Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Multiple Reference Frames (or, What's up with the "acordian" leaders?)

This is topic Multiple Reference Frames (or, What's up with the "acordian" leaders?) 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=011208

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-11-2012, 04:16 PM:

Ever get one of those prints that has six or seven "reference frames" that have all been individually removed and then re-spliced onto the print?

What's up with this!?

C'mon now...

If you really feel the NEED to take a reference frame completely out of the print (for whatever reason) then why keep taking a whole new one? Why not take the same one that the previous BUTCHER(S) took out and put back in?

And, please...if you're gonna splice it back in...

...put it back so it matches the other frames, and not upside-down... or flopped...

...use clear tape -- why would you think the frame is worth saving if you don't think it's worth showing?

I mean... REALLY!

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 04-11-2012, 06:44 PM:

This probably belongs in Hey, You Suck, but yeah, a zillion splices as if everyone who ever handled it had to leave his mark. At least in the days of cement splices they'd just take out the whole damn frame.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-11-2012, 10:00 PM:

I'm not outing a particular film handler, and I'm not simply venting. I really hope someone can clue me us all in as to how this kind of thing happens.

I don't check the "you suck" thread with any regularity, and I would guess a lot of folks (who may have some insight) may disregard that thread 100%.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 04-11-2012, 10:49 PM:

I remember 5 years ago we had a print of Star Wars for our grand opening of a new location. Every head and tale had about 15-20 reference cuts made, all types of splicing tape used. As one of the techs that was there said, it's like the rings on a tree. You can get a sense of the life of this print.

It's a dumb practice that you really don't have to worry about anymore. Yes, some of us will still see this and have to deal with it, but to most it's a thing of the past.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-11-2012, 11:42 PM:

What's a "reference frame"? You mean the piece of paper they stick in the hard drive case? [Razz]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-11-2012, 11:45 PM:

Uh oh, I don't want to say who you're starting to sound like there. [dlp]

Posted by Lindsay Morris (Member # 1430) on 04-12-2012, 02:23 AM:

Its not cos people like cutting out and putting back frames it is simply cos the various idiot booth monkeys are toooooo lazy to peel apart the previous splice where the head and or tail was put back on after plattering.
Cant be bothered so simply whack it in the splicer and CHOMP at the next bit of free film and often as not.... not even the next clean frame up the reel but a couple at a go. So the film gets butchered bit by bit which is totally unacceptable!
I was once standing alongside a fellow operator who did that right before my eyes and when I objected his reply was "takes toooo f---g long to peel apart" Oh come on...it takes about a few seconds extra..made no difference with that guy.
Those accordion splices unless totally removed in a changeover site play absolute havoc in many machines as they tend to lay over as they go through the gate and then the film snaps right at the point the leader hits the machine.
Most disconcerting to any newbie as absolute panic sets in as I experienced last year at an old country DI that I was training some vollies to run the plant there.
One guy when he was making up the film (IE making sure that both sides of the leaders and tails splices were done BOTH sides) missed 2 lots of accordion splices and he copped one film snap as the leader went in and then another vollie copped the other...film everywhere, major panic and I am darn sure they will NOT miss any others in future....was a great demo of what NOT to do.
ANY film that comes through my place goes back MINUS any accordion splices and the heads and tails NOT spliced on but each end cleanly peeled apart and the head and tail neatly tucked into the first/last layer and the whole light firmly taped down, packed in the boxes and sent back like that.
The next guy gets a reel with NO head or tail splice and nice clean ends on which to build his program..IF it is changeover site he then has to tape BOTH sides but at least he does not have multiple floppy bits of film trying to go through a machine right on start up, ripping apart and then totally disrupting the presentation...which is everything. [uhoh]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-12-2012, 09:19 AM:

An angle you may not be considering...

Sending back a reel of film without the leaders being spliced back on is damaging to the beginning and end of each reel. When the next guy starts to unreel the leader, typically when there is no splice the first couple of feet fall off and hit the floor. Damage ensues.

