron
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-05-2008, 01:22 PM:
 
At one place I've worked the chief projectionist absolutely hated the term "brain" for some reason. To him the correct term was "payout unit" or some such.

At the same place no one knew what I was talking about when I said "MUT." They all just called it a make-up table.

Me? I'm lazy and tend to use the easiest or shortest way to say things. "Brain", "MUT", and "cue marks" are all standard terms in our niche of this industry now, and in the case of "cue marks", have been since the beginning of time. And "cue marks" is a lot easier to say than "cigarette burns." So there!

Seriously, anyone who uses the term "cigarette burns" when trying to speak professionally reveals himself to be a poser.

And anyone who disagrees with me about this are inbred, slack-jawed, mouth breathing, single-helix, CHUD-like tree-worshiping druids who probably beat their wives and change their underwear infrequently.
 

---

Posted by Chad M Calpito (Member # 3736) on 05-05-2008, 01:25 PM:
 
Personally, I hate the term of Cigarette Burns as well. It bugs the hell out of me when people say that.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 05-05-2008, 01:29 PM:
 
The first rule about ... is that we don't talk about ... .

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 05-05-2008, 01:31 PM:
 
CHUD!!


 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 05-05-2008, 05:03 PM:
 
Woo-hoo! Let's jump in here and PARTY!
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-05-2008, 09:23 PM:
 
RIGHT! NOW!... Oh crap...it's nowhere near as much fun here.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-05-2008, 10:02 PM:
 

quote: Aaron Sisemore

---

I also occasionally get asked if I have ever spliced porno frames into Disney movies.

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

they are words that convey distruction and words you just don;t want to associate with film.<snip>
it was the combination of those two items that "synchronized" the two machines

---

Destruction has nothing to do with it. It's just wrong. Period.

FWIW, the term non-sync is a hold over from the early sound days. You had sound sources that were synchronous with the film (sound on disc), and those that were not (interval music). It has nothing to do with changeovers.

Just because another projectionist understands what you're saying doesn't mean it's correct to use a particular term.

I had an early mentor who used incorrect terms, as well. He used to call cue marks "sequence dots," carbons were "rods," and capacitors "resistors". From being around so many old-school union projectionists by that time in my life (and having already been set straight on some of that by them), I knew all of that was wrong. But as he was so generously allowing me access to that particular booth, it wasn't my place to correct him.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-06-2008, 09:36 AM:
 

quote:

---

long time ago one of my mentors, instead of using the common, correct name count-own leader, he called it the sync leader,

---

It's been a long time since I've been in an editing booth, but I vaguely recall the head leader being called the sync leader, which makes perfect sense when editing. And you still see the word sync on some head leader on release prints, too. So at least that little quirk has some basis in reality.

Cigarette burns?!? No. Are any of the smokers here willing to actually burn some frames and post just to see how big and awful a cigarette burn would look?
 

---

Posted by Robert Throop (Member # 61) on 05-06-2008, 09:38 AM:
 
When I first started an old timer objected to the words "Flat" and "scope". Instead he would label prints "cine" and "reg".
Bob
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-06-2008, 10:47 AM:
 
My grandpa had an old Bell & Howell 16mm sound projector. It had one roller near the bottom of the film path that was referred to (in the manual) as the "snubber roller." Well, in the theatre, in my Simplex sound head, the very last roller before the sprocket sort of looks like and operates the same way as the "snubber roller" in the old Bell & Howell, so that's how I think of that roller. It'll always be the "snubber roller" to me. Although I've never taught that to anyone else (nor ever even mentioned it until now, come to think of it).
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-06-2008, 01:04 PM:
 
Well, a lot of terms are derived from simple common useage. Is calling the "fader" a "volume control" really wrong? It's not what may be the common name but it is not wrong except in very formal settings or if you are write a book about audio. But in real life, I don't see any right or wrong with using what someone will understand if it is not contradictory. Calling a capacitor a "resistor" is wrong no matter what the circumstances. Calling a fader a "volume control" or carbons "carbon rods" may not be the more common usage, but they are easily understood and are in fact correct by definition. Actually "level control" is probably by definition the most correct.

