Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: No More Orange Film Cans?

This is topic No More Orange Film Cans? 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=010271

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 01-13-2010, 10:13 AM:

The familiar orange film cans may soon be a thing of the past.
Technicolor has been quietly testing new cardboard box film
containers, similar to those now used by DeLuxe & Fox.

Here's some info I received yesterday:

Technicolor Cinema Distribution (TCD) recently tested a
switch from film cans (35mm prints) to plastic corrugated
boxes similar to those used by Deluxe. After surveying
83 cinemas, feedback has led to these immediate updates:

The concerns about the box handle projecting too far
inside the box are justified. TCD will change the
handle so that it doesn't protrude so far inward.

The President of the box manufacturer came to Wilmington,
OH to examine boxes of "Transylmania" that have returned.

He wants to return to single locking tab, but make it
larger than the Deluxe version. He said cutting that
much surface area, for 2 tabs, weakens the box too much.

He is also going to change from vertical to horizontal
fluting, which will strengthen the box. He sent TCD a
prototype of this new design. According to them, it is
better and stronger based on internal tests.

Ordering new handles and adjusting the mold will
consume time. TCD plans to do another test run with
a smaller release before they use it on a wide release.

The rollout plan has been changed to:
-Test the new design with independent releases in late
January and February.
-Ship a major studio's wide release, Universal's "Green
Zone", opening March 12th.
-If shipping the new design with independent titles in
late January and February goes well, along with the
wide release in March, TCD will request approval to
transition all new titles to the new print box in
late April and forward.

Tim Burke
General Manager
Technicolor Cinema Distribution

ACTUAL PICTURE!

(IMO, placing the handles on the sides will force people
to bend over further than a top handle to pick one of these
boxes up, thus increasing the chance of back injury)

>OOPS! I had intended to post this in the "FILM YAK" forum.
Mabye a moderator can bump it there, if appropriate<

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 01-13-2010, 10:46 AM:

I don't like it, at all. What happens when the next 140+ minute film from Disney comes out? Are they going to go completely to boxes, or have some cans, like Deluxe?

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 01-13-2010, 11:12 AM:

what are

quote: Jim Cassedy
film cans

and

quote: Jim Cassedy
35mm prints

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 01-13-2010, 12:34 PM:

When a studio mandates a feature have combination locked cans, how does one affix locks to these boxes?

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 01-13-2010, 12:42 PM:

They can't. Problem solved. [Big Grin]

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 01-13-2010, 01:08 PM:

At least now you can use cheaper airliner hijacking... 'er, box cutters instead of more expensive bolt cutters/Sawsalls/grinders to "unlock" those boxes. [Big Grin]

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 01-13-2010, 01:21 PM:

Great question about "locked" print deliveries!

I'm guessing they will keep a stash of the orange
cans and those finicky locks for such situations.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-13-2010, 02:37 PM:

So dumb that for many years that film was hauled in two cans that evened the weight across the body when lifted, you learned how to lift them straight up and no warning labeling to prevent back injury when lifting cans was ever implemented.

Now, you get a device that completely takes away the balance, stick warnings all over it on how to lift this fool box (at least the FOX BOX has a center handle and if a guy is big enough, he can still manhandle 80 lbs on each side when carrying two of these boxes and still maintain that balance) which now all the weight is in front of you along with carrying it chest high so the box doesn't smack into your knees while walking forward.

What happened?

-Monte

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-13-2010, 04:36 PM:

I pick up the foxbox with the handle and set it on a table, then I use both hands under the box to carry it up the stairs or any great distance. I would think carrying two of them with the handles would be a big hassle.

Anyone who has a box weight issue could just open the box and carry 2 or 3 reels at a time...a pain in the neck, but a back saver.

The TES box handle design is going to take up "reel space" in the box. They are probalby going to have to make those handles shallow enough that they'll be useless, unless you have pretty strong fingertips.

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 01-13-2010, 04:56 PM:

It looks like the box is slightly wider to accommodate the side handles and not take up reel space.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 01-13-2010, 05:52 PM:

Rather than using just 1 box, why can't they do these boxes in 3-4 reel configurations? Does one box really save on shipping?

quote: Sean Weitzel
When a studio mandates a feature have combination locked cans, how does one affix locks to these boxes?

