Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Running 70mm print from 3in cores

This is topic Running 70mm print from 3in cores 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=012277

Posted by Steve Roberts (Member # 9544) on 02-27-2018, 02:23 AM:

Has any one here read anything about the cinema in Portland Oregon that ran a polyester 70mm print of Cleopatra off of 3 inch cores on split reels?
This did not surprise me at all as today's projectionist are not trained the same way we older guys were. I my day I would not run a kids Saturday morning show from cores.

In their defence if the film came with the split spools they may well have thought that is how it was to be shown and not knowing any better that is what they did.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-27-2018, 08:06 AM:

What is your objection to feeding film into a projector this way? When film was in mainstream use, studio screening rooms, post houses, lab screening rooms and that sort of place would run film that way all the time. Assuming that the split reels are in good condition (no sharp or bent edges), that the film pack had been given a slightly tighter wind than an archival wind during inspection, and that the back tension on the feed spindle had been set to take account of the small film pack diameter towards the end of the reel, I don't see a problem. In fact, I'd rather they played a print from split reels in good condition than on beat-up house reels.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-27-2018, 09:16 AM:

Well, the 3 inch cores are not really a good idea for 70mm. Typically the reel arm tension is set for house reels and does the projectionist really know how to re-adjust the clutches properly? From what I've seen I'd say probably not.

No objection to the splits from me either as long as larger cores are used and the tensions are properly adjusted. 70mm house reels typically have 10 inch hubs!!! Larger reels to accommodate two 70mm reels have 6 or 8 inch hubs. But running from the three inch cores was a dangerous idea that likely put the print in jeopardy.

Mark

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 02-27-2018, 09:42 AM:

I agree with Mark and would also add you might end up with focus problems getting toward the end of the reel. Maybe less sensitive issue for Polyestar than Cellulose.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-27-2018, 12:40 PM:

You'd also likely have big problems with wow and flutter getting towards the end of the reel on a projector like a Simplex 70mm where there is no feed sprocket.

Mark

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 02-27-2018, 02:12 PM:

I'd like to see a video of that reel spinning at 120RPM by reel's end - hopefully without the aforementioned tension problems!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-27-2018, 06:26 PM:

Leo, a 3 inch core, even if the feed clutch tension is reduced, is still a painful brute force pull on the film that is spinning even faster than 35mm at the end of the reel. All of the labs I've been to have various motorized feeds for running off of cores, so they can control the torque exactly. This theater does not have that.

This should not have been done. Apparently this is the ONLY print too. This is no way to treat an archival print!

Posted by Sascha F. Roll (Member # 9043) on 02-27-2018, 08:22 PM:

It‘s even a print off the original 65mm camera negative, absolutely stunning. Saw it last september.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-27-2018, 09:19 PM:

Brad - point taken about rock 'n roll projectors in labs and screening rooms having motorized feed spindles.

What was going through my mind was the dogmatic "never play from a split reel" approach, to the exclusion of all other factors, and I was comparing it to the Pavlovian "reel to reel = good / platters = bad" belief that is taught in film archiving schools.

I've encountered so many prints (16, 35 and 70) that have been brutalized by sharp and bent house reels that I wasn't ready to pass judgment on this venue without being in possession of all the facts. Agreed totally that the small diameter of the last 200-300 feet of 70 on a a 3" core makes for a scary rotation speed on the feed spindle.

This is not something I'd do out of preference, but if I were faced with a "lesser of two evils" choice between beat-up house reels and split reels in good condition, I'd want to evaluate all the relevant variables before making a decision.

Of course any venue running reel-to-reel prints should have a sufficient supply of house reels in good condition on which to mount all the prints in good time for their screenings. But in arthouse venues that have a high throughput of prints that play one show only, that can be wishful thinking.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-27-2018, 10:50 PM:

Leo, I know ideally you would want to have all reels heads up and in a line (or stack) before the show starts, but if a changeover theater is THAT short in supply of reels, they could've easily pulled it off with 4 reels and simply had everything tails out on cores before the show started to rewind to reels as each reel was called for (and the prior reel became available).

Instead what happened was one of two things:
1. The projectionist didn't care.
2. The projectionist didn't know any better.

I find neither acceptable.

Posted by Jean-Pierre Gutzeit (Member # 7275) on 03-02-2018, 05:50 PM:

3 inch cores are in my opinion neither suitable for 16mm, 35mm nor for 70mm during a running projection without "dancer control" (4 quadrant control). [Sorry for translation problems from german to english.] Each split reel runs in the projection more instable and restless than a correctly aligned projection reel. Split reels are narrower than projection reels and comparable to transport reels. On the majority of existing universal projectors (35mm&70mm), transport reels run with unwanted tendency to jump out of the film laterally from guide rollers.