In my youth, tinkering with Heathkits, all I have ever heard or saw in writing was "volume control." It was only when I got into a projection booth that I heard the term "fader." Which I recall thinking was quaint and not very technical and thought it must be something held over from yearlier years (the fader wall box looked like a really old piece of equipment to me). I guess "fader" flips off the tongue better than "volume control," so that is what stuck.
 

---

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 05-06-2008, 01:42 PM:
 
Frank,

It was not uncommon for there to be a single knob in front of each projector (tied together mechanically) that would, in fact, FADE the signal from the outgoing machine to the incoming projector upon making a changeover. The center position was 0 so you could save the audience from hearing the nasty sound effects if you missed a changeover cue.

In later years it is still known as the fader as it does Fade in/out one or more channels of sound.

I remember my high school physics teacher explaining a capacitor as acting to AC like the resister does to DC. I think that could be easily misunderstood.

KEN
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-06-2008, 02:08 PM:
 
What about "soundhead" vs. "sound reproducer"? I learned "soundhead," but apparently "sound reproducer" is the correct term for the device. I suppose that dubbers are technically "magnetic reproducers" as well (unless they have record heads).

The old SMPTE projectionist book makes a big deal of how the "sound track" should really be called the "sound record" (or, more specifically, "optical sound record" and/or "magnetic sound record"), but this would seem to invite confusion when the topic of Vitaphone is discussed. I have only ever heard the term "soundtrack" used (with "optical track," "digital track," and "magnetic track" variants).

Do I even dare to mention the whole 1.33 vs. 1.37 issue? The Academy frame is really 1.37:1, but everyone calls it 1.33:1; the fact that silent prints, 16mm prints, and NTSC/PAL video are all really 1.33:1 adds to the confusion.

Does anyone actually use the terms "European widescreen" and "American widescreen" to refer to the 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 formats, respectively? And is anyone else annoyed by prints that are simply labelled "flat," without an aspect ratio designation?
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-06-2008, 02:39 PM:
 
Sure, Scott, in the art houses which get foreign prints and even those American titles in that time frame between the mid-50s and early to mid 60s, which I call the a.r. Grey Period, where the aspect ratio of Flat hadn't been firmed up, not to mention the always ambiguous ar's of films shot in VistaVision, just saying FLAT is practically useless information for us. Then again, you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of booths which play current commercial releases with anything but two formats -- Flat and Scope. For those vast majority, the actual aspect ratio numbers are just as useless to them as FLAT is to us. They can't play anything BUT Flat and Scope and no matter what the actually intended ar of the film, their Flat is what it is -- 1.85.

On the other hand, if someone can't tell if a print is flat or scope by a quick visual inspection but needs a label to tell them.....it's pretty much a lost cause from the get-go.

Oh and here's a snipit from the Projection Report we've been using -- it's got your 1.66 with the "European" reference and my "Sync Leader."



[ 05-06-2008, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Frank Angel ]
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-07-2008, 12:22 AM:
 
You also have the influence of other countries on some terms. The word "FADER" seemed to gain a lot of steam in cinema with Dolby's emergence as a sound processor manufacturer.

Probably the most accurate term is "Attenuator." as that is what virtually all of them do...attenuate a full strength signal down to what you want. Even electronically with VCA...they are Voltage Controlled Attenuators.

I don't think there is a big problem with Fader, Volume...and so on as they are all "correct" terms.

Cigarette Burns is wrong on so many counts...including that I've get to find any section of the planet that ever has historically referred to cue marks as that. It was a made up term that, seemingly, only people, not in the business, picked up on and perhaps are now in the business.

As for smoking in the projection booth...other than perhaps for Nitrate screenings...it has been legal around here for seemingly forever. I remember a manager coming into the booth at the Uptown complaining to one of the projectionist to stop smoking in the booth. In an odd situation, I found myself defending the smoker (odd in that I hate smoking and HATE what it does to film...I've yet to find a booth with a smoker where the prints didn't show it). Since the Uptown booth was built to Nitrate codes...it had its own fresh air system that was NOT connected to the rest of the theatre. As such, the smoking was entirely contained with the booth and the booth's air system. It was not in a public place nor in a space that other workers had to work with the smoker while the smoking was going on. The manager backed off.