It wouldn't surprise me to see them ship the last reel or two under separate cover. Besides, isn't it just Paramount that uses the locked cans? This wouldn't be affected by the TES change.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-13-2010, 06:54 PM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
Rather than using just 1 box, why can't they do these boxes in 3-4 reel configurations? Does one box really save on shipping?

It is actually quite a bit cheaper to ship one 50-pound box than it is to ship two 25 pound boxes. But the big attraction for the larger boxes is to keep the entire print all in one box.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 01-13-2010, 07:06 PM:

So why not just make the octagonal cans out of the corrugated plastic cardboard?...this solves the weight balance problem, solves the shipping cost problem and the back injury problem.

...or is this too easy to do? [Confused]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-13-2010, 08:19 PM:

Well......a film-can-shaped box with 6 or 7 reels in it would be harder to pick up than a box with corners.

Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 4255) on 01-13-2010, 08:49 PM:

And it sounds more expensive. Companies have never been big fans of expensive.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-13-2010, 08:59 PM:

We solved this in another thread: make small boxes with handles in 2-reel, 3-reel, and 4-reel sizes. Then make large boxes that hold various combinations of the above, also with (sturdier) handles. This gives a single box for transporting one complete normal-length feature and an easy way to separate the boxes to carry them around in the theatre, up or down stairs, etc. As an added bonus, it provides additional protection for the film.

Why is it that TES and DFS cannot figure this out?

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 01-13-2010, 09:46 PM:

Personally, I have no problems with the current system. I know that film is heavy, so I don't lift the box as if it was only 20 lbs. I like the cans, but the boxes tend to not roll around in the back of my truck as much.

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 01-13-2010, 10:31 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
just open the box and carry 2 or 3 reels at a time...a pain in the neck, but a back saver.

I've been doing this ever since I had an abdominal hernia
repaired 2 years ago and my guts are now held in place by
some surgical mesh, permanant sutures and half-a-dozen
metal screws. If I can't get one of the 'kids' at the
theater to bring thw whole box up to the booth, I carry
the film up 2 or 3 reels at a time. Sure, it takes a
couple of extra trips and a little more time, but it
beats tearing my stitches or popping my screws and
winding up back in the hosptial.

But I still think the side handles are not a great idea.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 01-14-2010, 02:15 AM:

...hence the idea of Octagonal corrugated plastic film trunks of no more than 4 spool capacity. But, as mentioned previously, companies don't like expense..but I'll bet they would dislike even more a whole stack of Compo claims.

Maybe now is the time to go to 6K spools.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-14-2010, 02:54 AM:

quote: Jonathan Althaus
like the cans, but the boxes tend to not roll around in the back of my truck as much.

....is why you lay the "effing" cans on their side so they don't roll around.....or ,you got tiedowns lining the edge the bed so you can tie the cans down to the sidewalls....

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 01-14-2010, 03:42 AM:

Monte

[thumbsup]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-14-2010, 03:56 AM:

..sorry, that one got me .... been in the business WAY too long... [Big Grin]

Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 4255) on 01-14-2010, 08:03 AM:

quote: Ian Parfrey
Maybe now is the time to go to 6K spools.

Can anyone tell me why this failed the first time? I heard theatres were forced at thier own expense to prepare for this, in much the same manner as Cinemascope. It seems like a pretty good idea.

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 01-14-2010, 08:57 AM:

I was working one Thursday night and they delivered the films early. 2 new films with nothing to pick up. I was finishing up with a concession girl [Big Grin]

and told the usher to take one of the movies upstairs, I'd get the other one. I was about 30 seconds behind him and suddenly it sounds like he was tumbling down the stairs. I rounded the corner just in time to see a film can bouncing off the wall at the bottom of the stairs. The usher was standing at the top of the stairs with a "deer in the headlights" dumbass look on his face. He just stood there and said "it slipped". One of the cans I was carrying was fairly light, so I just reached down and was able to get 2 cans with 1 hand and 1 in the other. The usher just stood at the top of the stairs staring at me. When I got to the top, all I could say was "fucking pussy" as I walked passed him.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-14-2010, 09:19 AM:

The 6000' shipping reel thing failed for a bunch of reasons:

- many theatres could not accommodate the large reels, requiring double-inventory (extra expense) for distributors
- the shipping containers were large, heavy, and awkward
- the reels were poorly designed (flimsy and collected dust; also, they had 1/2" shafts, which many theatres could not accommodate, even if they could deal with the larger reel diameter); they would not fit on many rewind benches or makeup tables
- film storage facilities (racks/shelves) are not designed to accommodate the large reels and would need to be replaced (more extra expense)
- replacement reels (e.g. changes to credits, etc.) would have to be supplied in 6000' lengths (yet more extra expense)
- production schedules usually require that titles (first reel) and credits (last reel) be printed last due to late changes; this would not be possible if the prints were to be made in 6000' lengths
- the few titles that were released this way were typically printed in 2000' lengths and spliced together by hand; sometimes the splices were made badly and needed to be re-made by the theatres

I am sure that others can add to this list. I never actually received one of these, but have seen them in other theatres and have heard nothing but horror stories about them. It was a well-intentioned idea that failed for practical reasons.

The only time it would really make sense to ship prints on 6000' reels now would be for 2-strip 3D prints.

Posted by Michael Voiland (Member # 5386) on 01-14-2010, 09:20 AM:

The fox boxes are a pain to move around. Now we have technicolor boxes that look like some hazmat container. I will take the cans over a box at least the dts disk stands a better chance with 3 reels and trailers in a can compared to the entire film in the box.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 01-14-2010, 03:38 PM:

During my stints as Film Festival operator, quite a few European prints arrived on 6000' spools in plastic trunks, usually octagonal, and they were a delight to use. Just the time saved in make up and break down was worthy of the idea.

The 1/2 shaft didn't bother us as we had Century's with the 1/2 shaft in place, but it wouldn't be too much of a drama to retro-fit other projectors for this size spindle. If the print came on cores, we had a 6K split made up and just wound off.

The vast majority of outfits now sport 6000' capability, so it seems pointless to spend $$$ on modifying 2000' spools when going 6K would ultimately save print damage due to make up/break down.

The weight issue now makes no sense as the single boxes are harder to lift, heavier and bulkier than 2 6000' trunks. The only advantage I can see is the stackability of boxes over 6K spools and trunks...but as Monte pointed out, just lay 'em flat if transporting- and if long term storage is the aim, stack them as per usual like the 2000' trunks.

For once, it would be great if some suit in a large corporation came up with an idea that benefits the whole chain and not just one sector. The European method of plastic octagonal 6K trunks does just that.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 01-14-2010, 08:53 PM:

After mylar film was introduced, the thickness of film was reduced 30%. The original plan was to then reduce the thickness another 30% later. This never happened.

With 4000 ft on a "2000 ft reel" you would only have 3 reels to equal 12000 ft. Same weight and length as a 6 reel acetate shipment.

D Cinema ended all of that. Louis

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-14-2010, 10:21 PM:

..ain't it though....

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-15-2010, 12:29 PM:

Just got another email from Technicolor thru NATO about the cans vs boxes issue. Normally I wouldn't post this since it's a NATO communication, but since it will affect all of us I'm going to post it.

quote: Technicolor

On behalf of Tim Burke:

I received several calls and emails from some NATO members asking about the Technicolor 35MM print box. I would like to provide you more of a complete update than the initial email.

As for timing, I don’t anticipate Technicolor Distribution shipping 35MM prints in boxes, other than one test wide, before May. I doubt that many of you have seen, other than the emailed picture, or used our box unless your theatre(s) played Transylmania. I suspect most of you have seen the Deluxe box (gray). There are two primary differences between the Technicolor and Deluxe box:

Technicolor will not put more than 6 film reels in one box. For 7 and more reel films, we will use two boxes.

Technicolor has two handles on opposite sides of the box with lifting instructions printed in large font on 2 wide sides of the box. These lifting instructions were written by UPS Safety Engineers.

A majority of theatre personnel that we have surveyed prefer the box. Most theatres that do express concern of the box say that it is too heavy. It is for this reason that Technicolor made the aforementioned changes. A 6 reel film with 6 trailers in Technicolor box will average 54 pounds. I have in my office:

A print of ‘Precious,’ 6 reels with 6 trailers, in a Technicolor box. It weighs 55 pounds.