Then at the end of the reel if for any reason the operator isn't winding slow enough to account for no tail leader, the end of the film slaps around. More damage.

I understand your reasoning, but bad film handlers are bad film handlers. There is only so much you can do to prevent one of them from messing up a print. I still say a single sided splice made with good splicing tape is the only way to go. Any accordian frames should be discarded as well, because if they were ran through a projector it would look and sound like a disaster, assuming it makes it through the projector in the first place.

The biggest problem is almost every type of splicing tape out there is absolute crap.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-12-2012, 08:00 PM:

Kurt -- rings on a tree -- that's exactly what it's like!

Lindsay -- I'd say you've probably identified how this ends up happening most of the time -- but some people are clearly removing them and then re-inserting them -- because they end up wrong-way-round or out-of-sequence quite often.

It really is a pleasure to get an old print that doesn't show its age.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-12-2012, 08:09 PM:

I used to do the peel-and-splice routine, but half the time the problem would be that the ends wouldn't butt properly. So I had to cut a frame off of one end or the other to make a good splice. I think this was probably caused by the previous guy just cutting the splice with his splicer rather than unpeeling or ripping it.

I finally gave up and just cut at a new spot by default. But, we were usually the first or second place to use a print so most times I could get by with just cutting a frame at the tail end of the outgoing reel. And I always removed and discarded any "extra" cut-off frames that were still on the print.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 04-12-2012, 08:53 PM:

The additional horror back in the days of 20min changeovers was the creeping cue marks. As the frames got cut away they eventually consumed the cue marks, so all sorts of new ones started being added and creeping up the film. You can imagine how that looked. I'm guessing not many of those prints exist anymore, but it used to be quite common.

Posted by Jock Blakley (Member # 6552) on 04-12-2012, 09:30 PM:

Oh, we still have our fair share of ex-distributor prints from the '70s and '80s that are brilliant in that regard - a huge succession of scratched, punched, inked, and painted cues dancing all over the side of the picture. They look great on screen. [Roll Eyes]

They're also really handy if you're actually trying to use them to make a changeover.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-13-2012, 12:53 PM:

quote: Jock Blakely
They're also really handy if you're actually trying to use them to make a changeover.

I suspect that's one of the reasons why blizzards of multiple cue dots end up on these prints. Once a critical mass of them is there to be confusing enough, projectionists start adding their own simply because they know they can recognise them.

When I got prints like that, I tended to use click strips (two layers of splicing tape on either side of the film, listen for the click as it goes through the projector and use that as the cue) rather than visual cues to time the changeovers. I would of course remove the strips before returning the print. The only exception were really bad prints that had lots of pre-existing splices in the first and last 50 feet of a reel to start with, which would make it difficult to know which click was the right one.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-14-2012, 12:20 PM:

Oh my! "The case of the creeping cues." I love it!

(I refer to them as "cues on parade" or "cues gone wild!")

These prints are VERY much still in circulation.

I use the red china marker. We've discussed (argued?) this issue before but -- the short story is -- I often get prints from archives where they specify that the cues must be removable. So I treat 'em all like archival prints because I know that I'm a creature of habit. I don't own a cue cutter.

And I don't like the idea of "click strips" because the tail end is so often damaged.

"Was that my cue, or was that just a splice?"

White screen.

[Eek!]

My vote is for consistency. I don't want to be listening for cues on one print and looking for them on another. And I certainly don't want to mix-n-match from one reel to the next within the same print.

One day, I'll post pictures of how I make tidy cue marks that don't have the "animated look." We do what we can.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-14-2012, 12:35 PM:

This is where automated changeovers can become VERY useful.

If you look at the way I setup my current screening room, there is a "delay bracket" of rollers. At the beginning of it is the cue detector. I simply place a cue on the tail leader on the first frame I don't want to show on screen. From there I am not handling the ends of the reels at all. No additional cues, no temporary marks (which adds more abuse to the reel through the removal process), etc. The cue is also tremendously easy to take off without ever handling the frames with content on them after the run, or it can be left on because it is just the tail leader at that point.

