Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Black emulsion scratches and filmguard?

This is topic Black emulsion scratches and filmguard? 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=009647

Posted by Craig Mueller (Member # 4912) on 12-05-2008, 05:15 PM:

Hi everybody, my print of Australia was scratched a couple of days ago by another projectionist making the bottom loop in a simplex 35 too big. The scratches are throughout the movie but mainly are black. I am curious if film guard can remove black emulsion scratches like it can base scratches or if all emulsion scratches, even shallow ones, are permanent. Sorry if this is a repeat of another question, I searched around but couldnt find an answer.
Thanks!
Craig

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-05-2008, 05:41 PM:

Hi Craig

AUSTRALIA is the last print I'd want to see scratches on so I can appreciate your predicament.

So long as the emulsion's still not removed it will get rid of those. If you want to get rid of them immediately, you should take the print back to the rewind bench and apply FG manually, or just do it via your Kelmar Cleaner but it will take a few passes. You may want to re-soak daily to clog up those scratches. Stop re-soaking as soon as you're happy with its progress.

Do you currently use FG or will you have to get the gear in?

I had a print come in afetr being run in the city with (no kidding) no less than 20 emulsion scratches of various depth across the image. I had it down to one really deep (although borderline to taking the image in places) in four days.

Posted by Craig Mueller (Member # 4912) on 12-05-2008, 05:57 PM:

No, unfortunately I don't have a cleaner for my theatre, our chain has two but not one for me.. Definitely not my decision, I love the stuff.. The scratches are mainly down the middle of the film, top and bottom, and rarely in the middle (thankfully) and some parts it shows up as yellow, so I am not expecting improvement there, but if the black scratches are able to be reduced that I will pick up a cleaner and go at it. Glad to hear that black scratches may not be permanent. I am curious, what is the general consensus on the movie in Australia, if there is one? It is certainly beautiful, but very Hollywood so I am curious how it was received.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-05-2008, 07:24 PM:

Black scratches are usually on the base with emulsion scratches being green or yellow

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-05-2008, 07:45 PM:

Australia took just over $10million over its first 5 days. As a general comparison, we do around 10% less than what USA does with releases as a general rule.

So, it's pretty big here. Reviews are generally more favourable here too...perhaps it's seen as 'unpatriotic' to knock it...I don't know as I haven't seen it yet but will perhaps go this week.

Emulsion scratches can be black too, just not too heavy or they take the image. Regardless of which side your scratches are on...if they're black then they're fair game for the FilmGuard machine.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-05-2008, 07:57 PM:

No they're not! I've seen black base-side scratches unaffected by Filmguard. The person who scratched the print decided that the lower roller was unnecessary and went straight from the failsafes to the first take-up roller on the platter, rubbing the shaft that holds the lower roller. Of course this guy threads so the soundtrack faces toward the wall so we were presented with many very deep base scratches that could not be affected by anything. We couldn't get a replacement print and held onto it for months, of course.

[ 12-07-2008, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: Joe Redifer ]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-07-2008, 12:53 AM:

It's always the ones you want out of there that like to hang around.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-07-2008, 01:02 AM:

quote: Craig Mueller
another projectionist making the bottom loop in a Simplex 35 too big. The scratches are throughout the movie but mainly are black.

Umm...the lower loop would touch the emulsion side of the print if that loop was too big. Plus, if the scratching wasn't deep enough to go into the emulsion itself, it will come out black on the screen.

Did you get him straighten out on how big the lower loop should be - a finger's distance between loop and the rear curve plate when the loop is at it's smallest?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-07-2008, 02:08 AM:

I'll just point this out yet one more time...since when are two different people's fingers the same size? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 12-07-2008, 06:29 AM:

The very best way to assure consistent sound lip sync as well as mechanical stability is to count the number of frames in all loops.

KEN

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 12-07-2008, 06:45 AM:

I now know that there's at least 2 other people on the planet who agree with me on this. [beer]

As to fingers for sizing loops [fu]

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 12-07-2008, 10:06 AM:

Pete,

Thanks for the suggestion. Is the FU finger more consistent in size from person to person than the others?

KEN [Big Grin]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-07-2008, 10:08 AM:

Absolutely. [eyes]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-07-2008, 10:26 AM:

The way I do my lower Simplex loops is to make them (at their biggest point) as big as possible so long as it does not make physical contact with the upper part of the metal. Basically the frameline will be in the 11:00 position on the lower constant feed sprocket.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-07-2008, 11:30 AM:

The best way is sound diamond across the scaning beam and Pix start in the gate that was the way it was designed

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 12-07-2008, 12:01 PM:

That makes 3!