A print of ‘Precious,’ also 6 trailers, in two film cans. On can weighs 30 pounds. The other can weighs 47 pounds.

Most theatre personnel carry 2 cans at a time. Currently, a theatre person carrying print of Precious carries two cans at 30 and 47 pounds. The future would be a theatre person carrying one 55 pound box, lifting with two handles, and theatres that received Transylmania told us the handles are comfortable, following lifting instructions on the box written by safety engineers (lifting with legs, keeping close to body, etc) The instructions also encourage using a cart or dolly to transport to and from steps.

Some of the reasons why projectionists tell us that they prefer box vs can are:

- The boxes are cleaner. Many of the cans are very old and incl rust.
- The cans have sharp edges. Every month we receive calls about cuts and torn clothing
- The latches on the cans are old and sometimes take long while to open and close cans.
- Boxes stack better, especially important in crowded projectionist rooms. Many cans are bent and uneven, and don’t stack as easily.

Another plus is that UPS errors will decrease as much as 50% shipping in box than can. Cans are like golf clubs, exception freight, and cannot travel on UPS sort conveyor belts, thus have lot of manual handling. The other reason is probability. Most UPS errors are one can shorts. Assuming a 1% error rate on a 1000 print release, 20 cans could be effected and theoretically 20 theatres. With boxes, it is only 10.

Thank you for all feedback received thus far. Again, I am available via phone or email. My contact information is listed below.

Tim Burke

Tim Burke
Technicolor Cinema Distribution
3418 Progress Way
Wilmington, OH 45177
(937) 383-6089 I Cell (513) 646-9016 tim.burke@technicolor.com

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-15-2010, 12:53 PM:

quote:
Many cans are bent and uneven, and don’t stack as easily.

Another plus is that UPS errors will decrease as much as 50% shipping in box than can. Cans are like golf clubs, exception freight, and cannot travel on UPS sort conveyor belts, thus have lot of manual handling.

..I like this one ... and I bet it's the same as I posted before: in laying the cans on their sides.

quote:
... Every month we receive calls about cuts and torn clothing

.. another sign of a changing generation - passing the buck on failure in being careful in which we who are used with working with cans learn how to not to let ourselves from being cut and clothes torn.

Funny how with the two previous shipping people of Airborne and DHL never whined on handling orange can shipments.

-Monte

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-15-2010, 01:24 PM:

quote:
A print of ‘Precious,’ 6 reels with 6 trailers, in a Technicolor box. It weighs 55 pounds.

They shouldn't be doing it like that. Some reels are filled to the brim and others are not even half reels. They should go on runtime/footage...and that should include trailers.

quote:
Most theatre personnel carry 2 cans at a time. Currently, a theatre person carrying print of Precious carries two cans at 30 and 47 pounds. The future would be a theatre person carrying one 55 pound box, lifting with two handles

Forget the UPS safety guys, check with a DOCTOR. Carrying anything heavy in front of you IS a strain on the back. Carrying something with an easy to grasp handle that isn't too wide and is relatively balanced in weight in both hands is MUCH easier on the body. This large single box requiring the use of the back (carrying in front) is not a solution. Less weight in the boxes are the solution.

quote:
- The boxes are cleaner. Many of the cans are very old and incl rust.

People liked the original auto-pop-apart reels at first too because they were brand new. Then they got dirty and started falling apart and people learned to hate them.

quote:
- The cans have sharp edges. Every month we receive calls about cuts and torn clothing

The boxes also fall apart. In the last few years, I have had at least two, maybe three boxes from Deluxe that had been sent out a number of times literally fall apart and the entire print explode onto the parking lot. Had the blue PLASTIC cans been purchased that I have been preaching for years, this wouldn't be a problem for torn clothing, conveyor belt damage OR additional weight.

quote:

- The latches on the cans are old and sometimes take long while to open and close cans.

No longer than the 4 back and forth folding and tucking of the boxes.

quote:
- Boxes stack better, especially important in crowded projectionist rooms. Many cans are bent and uneven, and don’t stack as easily.