It also makes it ridiculously easy to find the starting frame, as it is able to be placed in the path after it has left the reel. The result is frame accurate changeovers without handling the content frames of the reel.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-14-2012, 12:41 PM:

One day, Brad. One day...

(But, honestly, that sounds like it takes all the fun out of it.)

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-14-2012, 01:25 PM:

I like Brad's idea, but how many booths really have the ceiling height for something like that? And how many operators would be able to figure it out?

I have often thought that DTS timecode could be used to trigger automated changeovers or provide visual cues (lights, buzzers, etc.) for manual operation, but that would be pretty useless with most prints that play in changeover houses, as most such prints are either old enough or obscure enough to not have DTS.

The irony of all of this is that, at some point in the future, when every print is an archive print, there will be no platters or large reels in commercial use, and everything will play off of 2000' reels in a changeover house. My fear, however, is that these places will be run by the booth monkeys who just got laid off from AMC.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-14-2012, 01:39 PM:

Sure, sure. In a perfect world, Brad's idea would work just fine.

But this isn't a perfect world. I have a hunch that his proposed method is just as likely to fall apart due to human error as the current system. (And it requires a capital investment.)

Before we re-invent this wheel, let me just say:

There is nothing wrong with "the old system." It worked fine for decades. And it still works, provided one knows what one is doing.

Yes, that means that some people will get it and some won't -- and the same is true of the alternative/new methods.

I work in a University setting, where there is an interest in honoring the tradition, and not "dumbing down" the process.

My projectionists are graduate students. So far, none of them has come to us with prior (professional) projection experience. So far, they have all been able to master changeovers in a short space of time. (Yes, they are graduate students, but this isn't rocket science.)

Once the new projectionists have worked a semester as an operator, it makes it easier for them to get the hang of the inspection process (2nd semester), where they learn the importance of interpreting the cues on the film, and determining whether or not those will work "as-is" or if re-marking would be best.

It's really not that hard to learn this stuff. I think the issue has been (and remains) that too many projectionists did not receive proper training. They're doing what they were taught to do, and truly "don't know what they're doing."

Either that, or they are just lazy, self-centered and evil. And I don't want to believe this.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-14-2012, 03:09 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
I like Brad's idea, but how many booths really have the ceiling height for something like that? And how many operators would be able to figure it out?

Ceiling height isn't necessarily an issue. I've seen plenty of installs where the reel was behind the projector due to a low ceiling. Sure it wouldn't be as easy, but anything could be done.

As far as the operators...are you telling me that you are worried about an operator not being able to zig-zag back and forth in a few "Z" patterns, but you are NOT worried about the operator actually being able to thread the projector? Really???

quote: Manny Knowles
There is nothing wrong with "the old system." It worked fine for decades. And it still works, provided one knows what one is doing.

Manny, the "old fashioned" way will continue to damage film. Think about it. Every time that print goes to a new playdate you've got someone handling the ends and running them through a frame counter, making marks on the film (removable marks are just as bad) and so forth. With my solution, a cue is placed on the sprockets on the actual tail leader. The actual film is then only handled by the edges for a normal inspection.

Just because people have done it a certain way for years in no way makes it the best way, and in the interest of film preservation, I couldn't give a flip if the projectionist is "entertained" or "having fun" with the changeovers. We will very soon be at the point where NO MORE FILM WILL BE MADE. At that point these existing films will get worse and worse to the point of everyone believing "geez, film really was crappy".

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-14-2012, 04:28 PM:

Brad, your method would be just fine if everybody would reconfigure to accommodate it.

But, honestly, how likely is that to happen?

quote: Brad Miller
At that point these existing films will get worse and worse to the point of everyone believing "geez, film really was crappy".

We're probably there already.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-14-2012, 05:09 PM:

Everyone doesn't have to "convert". But anyone who does would be inflicting less wear on the film while it is in their possession.

