This is topic Archive / fragile film handling - plate system/tower suitable? 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=011638

---

Posted by Dan Judge (Member # 8175) on 04-10-2014, 10:20 AM:
 
Hi, this is my first post and I am quite eager to have your opinions on a upgrade that is soon to take place in our small University cinema (The Void Cinema). The booth is quite cramped and currently has two 35mm projectors and a data projector (a decent panasonic 6000 lumen, 1080p offering..) in the middle. The 35mm operate with a change-over for archive films and more fragile film and from a plate/vertical tower system for polyester film. This has been the set up for sometime and we are finally getting a 4K DCP projector (Sony SRX-R510P). The issue is space. We cannot comfortably have all three so we are considering putting one of the 35mm projectors into storage.

The problem lies with what we show. The main protectionist has always been told and insists, that non-polyester film stock, that is more fragile, cannot be played from the tower. As this is totally adjustable and merely 'pays off' and 'takes up' the film going into the projector through back tension I don't see why it cant be used for the same film that is loaded on the projector itself.

http://www.epsomandewellhistoryexplorer.org.uk/images/TowerDataSheet.jpg

As for archive footage, some prints will have to be sacrificed, as they cannot be cut or joined and rely on a change over.

One of the proposed set ups would have the 4K projector on a trolley and disconnected from the whole AV system, where the original intention was to have it at the centre and everything routed through it.

My question is, in your experience, should we be able to run non-polyester stock from the Westrex tower? We then can omit one 35mm projector and still have the capability to run most 35mm prints but also benefit from the joys of 4K and a more manageable workspace.

[Sorry if this has been a tad long-winded]


 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 04-10-2014, 10:41 AM:
 
In my opinion a platter system would be far gentler on all film. If you can fit a platter.
Of course a tower can run old film but it's got to be adjusted very well and even then,a platter system beats it for gentleness.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 04-10-2014, 10:48 AM:
 
Dan,

Towers were around for about twenty years before polyester came into widespread use for normal 35 mm prints, so triacetate prints were run on them for many years. However, such prints may be getting more brittle with age and towers can be difficult to start at the best of times. If you have to use one then I'd suggest splicing fifty feet or so of polyester onto the head of the print, so that's what is running through on startup.

Is there no possible way that you can make room for the three projectors?
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-10-2014, 10:56 AM:
 
Also many archive prints do not allow for spliceing reels togather
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-10-2014, 11:10 AM:
 
None of the major archives that screen prints in UK rep cinemas (principally the BFI, Imperial War Museum and the regional archives that have a few 35mm prints) will allow the heads and tails to be cut - it's that simple.

When I worked in British cinemas I showed the odd one from a platter or tower by leaving the heads and tails attached, and dousing the picture and muting the sound as each tail and head went through, the audience first having been warned that there would be a 1-2 minute pause every 20 minutes or so. But that was usually only in a festival context and after long and tortuous negotiation.

We can debate the pros and cons of this intransigence endlessly. It's a policy that dates back at least to the 1970s. I don't know where it got started, but I would guess that a projectionist at somewhere like the NFT advised the BFI that platters and towers are inherently dangerous to prints, and that policy recommendation has just stuck. I still find it astonishing that many archives are perfectly happy for their prints to be run on poorly maintained changeover installations (I have screened literally dozens of BFI prints with serious damage on reels 1, 3 and 5 or 2, 4 and 6, suggesting a major problem with one of the two projectors used to show it in a changeover configuration), but will not even contemplate allowing their use on a state-of-the-art, well designed and perfectly maintained platter/tower installation, with the prints being handled by careful professionals.

As the manufacture of film stock is now winding down and we're rapidly approaching the point at which archives will not be able ot replace the release prints in their collections, however much money can be thrown at the problem, the restrictions they impose on screenings are likely to increase. If you want to be able to show archive prints, my gut feeling is that you really need to keep the two 35mm projectors.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-10-2014, 11:28 AM:
 
Could you keep both film projectors and let the 4K projector replace the data projector?