As for FLAT and SCOPE...they are some of the STUPIDEST terms to refer to formats...well at lest "FLAT" is stupid. Whereas most of the anamorphic formats had "scope" in their name, it makes some sense...but FLAT doesn't help. The aspect ratio is what they should be referred to...if 1.85 had been adopted as the name way back...that is what would be on the turrets today...not FLAT. Whereas the bulk of my theatres have at least 4 formats and many have more...FLAT as a term is wholely inadequate.

My personal peeve term is "Brain" I guess it shows who does the thinking in platter operations. Honestly...it was never a term used at the theatre chain I started in (K-B Theatres in the DC Metro area). They were always "Payout Mechnaisms" or "Centerfeeds." I do not nor will I use the term "brain" when referrng to that part of the platter and admonish any idiot that does.

SG
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-07-2008, 01:40 AM:
 
So if you get the DVD of the movie the cue mark for that "reel" and that one only is put in digitally?
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 05-07-2008, 03:05 AM:
 
Oh, and for the record, I like Fight Club .
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-07-2008, 10:54 AM:
 
I always assumed that the word FLAT came about because with CinemaScope was introduced the curved screen. So for a projectionist who had been showing Academy films for years and then came this fairly substantial change to a curve screen, the Academy films before this being shown on a flat screen, it's easy to see how Scope = Curved, and NOT Scope, well, that would be "not curved," the opposite of which is flat. Why they didn't wind up referring to them as FLAT and CURVED is anyone guess; mine would be cause that would be just to damn stupid for words.

Spherical Wide Screen 1.85. -- Anamorphic Wide Screen. They have a nice sound and pretty much say it clearly, albeit they don't exactly come tripping off the tongue. I'd settle for Cropped Wide Screen 1.85 as well.
 

---

Posted by Robert Throop (Member # 61) on 05-08-2008, 09:25 AM:
 
"Frank,

It was not uncommon for there to be a single knob in front of each projector (tied together mechanically) that would, in fact, FADE the signal from the outgoing machine to the incoming projector upon making a changeover. The center position was 0 so you could save the audience from hearing the nasty sound effects if you missed a changeover cue."

The WE faders operated in this manner. The early RCA literature referred to changeover switches as "faders".
Bob
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 05-08-2008, 09:37 AM:
 
The person who taught me to run 35mm projectors back in the 1970's referred to 1.85 as "Half Frame Flat". Never heard it referred to that way anywhere else, but I always liked that terminology.

There is some disagreement over where the term "flat" originated. The general consensus is that it originated in the early 1950's with the commercial introduction of 3D. Flat or 3D. Cinemascope came shortly there after, "The new miracle of the screen that you can see without glasses", and of course was referred to as Scope. 3D went away, leaving flat and scope. The last film to actually be shot in CinemaScope was "In Like Flint" in 1967. All anamorphic films since then have been shot in Panavision (a prism anamorphic), although most theatres use CinemaScope projection lenses.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-08-2008, 09:52 AM:
 
When I first worked in the booth, we referred to flat as "standard." I think I've pretty much stuck with that term although I do use "flat" from time to time, I guess.

I first saw "flat" when it was written on film ends by previous projectionists.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-08-2008, 02:22 PM:
 

quote: Robert Throop

---

Instead he would label prints "cine" and "reg".

---

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin

---

The last film to actually be shot in CinemaScope was "In Like Flint" in 1967.

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

it's got your 1.66 with the "European" reference and my "Sync Leader."

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

What about "soundhead" vs. "sound reproducer"?

---

To this day, when I fill out service reports, I write "reproducer".
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 05-08-2008, 07:13 PM:
 
Just what ever you do don't call the projector head a friggin camera. I remeber someone asked me how do the cameras work. I said I don't know we don't have any!

I remember the movie Down With You had the Cinemascope logo at the begining. That came out in 2003. They movie was based in 1962 so I don't know if that was just used to incorporate that time period or what.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-08-2008, 11:16 PM:
 

quote: Darryl Spicer

---

Down With You had the Cinemascope logo at the begining

---

quote: Tim Reed

---

on flat. It was to differentiate between 3D subjects, circa 1953... the same year CinemaScope appeared.

---

quote: Tim Reed

---

this is what they mean when they reference a "sync leader". It has nothing to do with making changeovers.