I can't imagine how bad many of these prints must be getting. Even the archive stuff that only gets let out to the (supposed) "best" theaters is absolutely getting wear at the ends of the reels. That's what 20 minute changeovers do when long leaders and proper practices are not followed (which we both know will NEVER change).

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-14-2012, 05:30 PM:

The archives with the good prints don't allow application of foil cues to their prints.

I suppose they might be okay with applying the cues themselves and then requiring all users to leave them intact.

Theoretically...

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-14-2012, 07:54 PM:

Aucuta II cue tape placed over the sprockets (not wrap-around) pulls off easier than 99% of all splicing tape without any residue. Putting a tiny piece of this on the tail leader is far less damaging than marking the projected picture with a red china marker and then wiping it off.

If we both started with a brand new print, you applied your grease pencil marks and wiped them off vs. me applying a tiny piece of cue tape and then removing it...yours would be the one they could detect.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 04-14-2012, 08:10 PM:

quote: Manny Knowles
But this isn't a perfect world.

Of course it is, everything happens EXACTLY the way it is supposed to [Wink]

Feeling Zenish tonight

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-14-2012, 10:30 PM:

quote: Manny Knowles
The archives with the good prints don't allow application of foil cues to their prints.

The problem is that there is no standardised system of applying non-visual cues for an automated changeover system, such as the one Brad has built. Indeed, other than Brad's theatre, I've only ever come across one other that ran automated changeovers (it used a heavily modified Component Engineering setup, and did require cues to be placed alongside picture footage, though not actually in the frame area).

Archive prints generally fall into two categories: ones the archive made themselves, and one they acquired along with master elements. The former wouldn't get cue dots put on them in the normal course of events, as they'd be printed from the internegative that was the end result of the preservation process (and thus wouldn't have cue dots punched out of it), not one that was created in the post-production process to have a mass run of release prints struck from it (and thus would). Some of these prints have cue dots on that the archive has put there using something like a Clint Phare scriber, but others don't, especially if the printing was outsourced to a third party lab and no-one at the archive thought to tell them to put cues on the print.

So occasionally you do get an archive print with no cues and instructions banning you from adding any. Whenever I've had one I've always used click strips, with the archive's consent (either because I knew from previous dealings that they were OK with that, or because I asked them first).

If the archive's print is an acquired one - probably from the film's original release run - then obviously, it'll almost certainly have the cues on.

The other issue with click strips is the noise of the projector and the ambient noise level in the booth. For example, with an FP-20 running in a relatively quiet booth, they sound like gunshots and you'd have to be tone deaf not to hear them. But a GK-37 with a noisy air extraction system in the background is a totally different kettle of fish.

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 04-15-2012, 05:03 PM:

Can you add 6000ft reel capacity, Manny (assuming you don't have such at present)?

That, coupled with Brad's system, would offer ultimate flexibility, i.e. 2000ft or 6000ft changeovers, with or without automation, depending on what condition the prints you receive are in.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-15-2012, 09:34 PM:

We do have 6K ELR capacity but...

(a) many print loans come with stipulations that the print cannot be built
(b) almost all of our shows are single screenings -- not worth the effort to do a buildup and teardown, in my opinion.

Leo -- regarding those archival prints that are from original release period -- many of these are also subject to "creeping cues" and/or "cues gone wild" -- so, in those cases, the cues present on the print are unhelpful.

Regarding Brad's system -- while I personally believe everything he says about it -- and therefore agree that it sounds like a good idea -- I'm not inclined to buy into it if, in practice, I'm not going to be permitted to use it.

Even if we agreed that the china marker causes more damage than a certain standard of foil cue application -- it's still the archive's print, and they get to set the terms of the loan agreement -- I guarantee you that if the archives got together and uniformly adopted a particular standard of "automated changeovers" the repertory cinemas would honor it -- we're simply adhering to the terms of the loan.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-15-2012, 11:48 PM:

Ridiculous.