Which is why if Tech goes this route, they should be making 4 or 5 reel versions of these boxes and for the purpose of shipping, put those in a larger "shipping" box.

quote:
Most UPS errors are one can shorts. Assuming a 1% error rate on a 1000 print release, 20 cans could be effected and theoretically 20 theatres. With boxes, it is only 10.

I just addressed the proper solution.

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 01-15-2010, 01:25 PM:

Of course they wouldn't retire those damaged cans. Probably deemed ok by the UPS Safety Engineers. [Wink]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-15-2010, 06:19 PM:

Now, gonna ask them Orange Can people a real dumb question: Why not make the boxes that can do the same task as the cans?

Make a 3 or 4 reel box, thus you get three worlds at the same time - safer, durable and easy to ship.

..have to ask a dumb question since it seems the obvious.

-Monte

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-15-2010, 06:50 PM:

One point that has not been made here that should be is that the boxes (at least, the Fox Box variant) are more difficult to work with than cans in tiny booths. An open can extends in only one direction, whereas an open box extends in four directions. Thus, the open box requires an amount of free space equal to nine times the size of the top of the box, whereas an open can requires an open area equal to twice the size of the can.

Also, the can lids provide useful space for storing additional reels. Some venues which do not show film regularly do not have reel cabinets, and reels that are about to be shown must be stored in the cans themselves in order to keep them off of the floor. This works well with ICC cans, but poorly with Fox Boxes.

All of these problems are fixable, and I am sure that TES could design a usable shipping box mechanism which would solve most of the complaints about the concept. Unfortunately, this would require a much different design than what the photographs in this thread indicate.

As for the boxes being better than beat-up cans, that is definitely true, but TES does not explain why beat-up cans are allowed to remain in circulation.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-15-2010, 08:04 PM:

Great points, Scott. I am always annoyed by having the four huge flaps folded out as I assemble a movie in my narrow booth. Even worse is that they often want to close by themselves and I have to find ways to keep them open.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-15-2010, 09:03 PM:

No matter how you cut it...it is safer to lift the cans than boxes (any boxes). One can lift film cans without ever bending their back...keeping the weight always on ones arms/legs.

With a box you are going to have to lean over...the weight will be either in front or behind you (most movers tend to lift heavy boxes behind them...the key again is to not lift and bend ones back.

Cans are safer, period. Now if they could make the boxes emulate the cans (always break the weight between two boxes/cans)...then they would have something.

Steve

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-15-2010, 09:55 PM:

My gut tells me we are going to be stuck with them. I'll bet you a dollar they already have a huge standing order for that design placed with the manufacturer. For example, you can go back to the very first reel and see failure after failure until the very last incarnation of the orange reel they use now...but they still use the beta version of those orange reels that they placed a huge order of! This results in getting reels with spokes that don't line up and the reels being tremendously wobbly. They should toss any of those early reel flanges they come across and stick only to the last version of the orange reel, and of course the wonderful Filmtreat reels that magically force just about any rewind bench or makeup table to achieve smooth winds.

2 small boxes with the Deluxe-type handle is THE solution. Pack 'em in a bigger box for UPS if you like.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-16-2010, 12:03 AM:

Someone needs to e-mail the URL of this thread to that Burke guy so he can ignore our logical concerns.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-16-2010, 12:48 AM:

He is actually a very nice guy (and he lurks here), but I think the pressure is on him from above to find a resolution and to do it fast (and SUPER cheap, of course).

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-16-2010, 12:58 AM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Why not make the boxes that can do the same task as the cans?

Make a 3 or 4 reel box, thus you get three worlds at the same time - safer, durable and easy to ship.

Why can't some of you guys understand?? They WANT TO PUT THE PRINT IN ONE BOX if at all possible to cut down on half-a-print getting lost, and make shipping cheaper. This is probably item #1 on the requirements list. Any solution that requires two boxes for a "typical" length movie would not be acceptable. Remember these are bean-counters we're talking about.

Also: the problem with the hexagonal cans is not that they're made of metal. It's the shape of them. They don't stack easily and they roll. UPS's sorting systems consist mostly of conveyors which won't handle odd-sized packages and which move boxes from one belt to another automatically. The squarish boxes can go through such systems where the cans will not -- they have to be handled manually.

My idea to get rid of the four-flaps on the box would be to have a box with a "lid" such as what comes on a 2500-sheet box of paper. The lid could lift off and be stored on the bottom of the box. Of course, then the box wouldn't be one-piece and foldable.