---

quote: Tim Reed

---

I'll bet you think there's only those two leaders in existence, Academy and SMPTE, right? The ones you see every day.

---

quote: Tim Reed

---

each of them has a frame that says, "PICTURE START". Did you ever wonder WHY it says that?

Well, it's not to give you something to thread-up on. There is a companion leader that you never see. It's for the sound negative roll, and in the same place on that leader there's a big full frame that says, "SOUND START" (I know you can sometimes see this in small writing over in the soundtrack area, but that's ALL you can see of it on release prints.

---

Not sure what you mean here, Tim. Most Academy leaders still have PICTURE START and SOUND START frames. And yes, they certainly are useful for the projectionist in threading as they indicate the place where the soundtrack and its corresponding image frame are in sync, i.e., they indicated the soundtrack offset. Put the PICTURE START in the gate and SOUND START at the scanning slit and you are in dead sync. In fact, on Academy Leaders, each footage number has a corresponding diamond which gives an easy visual indication of the 20 frame sound offset.
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 05-09-2008, 12:34 PM:
 
We used to call projectors "machines"; as in What kind of machines are they running at the <insert theatre name>? When we ran mag stereo some of the guys used to call it "running penthouse". I always referred to cue marks as just that. I was always puzzled why they called the record/tape input non-sync, but I came in well after the vitaphone days.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 05-09-2008, 06:13 PM:
 
Let's see if I can do this without being insulting.

Frank, age or length of time in the booth has nothing to do with technical prowess. Certainly, you've probably breathed more carbon ash and made more changeovers than I have - good for you - but I can tell by the things you've said over the years and the vernacular you use, that you don't fully understand, for example, how those arc lamps work. You may think you do, but it's a cursory knowledge. And, while that's probably a ton more than most people here know about that subject, it does leave open the possibility for misunderstanding - simply because you've not been exposed to anything else nor had the opportunity to "see the world," as it were. As well as the fact that you never seem to be open to amendment or correction.

No one is infallible (especially me.. and there's plenty of examples here to prove it), but regardless of how you try to rationalize your erroneous pet beliefs, sound sync and projector changeovers are two different things.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-09-2008, 06:27 PM:
 

quote:

---

We used to call projectors "machines";

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

In fact, I would think there would be less need to identify a 2D print from a 3D print given that a projectionist would immediately know if a print were 3D or 2D simply by the fact that there were a Left eye and a Right eye print. They really wouldn't need differentiating nomenclature, whereas just looking at the cans, it's not immediately apparent if you have a CinemaScope or standard print.

---

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

"Machine 1" and "Machine 2" - I used these terms as well.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

So was there a convention as to which projector was #1

---

I believe it was how the head operator, using the home created terminology, "audience position" (audience left, center or right) as which machine was numbered.

Thus, as with the positioning of the booth equipment as if one was facing the screen, No.1 machine was always the left machine.

(Be the same as with a car: driver's side is always left side of the car...)

Some chief projectionists would have instruction that the No.2 Machine to start the trailers with making the feature start on the No.1 (left) Machine.

(thx for the correct term of the mirror being "dichromic" - which I have a hard time remembering the name..yes, we feel old talking about the 'old school' method of showing movies, but we had pride in doing this trade..)

-Monte
 

---

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 05-10-2008, 03:14 PM:
 
The Ballentyne Pro-35's that ran on 6K reels the left one was "Master" and the right one was "Slave". This was how they were installed by Mann Theatres at the Fox in Lubbock, anyway.
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 05-10-2008, 07:35 PM:
 
OK- Now I'll go way back in time as far as nomenclature is concerned.

Machine # 1 (or projector #1 if you will), was the one on the left facing the screen. "After all, you read left to right, don't you?" as one old timer explained to me.

Trailers were started on #2. Why? As it was explained to me, because that way reels 1,3,5, etc. (odd reels) were always projected on number 1. Reels 2,4,6,etc. were run on number 2. That way, when you pulled a reel from the cabinet, there was less likelihood of threading up the wrong reel on the wrong machine.

Gosh, when you think of it, it makes perfect sense!

Now to throw another monkey wrentch into the discussion. I must admit that I never "laced" a machine. I always "threaded up". I've been doing that since I was five years old, when I got my first projector.