Show me the studio contract verbage that says you can put nasty grease pencil marks on the film just so long as it isn't a tiny piece of cue tape on the friggin' tail leader that when removed leaves no proof of it ever even being there...unlike the grease pencil.

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 04-16-2012, 08:02 AM:

quote: Manny Knowles
(a) many print loans come with stipulations that the print cannot be built

For sure, but in this case you are receiving prints which, by the sound of it, have already been subjected to a lot of handling, with accordion splices, cues gone wild as you say, etc. They sound more like "platter prints"; in this case, you should be able to build them as this is a far better option than having to make more cues, subject the print to even more handling (applying temp cues), possibly have compromised changeovers, etc. etc.

On the other hand, if prints say have just one splice head and tail, and have received very little handling, then 2000ft changeovers are clearly the way to go.

Like Brad says there should theoretically be no objection to applying temporary foil cues (using the suggested product) in the tail leader area as this is far less intrusive than handling the film in the body of the reel, etc. It's certainly worth pursuing this further.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 04-16-2012, 08:17 AM:

quote: Brad Miller
Show me the studio contract verbage that says you can put nasty grease pencil marks on the film

Manny was talking about archives, not studios (for the most part). I can confirm that at least certain archives tell you to use china marker for cues. I can also confirm they ask you not use Film-Guard on their prints. They may be wrong, but it is their print.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-16-2012, 10:43 AM:

To be fair, they don't target FG (or at least, the archive instruction sheets I've seen don't): they simply tell you not to attempt to clean the film yourself, period. This is probably because there were some pretty gruesome film "cleaning" machines dreamt up and made during the '70s and '80s, including one horror I encountered in a booth once. It was designed to service 16mm prints circulating among schools etc., and passed the film over cotton pad type things under tremendous pressure. Even when soaked in the tricholoroethane fluid with which you were supposed to use it (yup - not only did it ruin films, but gave the operator cancer as well!), it did very little good, and if they dried out, you might just as well be rubbing your film across sandpaper.

This rule, together with allowing chinagraph cues but no others, are symptomatic of the fact that with one or two honourable exceptions (Tim Wagner at GEH, for example, is one of the most careful, knowledgable and dedicated projectionists I've ever met), the people in archives who deal with print loans are not projectionists or booth techs. The know very little about what happens in a booth, and have little or no professional experience of working in one, as a general rule. Therefore, they base many of their rules and policies on what some projectionist told them once in 1976, and haven't had the opportunity to keep up to date with how good practice has evolved. Typically, they're experts about films, not the machinery they run on.

To be fair, of the options currently available to a typical projectionist in a typically equipped booth, chinagraph cues and click strips are probably are the least worst; and as Manny has explained above, there are circumstances in which click strips won't work. I suspect that few archive access offiers would object to the use of foil cues in a system such as Brad's if it was expained to them and if a standardised system could be agreed upon (to prevent the need to stick multiple cues across several feet of the start and end of each reel, in the same way that multiple visual cues are a problem at present).

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-16-2012, 01:46 PM:

Cleaning has never been brought up in this discussion. I fully agree with the archives that they should be the ones providing the cleaning.

Here is a good analogy. This is no different than adding extra tail leader to the last reel of a film on a platter. (Or for that matter the end of the tail leader on reels to protect them, particularly from slapping around on oily floors and cat litter.) When the engagement is over, the extra tail leader is removed and there is no trace it was ever there (but the end of the film goes back in substantially better condition).

The temp cues are the same. There is no reason for a standardization of them if they are placed on the tail leader.

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 04-16-2012, 02:29 PM:

I work in a film archive, myself and four of our staff have been film projectionists. We also deal with film processers, optical printers, contact printers, film scanners, intercines, and projectors almost ever day at work. So I would say we have some idea of how "machines work".

Foil cues are ok with us, though most of prints are machine cued already. The prints that go out are refrence prints, not archival masters.