Posted by Michael Voiland (Member # 5386) on 01-16-2010, 02:16 AM:

The problem with your box design is that how do we secure the lid back on. Dont say that plastic strap because those need to be cut usually to open it.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-16-2010, 02:39 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Remember these are bean-counters we're talking about.

Seems like this is getting to be the norm for business operation and not caring about value.

quote: Mike Blakesley
The lid could lift off and be stored on the bottom of the box. Of course, then the box wouldn't be one-piece and foldable.

Remember when FOX started this "Fox Box" thing in the mid-90's with this "lift top" concept with that red cloth sinch strap to hold the two together?

They got in trouble with NFS with this, if I remember..

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 01-16-2010, 04:31 AM:

i haven't seen one of these for a while:

all in all, it's my favorite film shipper, and addresses most of the issues. except that it won't hold a full feature (which is a plus for most folks here).

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-16-2010, 07:45 AM:

I remember those types of cans, Carl. While very cool, parts of the plastic placement holders can and will break off over a while. Gotta love the giant handles that are on those types of cans, though. With the blue plastic cans that Brad speaks of, the plastic is much softer and actually bendable. Not to mention they are extremely light. If anyone wants I can get a picture of the blue cans.

PS - I love that at least half of that print is tails up. I wish all prints came tails up, even reel 1.

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 01-16-2010, 11:28 AM:

Those cans pictured above were my favorite cans. Easy to move, stacked well, and had huge "easy on the hands" handles.

Not that I would know about such a thing, but those were the cans that the hinge pin would slide out of on locked prints. Heard about that from somewhere.......

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 01-16-2010, 01:18 PM:

Heard that those hinge pins sometimes came out on the metal cans too...

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 01-16-2010, 09:57 PM:

I got a print in those those boxes in early December. One nice thing about the 6k reels and boxes...I could lay them on the side and let them slide down the carpeted stairs, they went slowly enough that they barely bumped at the bottom. Going up was very awkward for a short guy like me.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 01-16-2010, 10:30 PM:

Again, if we reduce the THICKNESS of the film another 30%; you get 4000 ft/reel. 3 reels equals the size and weight of 6. A four reel can is all you normally need, since you would have 16,000 ft of film in there. Louis

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-16-2010, 11:01 PM:

Wouldn't there be other issues with 40-minute reels, though, even if they physically fit on 15" reels? I'm thinking of things like some arc lamps that cannot burn for 40 minutes continuously, but there must be others.

Would thinner film cause issues with any type of projection or lab equipment? Is there anything (endless-loop platters, maybe?) that depends upon film being a particular thickness? Would changing the thickness affect durability?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-17-2010, 01:52 AM:

Here are the kinds of cans I like. They are more durable than they look and very light.

Same old latches, but oh well.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-17-2010, 02:26 AM:

Yup, those cans are the best. I always have wondered why they didn't catch on...more expensive than the metal ones maybe?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-17-2010, 10:58 AM:

Yes those are the cans I keep pushing. No idea who makes them, but they are about as indestructible and durable as you can get.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 01-17-2010, 11:29 AM:

Those blue plastic shippers are made by the Hollywood Film Company, and are still in the current catalog.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-18-2010, 04:17 AM:

Surely they can't be as expensive as metal cans. And stop calling me Shurly.

If they got a good design team in there, they could easily come up with better closures and a handle that didn't tend to stop the blood flow in your fingers so they fall off after you carry these things up a few flight of stairs.

....someone be sure you grab those fingers and put them in a popcorn bucket of ice and follow us behind the ambulance to the hospital."

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-19-2010, 05:01 PM:

At Christy's Editorial, the blue plastic cases are about 10% more than the steel ICC cases. For instance, a 3-reel case is $91.

Incidently, Scott got me hooked on these SWENCO "handi-grippers" (Christy's calls them "ICC case handle"):

Just snap them over the case handles and carrying cases is a breeze. I frequently have a pair in my pocket...