Posted by Craig Mueller (Member # 4912) on 12-07-2008, 02:53 PM:

Unfortunately the person that scratched the film is my boss (I am the theatre manager, he is the operating manager of our three theatres), and he has 30 years on me in the industry, so instructing him on how to do things different is a bit tough sometimes.. He normally has it right but he had to reframe due to a stupid modification of mine gone awry, and the loop became too big. Like others, I use the number/diamond trick every threading (thanks Matt), but he does not. I have not treated the print with Film Guard, I am waiting for the weekend to end so that small crowd shows get to see the streaks for the first or second show, also historically this projector becomes jumpy, even at the highest tension with filmguard so I may have to move in the trap.

[ 12-07-2008, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Craig Mueller ]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-07-2008, 06:40 PM:

quote: Craig Mueller
also historically this projector becomes jumpy, even at the highest tension with filmguard so I may have to move in the trap.

..is this a flat trap Simplex, or a curved gate variety? sounds like bands, or rails needs to be replaced.

Also, if this is the curved gate variety, wonder if the stop allen that adjusts the gate closure is somewhat out of adjustment.

To check - close the gate after threading and see if the intermittent shoes move towards and upwards to the front of the machine. If so, then the gate is closing too tightly for the shoes should just snug against the film over the sprocket without any movement when the gate is closed.

Opposite is if you see a gap between shoes and the film when gate is closed and the gate isn't closing tight enough over the bands.

(Funny how the argument of finger spacing is only a sprockethole difference with our fingersizes. When you teach booth clowns the easiest method how to do loop sizes, this is the only way they remember along with we don't have countdown leaders.)

little tips..

quote: Craig Mueller
He normally has it right but he had to reframe due to a stupid modification of mine gone awry, and the loop became too big.

NOW, here's an interesting question: If this guy has 30yrs on you and didn't shut down the machine when the bottom loop got too big, let alone an oversized loop would rattle like the dickens, I wonder where he spent his 30 yrs at - let alone on how many prints that he scratched himself?

-Monte

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-07-2008, 06:50 PM:

quote: Gordon McLeod
The best way is sound diamond across the scaning beam and Pix start in the gate that was the way it was designed

I've seen projectors that were designed so that this was impossible without the loop being ridiculously small or big, usually because of the addition of a basement Dolby Digital reader.

I've also read (in Kodak documents, I think) that the bigger the auditorium, the smaller your lower loop should be, and the smaller the auditorium, the bigger the loop.

Anyway, I teach everyone the frameline method because it is easy to remember. On the Simplex, make the bottom sprocket have a frameline on 10:00 (usually PM but sometimes AM) and the lower constant feed at 11:00 (always PM). Upper loop should be no higher than the screw in the back (not the one that sticks up) at its smallest position. This loop needs to be two perfs bigger on the machines without the turrets.

Craig, what was this modification of yours and why did it affect framing?

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 12-07-2008, 11:49 PM:

Joe, if the loop is "ridiculously" big with PICTURE START in the gate and SOUND START on the analog sound, then something is terribly wrong.

Yes, it is true that very small or very large houses may have to offset by some amount. But that's true no matter what method you use.

The beauty of this method is twofold: #1 it is correct, by definition, #2 it works on every single projector.

--jhawk

Posted by Craig Mueller (Member # 4912) on 12-08-2008, 02:55 AM:

The modification didn't affect framing, I just threw that in for disclosure. The modification was two metal strips to act as spacers behind the aperture plate to bring it closer to the film, and sharpen the edges on screen. One of the bands had slipped (still in "beta" this dumb little project), and was visible on screen when he started the show, he didn't know what to do, and lost his framing by opening the gate trying to rectify the situation and the film was past the leader at that point. I should have instructed him on what to do if it did slip, but it hadn't happened more than once before.. It was a silly thing to leave in a projector when other people than me would be touching it. I don't know why he wasn't able to determine that it was not scratching, but it happened. And I really hope he doesn't go on this site, because I feel like I have aired too much about a good guy..

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 12-08-2008, 05:34 AM:

On machines with combined analogue/digital basement readers is the analogue track read directly in the normal position, or is it read ahead and then delayed digitally to bring it into sync? If it is read ahead then it can't be by much.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 12-08-2008, 07:50 AM:

The normal position. No one wants to deal with delaying analog audio if they can avoid it...