We also clean our prints when needed with a Ultra sonic CF9200 Lipsner Smith.

quote: Leo Enticknap
This rule, together with allowing chinagraph cues but no others, are symptomatic of the fact that with one or two honourable exceptions (Tim Wagner at GEH, for example, is one of the most careful, knowledgable and dedicated projectionists I've ever met), the people in archives who deal with print loans are not projectionists or booth techs. The know very little about what happens in a booth, and have little or no professional experience of working in one, as a general rule. Therefore, they base many of their rules and policies on what some projectionist told them once in 1976, and haven't had the opportunity to keep up to date with how good practice has evolved. Typically, they're experts about films, not the machinery they run on.

Posted by Doug Thompson (Member # 6546) on 04-17-2012, 07:09 PM:

When I was in the booth, I don't think there were as many brands of splicing tape as there are now. Neutape and Ciro were the only ones of which I was aware. If the existing splice was Ciro tape, you'd play hell peeling it off. And if the previous cut was made with a Ciro splicer and the head and tail weren't cut with the emulsion and sound track the same way round, the resulting splice would gap or overlap. And the matrix which perfed the previous splice was often damaged and ruined the perfs in the film. Bouncing splice, anyone? [Mad]

I tried to keep the previous cuts, really, I did. But after a while, I gave up trying to "peel and reuse."

It did occur to me to remove the extra frames, but I figured that if everyone did so and made clean cuts as though they were making a repair, the leader would get progressively shorter. It seemed best that a changeover house do it instead.

At least it seemed best at the time. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-17-2012, 11:40 PM:

quote: Paul Gordon
I work in a film archive, myself and four of our staff have been film projectionists. We also deal with film processers, optical printers, contact printers, film scanners, intercines, and projectors almost ever day at work. So I would say we have some idea of how "machines work".

My post above yours refered to archives' access officers, not their entire workforces. The general problem (to which there are exceptions) is that the people who truly understand the issues (i.e. the preservation and lab staffs) are not the ones setting the policies and procedures around print loans. In the past decade I've done consultancy gigs revising the technical guidelines and procedures for print loans in two major (as in, national in scale) archives. In one of them, the policies in use had not been revised between 1976 and 2008. The instruction sheet that was sent out to venues was mainly about nitrate precautions, despite the fact that this insitution no longer loaned nitrate prints and hadn't done for decades! How to handle the issue of cue dots is another case in point: adopting an automated system such as the one Brad proposes depends on a critical mass of archive access officers and rep theatre owners and programmers understanding the potential advantages enough to motivate them to invest in it. That, sadly, is the stumbling block.

Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 05-07-2012, 02:11 AM:

Given we are talking about a coming time where there is no new film, a collection of old film with rules trying to prevent further damage, mandatory changeovers, and less cinemas that still have 35mm projection capability, let alone changeover capability, would not the solution be to fit frame counters to projectors?

The print would come with a bit of paper listing frame counts from the start frame to changeover point, and the receving cinema could just enter the numbers into <something> and off you go.

No more china markers, bits of foil, holes or scratches, and altogether less handling of the film.

Posted by Paul Burt (Member # 3743) on 05-13-2012, 09:02 PM:

I inspect quite a lot of archive prints, particularly from Eastman House and MOMA in New York. Both stipulate that 2000' changeovers are mandatory, and that no marks of any kind be added to any reel of their prints. They add their own china marker cues if they have to, and insist that they not be modified. They inspect every reel when it's returned.
Their system works. The prints are typically pristine, dust free and shiny.
Spending money to modify a 35mm changeover system for occasional archive use is beyond the financial capacity of most festivals and repertory houses.

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 05-14-2012, 10:52 AM:

Sure, but what if the system was called a "Digital Changeover System" / DCS?

Suddenly money would be "found", other obstacles would mysteriously fall away, etc. [thumbsup]

David's suggestion is halfway there!

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 05-14-2012, 12:42 PM:

quote: David Buckley
.......would not the solution be to fit frame counters to projectors?

The print would come with a bit of paper listing frame counts from the start frame to changeover point, and the receving cinema could just enter the numbers into <something> and off you go.