From CLEOPATRA several 70mm LPP prints must exist since 2004. The first print I saw in 2005: a print struck of the original negative, but with fluctuating color and light balance and a complete departure from the usual additive printing in Zero Close cut with 96 images in the fade. The second print I saw in 2009 as a print of the Internegative with extremely fluctuating color and light balance and frightening graininess. Another print run in Oslo should be much better, allegedly an archive print that was not distributed. It is doubtful that the performance of the labs at the time of the first run prints was anything approached. The last flawless Fox-print that I had seen was ALIEN 3 from 1992. After that it went downhill steeply with the 70mm printing.

Posted by David Kornfeld (Member # 9964) on 03-11-2018, 01:27 PM:

Heres a picture of whats being discussed here:

Obviously, this should never be done: the damage to the print can be irreparable.

Does anyone know which theatre did this? Theres certainly no good excuse for it.

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 03-11-2018, 03:59 PM:

Hollywood Theatre, Portland Oregon You Tube Video

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-11-2018, 05:19 PM:

Sheesh! If they can't afford some used or even new 70mm reels they ought to get a kickstarter going. In the mean time, someone ought to alert all the film distributors currently handling 70mm prints and warn them away from booking their prints into this place.

Mark

Posted by Tim Androes (Member # 9010) on 03-11-2018, 07:44 PM:

In the video it looks like the take-up reel is a 35mm floating hub reel being mounted on a 70mm take-up shaft.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-12-2018, 10:31 AM:

quote: Tim Androes
In the video it looks like the take-up reel is a 35mm floating hub reel being mounted on a 70mm take-up shaft.

That's very possible as many DP-70 do not have interchangeable 35/70 spindles.

Mark

Posted by Synnove Vikstrom (Member # 10416) on 04-22-2018, 05:55 PM:

Long time lurker here. Just wanted to say that I got in touch with the Hollywood and they denied the accusation that they ran Cleopatra, or any other 70mm print, via three inch cores, and took offense that someone would suggest that they did.

I'm not a projectionist, so I cannot speak as to the technical side of things. I will say that Hollywood has been showing 70mm for several years now, and in every showing I've attended it's been a perfect presentation. To be frank: I'm not sure Paul Allen's Cinerama would lend their print of 2001 (which Allen himself paid to be struck) to the Hollywood for the weekend if they'd a reputation for damaging prints.

Posted by David Kornfeld (Member # 9964) on 04-23-2018, 10:12 AM:

quote: Synnove Vikstrom
Just wanted to say that I got in touch with the Hollywood and they denied the accusation that they ran Cleopatra, or any other 70mm print, via three inch cores, and took offense that someone would suggest that they did.

Sounds great. Now please explain the photograph.

I hate to be a gadfly, but the actions Ive been seeing from the Hollywood do not fill me with confidence. That photograph was posted on an alternative forum, & a thread followed, criticizing the [then unnamed] Hollywood for a major error, one that may have permanently damaged the only circulating 70mm print of that title.

Had the Hollywood owned up to their mistake -- "yeah, we blew it; sorry; we've spoken to the people responsible & this will never happen again" -- I sincerely doubt anyone would continue to hold this against them. But that isnt what they did. Someone from the Hollywood contacted the administrators of the alternate forum & had the thread deleted, which is as sure an admission of guilt as -- well -- the photograph that shows that they did, indeed, run Cleopatra off three inch cores. I mean, come on.

We all make mistakes. Ive been in this craft for longer than I care to admit, & I still make mistakes. Youre dealing with a thin piece of plastic running through a machine: mistakes will inevitably be made. When you make one, you own up to it. You learn from it. You grow from it. But what you DONT do is to try to sweep the mistake under the carpet, pretend it never happened, & then send someone to a forum to claim -- against clear photographic evidence! -- that it didnt! And saying, in addition, that theyve taken "offense" by the "suggestion" that theyve done what the picture clearly shows!

It's not honourable, Synnove Vikstrom. It's the way of a scoundrel, & we have enough of those to deal with right now, without the unwelcome addition of more.

Posted by Synnove Vikstrom (Member # 10416) on 04-24-2018, 02:56 AM:

As mentioned, I'm not a projectionist, so I won't make a foolish attempt to explain what is seen in the photo.

I am somewhat curious how this photograph was obtained, and the circumstances present when it was taken; whether it really is from the Hollywood's projection room at the time they screened Cleopatra.