Your main projectionist is misinformed about platters not being safe for acetate film. As pointed out (above) platters were around for a few decades before polyester base arrived on the scene.

But it is true that you won't be allowed to use archival prints...

..or, quite possibly, you won't be able to borrow any film prints at all...

...because, in a sense, every film print is now archival.

Everyone's getting picky about who to lend their prints to. It isn't just the "archives."
 

---

Posted by Steve Moore (Member # 4753) on 04-10-2014, 12:00 PM:
 
Just looked at the photo of your projection room on the university website, a nice tidy install, but yes I see one machine will have to go. Are those westar projectors too? I have run a few old 60s prints on my tower quite recently here in Leeds, with no apparent problems, at least for a 1 off run. Though those towers are certainly not the most gentle machines with film, and less so if the film is longer than 2 hours (gravity is not your friend with longer films) I don't see it would be a problem running an occasional film on one machine; as you say it just depends if you are allowed to take the head and foot off the print. (I have received several in the past where I was told NOT to remove leaders and run on C/O only to find them already unattached when the print arrived.) Unfortunately it might not be an issue much longer as more and more things we receive from BFI are DCP only now anyway.
 

---

Posted by Dan Judge (Member # 8175) on 04-11-2014, 05:25 AM:
 
Thanks so much for your opinions, I was wondering how active these forums would be.

We are trying our best to fit everything in but ultimately it seems like it will be very cramped and not ideal. We have though about putting the 35mms on rails, the 4k on a trolley but manoeuvring then all around would be a bit of a circus act. It would not be ideal but that is the goal (any sugggestions?).

Leo - If, and im sure it can, the tower can be configured and gently tweaked during the presentation, im sure dousing the footer-header will be acceptable. Our bread and butter is the film course, very little is commercial (if any for 35mm!).

Manny - One of the intentions was to get the NEC 4K laser projector and just use that for everything (a tad expensive at £80k+) but with the Sony we feel power point presentations would not be great use of such a projector so we want to limit its use to Films only. Plus, its a width issue really. The 4K projector still needs to squeeze in-between the two 35mms.

Steve - They are Westrex too (as far as i can tell). Im guessing the settings could be adjusted midway through it the tensions are getting too much on the high side. But realistically, most archive prints are 80-100 mins anyway.
 

---

Posted by Steve Moore (Member # 4753) on 04-11-2014, 09:32 AM:
 
With the tower, on older films I have tended to keep the pay off just enough to stop the film drooping, and lower slightly the number as the payoff gets less full; and the reverse for the take up; as in every half an hour or so add around 10 or 15 into the take up, so that it does not wind on too sloppy and then start to slip on the spool. I have certainly run some 50s and 60 prints that have been far less than perfect (sticky surface) off mine, but just keep an eye and keep adjusting. Even modern brand new prints get damaged with continual daily playing, compared to a platter or small spool.I've never seen one of your model projector actually ever running (seen several in states of disrepair)
 

---

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 04-11-2014, 10:56 AM:
 
Handled properly there is absolutely no reason you can't run acetate prints on a Westrex tower. I did for many years

The 5035 tower is adjustable for both pay-off and take-up tension. Contrary to popular belief you shouldn't need to adjust tensions once it's running settled.

I've got a pdf of the manual if that's any help.
 

---

Posted by Steve Moore (Member # 4753) on 04-11-2014, 11:18 AM:
 
Pete, I agree, and never normally adjusted the tension, only on older stuff which had a tendency to curl up at the edges or had been badly stored. Some of the films have run might not have been stored in the most perfect archive conditions!
 

---

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 04-11-2014, 11:28 AM:
 
Just done the same as Steve, Westrex 7000s! Those must be the only working ones left now.

They can be a bit brutal on startup with a tower, but if set up right then it's no problem. It's also worth having a 'floating hub' spool on the take up.
 