(Of course, someone will probably cite some counterexample now, like those analog penthouses with digital delay for the folks who need by white light and red led capabilities, or some special custom situation with a basement reader...)

--jhawk

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-08-2008, 10:22 AM:

Not on the Christie, at least not on the earlier ones. No audio was delayed. I think the analog reader was the bottom one.

Anyway, the way I thread (which may be a whole perf small), the audio is in perfect sync when listened to in the auditorium. That's what matters. Hand claps or things slamming down on tables are perfect sync tests.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-08-2008, 01:26 PM:

quote: Craig Mueller
And I really hope he doesn't go on this site, because I feel like I have aired too much about a good guy..

Very true, for it can easilly come back and bite you pretty bad posting info in here about fellow workers.

A good suggestion is that the next time you have a booth problem and you know you're in the clear about the problem, either solve it without posting on here, or make it look like it's not your theatre where you're talking about someone that you know who's running a booth and have this problem along with variating the s story to still get the question across, but changing some things around to make it look like it's not your workplace.

You must have a theatre that is using unmasked screens and you have to shimmy the aperture plate forward to make the flat pictures have sharper edges.

This is the big problem with using standard aperture plates in a curve gate Simplex 35 (P1014 single lens?) since the plate line is so far back from the bands.

I once knew of a cinema that has this exact same problem - horrible blurry edges when running flat on a 2.35/1 unmasked floating screen and that flat image looks horrible let alone numerous complaints from customers on why the screen isn't filled all the way along with the blurry edges...and the owner just scoffs at these complaints due to he didn't want to fuss with adding masking due to his untrust with his help with "complicated" things as motorized maskings.

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 03-07-2012, 08:52 AM:

It has been 1184 days since the last post.

Posted by Bob Ezra (Member # 841) on 03-07-2012, 08:52 AM:

Joe Redifer said

("No they're not! I've seen black base-side scratches unaffected by Filmguard. The person who scratched the print decided that the lower roller was unnecessary and went straight from the failsafes to the first take-up roller on the platter, rubbing the shaft that holds the lower roller. Of course this guy threads so the soundtrack faces toward the wall so we were presented with many very deep base scratches that could not be affected by anything.")

My question, did it help in that case, some or not at all?

thanks

Posted by Brent Francis (Member # 5008) on 03-07-2012, 09:44 AM:

Regarding the finger/loop schitck - I once had a projector that constantly went out of rack after it started, even if you manually advanced it two/three frames before to make sure it was staying in the gate. Then you had to adjust the rack - and got too big or too small a loop somewhere. And no-one seemed to know how to fix it.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 03-07-2012, 10:53 AM:

Having put Film Guard on many scratched prints.By manually applying it thicker than normal and doing it at least twice to spread it around more evenly.
The results on screen are.
Light base scratches are almost impossible to see!
Heavy base scratches are reduced by about 60%!
Light emulsion scratches turn white and are less obtrusive.
Heavy emulsion scratches are permanent.

After a few weeks or months you must reapply because the Film Guard will evaporate and thin out bringing the scratching back into view.
I have run a heavily Film Guarded print through a Kelmar cleaner and found it thins out the Film Guard instantly which is fine for light scratching but heavy scratches are suddenly more visible.
This is why I suggest applying it by hand with clean soft cotton material to get it on heavier.
I still need to try over soaking media pads to see if that will get it on thick enough.
This is only for scratched prints and otherwise not a great idea because it's a lot of WORK and you need to keep reapplying it to maintain the look.
That said.
It can make these prints look fantastic for a while!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-07-2012, 01:07 PM:

quote: Bob Ezra
My question, did it help in that case, some or not at all?

Not at all that I could notice.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-07-2012, 01:36 PM:

There are three things I think about FilmGuard taking care of scratches:

1) It won't remove scratches. It only hides them.

2) It won't hide deep scratches. It will lessen their appearence but it won't make them completely invisible.

3) FilmGuard doesn't do everything in one application. There will be a noticable difference after the first pass or two but the real "magic" happens after the third and subsequent passes.

So, if you're expecting FilmGuard to work like a magic wand you're going to be disappointed.

Posted by Bob Ezra (Member # 841) on 03-07-2012, 02:54 PM:

thanks for the feedback...