Monte Fullmer said:

"In my terminology, I would call a booth person "booth operator" when all he did was lace and ran the movies."

Sorry Monte, but when I hear the word "lace", it drives me nuts. I can understand our English and Austrailian breathren using the term, but quite frankly, I never encountered it until I started reading posts on this site.

I think of "lacing" a pair of shoes (v.t. to pull together or thighten, to fasten, interlace, or intertwine). "Thread" is for a projector (v.t to pass or proceed through in a winding or twisting manner) at least for as long as I've been involved in the business.

I do recall in the old days, there were "operators" (those who simply ran the shows) and "projectionists", a term that implied experience and professionalism in a craft.

No disrespect intended. I still thread. Always will. Old habits die hard.
 

---

Posted by Robert LaValley (Member # 4319) on 05-10-2008, 07:44 PM:
 
lace or thread

projector or machine

booth or "upstairs"

Theatre or Theater

Management or Mcdonalds employee

it's all pretty much the same thing. hahah

I'm being sarcastic for those needing the disclaimer
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-10-2008, 07:48 PM:
 
Ahem. Guys, that's "dichroic".
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-10-2008, 08:49 PM:
 

quote: Robert LaValley

---

Theatre or Theater

---

..can be the same, but don't let the stage owners and employees see you spell the name of their "Theater" as "Theatre"

Sorry, I picked up the term "lace" from one of my operators long time ago, and it sorta stuck with me - even though I knew the correct term was "to 'thread' up the machine".
 

---

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 05-11-2008, 06:51 AM:
 
You THREAD a needle by pulling the thread through the eye of the needle.

You LACE your boots by pulling the laces AROUND the lashing pins. There were even hooks made to help you get the laces around the boot hooks back in the early time before they made the laces go through holes as they do new.

There were two innovative types of 16mm projectors. The first type was the "self threading" machine where you just put a trimmed end of the leader into the start of the film path and the machine did the rest. (You still had to attach the end to the takeup reel) The second was the "Slot Loader" where the film path was open with guides and you simply grasped the end and dragged the film through that slot from top to bottom as the machine guided the film into proper position. Securing the film to the takeup and closing the film path made the film ready for projection.

As a student operator in high school, I referred to the self threader as "The Self Shredder" since not all leaders were created equal and some did not work in that system.

KEN

KEN
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 05-11-2008, 12:16 PM:
 
Ah Kenneth, you're taking me back in time as well. We had one of those "Self Shredders" at the High School where I taught. Every time I saw that damned thing, I sent it back to the AVA office and requested another machine. You could always tell when someone else had used it from the look of the leaders on the prints they ran on it- chewed up. Damned thing couldn't take a splice, either.

I once asked the AVA guy why he bought the damned thing in the first place. His answer was for the teachers who couldn't thread the conventional machines.
 

---

Posted by Matthew Bailey (Member # 601) on 05-11-2008, 09:17 PM:
 
I found ob Ypu Tube a 2 Girls 1 Cup spoof of the projectionist scene in Fight Club. (only the music is heard) click here I magine if the same thing happened in a Cinema Paradiso spoof.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-12-2008, 12:11 AM:
 

quote: Kenneth Wuepper

---

"The Self Shredder"

---

Ah, the classic "Self Shredder" - the Bell & Howell 567



Hated their shredding properties and would manual thread these things back in HighSchool while I was in the AVA DEPT.
-Monte
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-12-2008, 07:09 AM:
 
That "Hell and Bowels" projector wasn't quite the classic classroom unit, as that has a power supply underneath it for the Marc 300 short arc lamp. Regardless, those things sucked. The only auto loaders I ever liked were the Eikis.

(I used to use those power supplies to drive the Marc 300 lamp in my custom modified Super 8mm projectors until I switched to an external lamphouse behind a Beaulieu 708 setup.)
 

---

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 05-13-2008, 04:52 AM:
 
For what it's worth (if it's worth anything), "Flat" DOES refer to the differences between 3-D, 'Scope and matted widescreen, which took over in May of '53. I've got a trade article talking about it somewhere that goes into depth (no pun intended) about the terminology.

What irks me? Projectionists that don't know the difference between 1.33:1 and 1.37:1. It's a small, but incredible difference, because if you say 1.33:1, I think you're talking about a silent aperture.
 

---