How would you account for missing frames/footage between the start and end of the reel? It would cause changeover errors of frames or even feet, both of which would be noticeable.

You idea would work on DTS-encoded prints though.... because the timecode is an absolute and already accounts for any edits or missing footage, it would be dead easy to have a system that triggers both the motor and changeover cues when the timecode count reaches the specifics for each reel.

But the reality of this situation is three-fold:

1: There are damn few changeover venues left, and their days are numbered.
2: In most cases of remaining changeover houses, it is very unlikely that the equipment is being properly maintained in a ready-to-run state. Hell, I can't even get access at UCI often enough to maintain the two rooms I have there.
3: Even if the venues exist and the equipment is ready, there are not enough COMPETENT projectionists left in many cases. Remember a thread recently where it was mentioned that a DC house lost the show, had a 35mm backup but still couldn't get on screen because no one in the 'plex knew how to operate the 35mm equipment? And that was a PLATTER house!

As many of you have seen I have come over to the Dark Side and done DC installs (will be helping with another in June as a matter of fact) and I can see some of the benefits of DC.

BUT, this continual "dumbing down" of the exhibition process will lead to the closing/elimination of film archive distribution. I hold out hope that preservation of even DC content will continue to be done with film, as even if projectors completely disappear 100 years from now, it would be easy for some future society to build a film projector (or telecine-like machine) to be able to show film to the masses.

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 05-14-2012, 06:04 PM:

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
1: There are damn few changeover venues left, and their days are numbered.

Actually the number of changeover venues is set to increase, as remaining film venues will need two machines to access archive and increasingly, other, titles. This is also why new ideas to e.g. handle "problem" changeovers are welcome and valuable.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 05-15-2012, 02:19 PM:

In Ireland perhaps, but at least here in So Cal the trend is the opposite. Even a few Universities I have had contact with have built new facilities without any film capability at all.

Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 05-18-2012, 07:29 AM:

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
How would you account for missing frames/footage between the start and end of the reel? It would cause changeover errors of frames or even feet, both of which would be noticeable.

Heres the thing. We're now talking about the few remaining prints from fairly specialist sources like archivists. They will provide you with the right frame count for the reel. They will check the reels when returned that the frame counts are still the same. If they are different, then something probably quite bad has happened to the print whilst it was out, and they can examine it to see how its been todged.

A frame counter shoudn't be a vastly expensive proposition; film has sprocket holes, and these can be detected optically, using technology not much different to an optical mouse. A bit of software on an old PC and the job is almost done.

As an idea it would have failed back in the changeover days for exactly the reasons you specify; by the time the film has done the rounds the changeover will occur seconds early due to frames being snipped out.

If we get the chance to rebuild our cinema as digital, I've already suggested we should hang on to the changeovers, as one day we might be the only venue within 50 miles that can actually show film. We have a different set of commercial pressures than the multis do, so keeping the beasts is not a bad thing.

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 06-06-2012, 04:33 PM:

quote: Brad
This is where automated changeovers can become VERY useful.

If you look at the way I setup my current screening room, there is a "delay bracket" of rollers. At the beginning of it is the cue detector. I simply place a cue on the tail leader on the first frame I don't want to show on screen.

Hmmm, this sounds like the ideal solution for a 24-hour horror film marathon we do annually. I run most of the prints reel-to-reel. Can you post/email a picture of your setup?

Also, I assume then that there is no "basement" queue detector in place? Or does it use a different type of queueing marker?

-David

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-06-2012, 04:39 PM:

quote: David Buckley
They will provide you with the right frame count for the reel.

Even if they do, I'm not going to "just trust them." I'm going to have to measure that - and I don't want to run entire reels of film -- especially archival -- through a frame counter. That's just nuts.

And I don't have time to do full rehearsals on-screen. Usually, I've got just one showing -- just one chance to get it right. I'm not going to trust that to anybody else's inspection.

Sorry, but this is a wheel I don't want reinvented.