--jhawk

Posted by Laura Jean Kahl (Member # 5234) on 01-26-2010, 01:50 PM:

the blue "cans" are awesome.

having two cans distributes the weight for sure. i've been toning my arms nicely over the last two years with them. i'm not looking forward to awkwardly lugging around one big box.

technicolor is so silly

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 01-26-2010, 02:24 PM:

Just start doing back strengthening exercises. [Big Grin]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-26-2010, 02:32 PM:

Every theater should have a box full of the grips pictured in John's post. However I am too lazy to order them, especially since the movies seem to find their way into the booth before I arrive to assemble them.

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 01-27-2010, 11:40 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Every theater should have a box full of the grips pictured
in John's post. However I am too lazy to order them

I ordered about half-a-dozen of them awhile back.
The only 'problem' is that although the grips themselves
are not that expensive (only about 4bux each, I think),
Chritsy's Editorial charged about $30 for "shipping &
handling". But I still consider them a good investment.
(And to be fair- - Christy's threw in a bunch of "free"
note paper & pens with their name printed on them!)

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-27-2010, 12:45 PM:

..or, you can carry a pair of leather gloves in your back pocket when bullying the cans/boxes around.

I've learned way in the past on how to carry cans without busting up the hands and that is to us the first two joints of the fingers instead of the joints where finger and palm meet-make your fingers in sort of a hook fashion.

I can lug 4-reel cans like this and not hurting my hands in the process.

-Monte

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 01-27-2010, 01:20 PM:

I found those Swenco handi-gripper/ICC case handles type plastic handles at The Container Store here in NYC for about $1.25-$1.50 each. (in the kitchen area of the store)

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-09-2010, 02:57 AM:

TES will never ship more than 6 reels in a single box?

quote: Tim Burke from TES
Technicolor will not put more than 6 film reels in one box. For 7 and more reel films, we will use two boxes.

Both of my prints of Girl Who Played with Fire came in orange TES boxes. The movie is 7 reels... all in one box.

Sounds like Tim Burke made a promise that he didn't have the authority to keep. He was probably just the relayer of information, but his name was attached to the info. My experience with the boxes is that they are no different in any capacity from the Deluxe boxes other than the color. I have seen Velcro® on the Deluxe lids before. It doesn't really help much. The boxes are no more sturdy nor easier to carry. In fact, I'd say the little "latch" (for lack of better term) is worse than the Deluxe "latch". It is much more difficult to insert and remove. Maybe some K-Y would help.

Bottom Line: You clearly cannot trust anything that TES says. They also spent a lot of R&D money to come up with something exactly like something else that already exists.

Posted by Tony Ratcliff (Member # 1196) on 07-10-2010, 10:01 PM:

The Technicolor prints I've gotten for the last three films have come in an orange box, but NOT the box pictured on the first page of this thread.
The orange boxes I've received are identical to the DFS boxes, just orange instead of gray.

Are these the boxes you all are seeing out there?

I've yet to see one of the boxes described in this thread.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 07-14-2010, 06:55 AM:

our "prince of persia" came in 2 orange boxes with handles on top instead of on the side as pictured on page 1. they were fantastically easy to carry. maybe the best boxes i've encountered (except for the latch itself as joe notes). the contents on the other hand....

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-14-2010, 01:17 PM:

Yea, that was nice, but the rest of TECH shipments have been the classic "one box", 50 to 65 lb, shipments.

...somebody just doesn't like us-why they punish us with all the weight on one side when we have to carry them up to high extremes in the building.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-27-2010, 08:15 AM:

Last night, I got a 7-reel print from TES in two smaller boxes (same type and construction as the larger ones). Each holds four reels each. I had not seen these before, but they are awesome. They weigh less than cans and are easier to carry. This doesn't really solve the TES/UPS issue of multiple-part shipments, but they are a good idea in every other respect.

I can only see two potential problems with these. First, the boxes are a bit tight when filled with four plastic reels...though that has the advantage of holding the reels firmly in place. Second, they will probably disintegrate over time. As long as the supply is replenished, however, I will be happy if these become more common.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-27-2010, 10:27 AM:

The four-reel boxes are indeed quite cool. I received an entire print in one a few weeks back.

Yes, they deteriorate fast and will need to be constantly replaced, but an increased landfill is worth it! If I were a hippie I'd be yelling at TES for the move away from cans for the environmental impact alone. Good thing I hate the environment!