That being said, if they are innocent of the charged being levied at them (which is indeed a possibility), I do not see why their desire to prevent slander is somehow an indication of guilt. Would the administrator of this other forum you mention had removed the post had the Hollywood not provided them some evidence, or would they have bowed at the drop of a hat?

It just strikes me as a case of rushing to judgement with limited facts, and is a judgement at odds with the history of the theatre:

-After their fund raising kickstarter to replace missing 70mm projection parts (they are a non-profit so a KS was necessary), they started projecting 70mm films in 2015. Since then they've played many films in the format a year, from new releases to old releases, private and studio owned, without incident. In the case of new releases, where the film is played for several weeks, the presentation looks just as good on the last day as it does on opening night.

-They've been projecting 35mm for far longer, ranging from new films to catalog titles, to very worn privately owned prints, with a great track record.

-Given that their last major investment was to renovate the entrance doors, I don't see how they'd be lacking in funds to pay for reels (those would have been covered in their Kickstarter).

Rushes to judgement in this small of a community can irreparably tarnish reputations. Obviously this is a completely deserved consequence at times, but in this situation, it seems haphazard at this point. Obviously, if what you say is indeed true to the letter, then of course they deserve the repercussions.

For those who want to dig deeper: NW Projection handled the upgrade back in 2015, and can be seen in a video on their home page discussing the project: http://www.nwprojection.com/ . Several shots of the projection room, reels playing, etc.

PS: When I spoke with them, they specifically denied running the film off a three inch core. The individual I spoke with didn't deny using split reels.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-25-2018, 08:53 AM:

quote: Synnove Vikstrom
Would the administrator of this other forum you mention had removed the post had the Hollywood not provided them some evidence, or would they have bowed at the drop of a hat?

That action indicates precisely nothing, except that the operator of the other forum had no desire to become embroiled in an online dispute that risked ending in expensive attorneys' bills.

I agree with you that questions remain to be answered as to where, and in what circumstances, that photo was taken and then published online. Taken at face value, it seems to invite the criticism posted above.

However, such photos can be deceptive. When we did a complete gut and refit of the booth at my last workplace, I was always stopping visitors from taking photos, because I didn't want pictures of an unfinished installation ending up online, perhaps with misleading descriptions of what they showed. For example, all it would have taken is a photo of a reel of scrap film running from a split reel for scratch testing, to have been captioned as showing a reel of the last surviving nitrate print of Casablanca on the projector, and I'd likely have been on the receiving end of an online lynching.

If something like that does apply here, and especially if this photo is not of the booth of the theater in question, I would hope that the management of the venue would be willing to register here and post an explanation.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 04-25-2018, 10:25 AM:

The Hollywood showing 2001:ASO on 70mm:

70mm at the Hollywood!

They evidently have proper reels...

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-25-2018, 10:29 AM:

Synnove,

I saw the other thread that was deleted. The photos were clearly taken and stated as being during the show. It was also clearly proven that happened at the Hollywood booth in the discussions and from the person who was present in the booth. The evidence went on and on.

If the evidence was presented in a court of law, it would be a unanimous decision that it happened and whoever you spoke to was desperately just trying to cover it up by pretending to get offended. It's a typical tactic to try and get people to back off. Let it go. Your debating is only attracting even more attention to their film mishandling actions with the 70mm Cleopatra print, which is apparently exactly the opposite of the reason you registered for the forums in the first place. (Your registration and then immediate defense also makes you seem to be tied in with the theater in some manner.)

Posted by Synnove Vikstrom (Member # 10416) on 04-25-2018, 12:50 PM:

Brad,

My initial reason for registration wasn't for the purpose you suggest*. In any case, I don't have a particular investment in the Hollywood being innocent of the charges as I don't volunteer/work for them (though I guess it's in my best interest for them to keep playing 70mm so I don't have to drive to Seattle ; ) ), and am not seeking quell the attention this matter is accumulating; as I said, if they are indeed guilty, they should suffer the repercussions.

I just happened to be familiar with the Hollywood and their history, and didn't see the evidence to support the accusation. That being said, evidently there was much more specific evidence at this other forum so I guess that settles that, though I'll admit to wondering about the who and why.

*Originally registered to ask about running a external PCM track instead of the that comes with the DCP, and how one would go about syncing that, but by the time my registration was approved I no longer had the question. Have been reading this forum for several years, though.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-25-2018, 10:31 PM:

They probably have proper reels for two reasons.

1. Because of this thread.

2 Because 2001 came on them from Paul Allen.

Mark