---

Posted by Dan Judge (Member # 8175) on 04-11-2014, 05:22 PM:
 
I'd love a copy of the manual Pete. So the westrex 7000s are quite old? Apparently, they used to belong to Elton John.

We are having a meeting with the course leader to discuss our options on Monday. If we can run most prints on one that would be great as we'd have a spare if one ever broke down and was unrepairable.

I'll post some before and after pictures at some point too.

Thanks again.
 

---

Posted by Steve Moore (Member # 4753) on 04-12-2014, 08:41 AM:
 
I would like to come see those running at some stage. (thank's Pete, never knew the model number). I think we have part(s) of one in a back room at Skipton.
 

---

Posted by Michael Putlack (Member # 6523) on 04-12-2014, 10:55 PM:
 
They are making lifts now so that you can put a digital projector on the back wall and just bring it down for maintenance and bulb changes. Maybe this is worth looking into?
 

---

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 04-13-2014, 05:14 PM:
 
^^^The general consensus for those is a giant NO, especially with an existing useable booth, but it is certainly an option
 

---

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 04-13-2014, 06:36 PM:
 
What about rails?

If you want to keep 35mm - I think it doesn't make too much sense to give up change-over capability - simply because sooner or later every available 35mm print will be an archive copy.

Although as a mainstream cinema we gave up changeover operation 18 years ago, I still think it is a presentation form worth to keep if possible.

(picture of booth) hmm, I see, even with the Sony between the two 35mm, it would be no problem to operate the Sony from the back, but changeover operation would be nearly impossible because the Sony would block access to the left machine.

It would be possible, though, to put the Sony on rails, if there is enough space behind it for temporary dislocation for changeover operation.

- Carsten
 

---

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 04-15-2014, 02:41 AM:
 
We've done rails in a few locations. It works well!
 

---

Posted by Dan Judge (Member # 8175) on 04-15-2014, 06:10 AM:
 
The plan is HOPEFULLY to move the right 35mm projector to the far right of the porthole (and extend it for viewing), this should give enough space to install the Sony 4K and also operate the righthand 35mm projector.

Otherwise, it is a Christie Solaria One(which seems a bit naff compared to the Sony 4K) next to the righthand projector and the righthand projector on rails.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-15-2014, 07:42 AM:
 
Have you considered using a viewing port for the D-cinema machine?

One local theatre did this--they put the D-cinema projector on a base with wheels and added a twist-lock power connector to it. It rolls into the space on the operator side of the 35mm projector (projecting through the existing large-ish viewing port) and two pins fit through the base into holes in the floor to lock the assembly into place. The whole thing rolls out of the way when they show film in that auditorium. I am told that it takes about half an hour to line everything up, so a mixed film/video program could never be done there, but it works fine for the occasional film screening.

Obviously, this would not work if you have very small viewing ports.

Unfortunately, the whole discussion of platters/towers being safe for film is effectively moot if the people who are providing prints to you have policies against running them on those systems.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-15-2014, 10:12 AM:
 
And furthermore, in the case of many of the larger non-profit archive institutions, those policies are deeply entrenched and in some cases date back to the invention and initial rollout of the long-play film transport itself.
 

---

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 04-15-2014, 12:03 PM:
 
Dan, I don't think anyone on here would support your description of a Solaria One as "a bit naff compared to the Sony 4K".
 

---

Posted by Antti Nayha (Member # 4980) on 04-16-2014, 10:33 AM:
 

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

It's a policy that dates back at least to the 1970s. I don't know where it got started, but I would guess that a projectionist at somewhere like the NFT advised the BFI that platters and towers are inherently dangerous to prints, and that policy recommendation has just stuck.

---

quote: Antti Nayha

---

The "changeovers only" (or at the very least "no splicing allowed") policy is enforced by the International Federation of Film Archives (FIAF), which probably explains its ubiquity.

---