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 06-08-2012, 03:36 PM:

I wish these were problems I thought were going to be around for much longer. As distributors begin to insist on DCP repertory titles these problems will fade away. Unfortunately, also the ability to get any commercial format for most older titles will also fade away. Hope audiences learn to love Bluray and DVD. :-(

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-12-2012, 01:46 AM:

quote: F. Hudson Miller
Unfortunately, also the ability to get any commercial format for most older titles will also fade away.

I hope that's a little pessimistic. For starters, scanning technology is getting cheaper and better all the time. Only five years ago, a 'big iron' scanner such as a Spirit or a Scanity, plus the hardware, software and human resources needed to take an archival film preservation element in one end and output a 2K DCP at the other would cost at least half a million in upfront investment for a system that could process an hour of film a day at most. Half that money will now get you one that runs in real time, and 4K for this ballpark price is just around the corner. We are already at the stage at which the cost of producing a DCP from 35mm preservation elements is no more than that of making a projection print, all relevant factors being equal. Many studio archives and larger commercial collections are already scanning to 4K with lossless compression as their principal digital asset of a given title, and then rendering out whatever other formats are needed from that. Non-profit and government archives will soon follow suit, although the costs involved are still too much for many of them.

The big danger is that most audiences will regard the BD as "good enough", and that if special interest distributors and archives charge significantly more for the DCP, then your rep or cinematheque programmer who has a budget that allows programming two titles on BD or one on DCP, then the technical quality will end up taking a back seat in the list of factors being weighed up.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-12-2012, 08:49 AM:

The studios and archives are already converting older titles to DCP, so there's no question (in my mind) as to whether they'll continue to be available in a professional format. Obviously, they will probably transfer the most profitable repertory titles first -- unless they have restoration plans, in which case, we'll probably have to wait till that happens.

In the meantime, if I have a choice between a beat-up 35mm print and a Bluray -- I'll at least consider the Bluray. A lot will depend on the quality of the video transfer/compression versus the issues with the print. In many cases, Bluray isn't merely "good enough" -- it's better than what you'd get otherwise. That's part of the perception issue. Theoretically, of course film would win. But, in practical terms, "it depends." We're not comparing perfect apples to perfect apples.

The incentive to migrate everything to DCP lies in the fact that a DCP is cheaper to store and ship than a 35mm print, and will last longer than a 35mm print without wear-n-tear. So why wouldn't they go with DCP?

Yes, I realize that the hard drives are subject to wear-n-tear but they're also cheaper to replace than a 35mm print.

And, yes, I'm aware that losing data is a possibility. But I'm not suggesting that they discard negatives or essential elements. After all, they're going to need them again when everything goes to 16K.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-12-2012, 11:49 AM:

quote: Manny Knowles
In the meantime, if I have a choice between a beat-up 35mm print and a Bluray -- I'll at least consider the Bluray. A lot will depend on the quality of the video transfer/compression versus the issues with the print. In many cases, Bluray isn't merely "good enough" -- it's better than what you'd get otherwise. That's part of the perception issue. Theoretically, of course film would win. But, in practical terms, "it depends." We're not comparing perfect apples to perfect apples.

Very good point. A high bitrate (as in, consistently in the high 20s and 30s) BD, mastered from a properly timed intermediate film element on a decent scanner will compare very favourably to a worn, scratched and faded typical 35mm release print from the '70s or early '80s, for example. Likewise, a new archive viewing print of a full-scale restoration project will be a better bet than a single layer BD, transferred one-light from an ancient 16mm film society print and encoded at bitrates in the teens or below.

But my fear is that arthouse and rep programmers will neither be willing nor able to make that sort of comparison (either due to lack of technical knowledge, or the opportunity to compare the BD and print before booking). In the dying days of 16mm, arthouse distributors started selling screening venues licence-only deals to project VHS tapes bought from a store. The cost of screening a title this way was less than half that of renting the 16mm print, and the result was a lot of VHS screenings. This time around, unless distributors price DCP rentals realistically, we're going to see the same result.