Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: What's an "EDB One Sheet"?

This is topic What's an "EDB One Sheet"? in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=000718

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-28-2003, 12:24 PM:

My curiosity has finally gotten the better of me; what does "EDB" stand for in the context of one-sheets? When one orders one-sheets from TES, for some films they are "One Sheet EDB"; others are just plain "One Sheet" (and then there are "One Sheet Revised", etc.).

I suppose the only thing I can conclude is that EDB one-sheets cost $5.00 when other one-sheets are cost-of-shipping only.

--jhawk

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-28-2003, 01:46 PM:

I haven't heard the term "EDB", but one GUESS would be the one-sheets designed for illumination by either back-light, or front-light. As I recall, these need to be printed on both sides to achieve the needed density, and on translucent stock, perhaps making them more expensive to manufacture.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-28-2003, 01:47 PM:

NOTE: EDITED BY AUTHOR TO PARAPHRASE TES'S REPLY RATHER THAN QUOTING THEIR EMAIL VERBATIM.

EDB stands for "Exhibitors Direct Billing". Certain studios charge $5.00 per poster, plus the cost of the mailing tube and shipping. Buena Vista, Lions Gate Films, Columbia Pictures, and Miramax Films are "EDB". Other studios do not have an EDB charge -- the exhibitor only pays for shipping.

[ 01-28-2003, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: David Stambaugh ]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-28-2003, 01:50 PM:

Thanks, I learn something new every day! [Smile]

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-28-2003, 02:22 PM:

I can't say that it seems appropriate for this question to have been handled the way that it was. If the point was to ask TES, well, I'd have done that. *grump*

In any case, John, pretty much all one-sheets do the back-illumination thing...

--jhawk

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-28-2003, 02:46 PM:

I thought the point was to solicit an answer to a question and share the information with others? I guess in the future I will avoid responding to anything from you since you ALWAYS seem to have a problem with anything I say, regardless of how well-intentioned. You and I should just pledge never to read (or at least not to respond to) each other's posts.

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 01-28-2003, 03:28 PM:

John (Hawkinson), why so harsh? It isn't as if David did anything in your name. You asked, and he found an answer. Perhaps your question piqued his curiosity as well, and he shared the answer to his own query. It really isn't much different than someone providing a weblink in response to another post. Is that inappropriate as well?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-28-2003, 06:09 PM:

The abovementioned John Shollenberger of TES has always been not only helpful, but quick to respond when I've written in to them.

The phone service people have been very nice lately too.

So as bad as TES can be, I do think they have some people there who really want to help us and are willing to listen to suggestions.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-28-2003, 06:15 PM:

Let me see if I can say this without offending anyone or terribly prolonging the sort of discussion I don't think is appropriate for Film-Tech. Anyone is free to raise concerns they have to me in private email. I hope the public discussion stops here.

I certainly was not attempting to attack David as a person, and I apologize for coming across as if I had.

It's easy to forget that posting on Film-Tech is really posting publically on the Internet, and if it wasn't your intent to ask something publically on the Internet, then you shouldn't post at all. I conclude I should not have asked.

As for this case, I think that if someone asks a question on Film-Tech, where it's quite clear the question can be answered by going to a particular external resource, then it's probably not appropriate for people answering the question to go ask that particular external resource; otherwise the initial querrant would have done so.

Further, in this case, I don't really think it's a good idea for people who are not Technicolor customers to be encouraged to contact Technicolor and ask them questions that have no relevence other than to Technicolor customers. Clearly the following is an exaggeration, but I'd be terribly embarassed if asking a [trivial] question about TES on film-tech caused 100 registered film-tech users to send email to TES asking my question.

Personally, I thought it wasn't worth bothering TES with this particular question. So I'm that much more horrified that someone else chose to do so as a direct result of something I did. Sure, it was not done in my name, but it was still a clear direct result.

Mike: Full agreement. John is great; I believe he's the manager of the marketting materials group.

--jhawk

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-28-2003, 06:26 PM:

Yippee! Moderation time... I'll pick on both of you just too be fair: [Smile]

John - Personally I'd be concerned about why I was being billed extra for some posters whereas I was only paying shipping on others. Especially seeing I already pay a fixed promotional material rate to the studios, per screen, every year. If I had've looked early today I could've answered your question... too late.

Dave - Don't forget that the forum rules explicitly state that you are not allowed to quote email's without the senders consent.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-28-2003, 07:47 PM:

Daryl - Point taken. I'll go back and paraphrase it, while still attributing the information to TES.

jhawk - I spent some time with various search engines trying to find the answer to your post and came up with not much (well, there was that one related link...). You probably did the same thing. In the process of searching, I of course came across the TES support page, so I figured, well, I'm here, I'll just ask them. I did not represent myself as an exhibitor or anything remotely like that. I was a member of the general public asking a question, and they were nice enough to answer me (promptly too). It was TES's option whether or not to respond with any information at all. If they had asked me "Are you an exhibitor?", I would have said "No."

[ 01-28-2003, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: David Stambaugh ]

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 01-29-2003, 05:14 AM:

I would be very appreciative of any forum member doing whatever they could to answe a question I had, But thats just me.

Posted by Daniel Boisson (Member # 1027) on 01-29-2003, 09:55 PM:

thanks, now I know what EDB stands for [Smile]

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-30-2003, 12:10 AM:

This is about as ridiculous as it gets. If someone asks a question I do not think the person answering it ought to be criticized for the method they used to come up with an accurate answer (assuming no animals are harmed or other bad things done yada yada). If someone knows the answer, great. If someone doesn't but they want to take the time to look it up--sure maybe the questioner could have done it but they didn't; they asked here. Are we going to criticize John Pytlak because he found an answer online for us? Jeez louise.

OK, from now on if someone wants to specify limitations on how an answer is to be obtained then they better specify them with the question otherwise all methods are fair game (see previous comment about harm to animals and other bad things. Oh, and by bad things it means things ordinarily perceived as bad which an email to TES or whatever is not.)

Alrighty...now that that is cleared up I'd like to know who was Vice President under President Tyler. But only answer if you know...no books...no internet...and PLEASE absolutely no emails to TES. [evil]

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-30-2003, 02:05 AM:

Didn't John Tyler choose NOT to appoint a vice president?

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-30-2003, 07:14 AM:

Close enough for government work!

In the past when a VP became prez the VP office remained empty. When Lyndon Johnson became president after Kennedy was killed the Consitution was amended so the office could be filled by appointment and confirmation by both houses of Congress.

This led to Ford becoming VP under Nixon after Agnew's resignation (due to a scandal when the latter was governor of Maryland). When Nixon resigned and Ford took office he was the only president who had never been elected at all (not as president, not as veep). Ford in turn hired Nelson Rockefeller as his VP.

Tyler took office when the first President Harrison caught pneumonia at his inauguration and died about a month later. He was never elected on his own and therefore never had a VP at all. But I'm sure he loved posters.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-11-2003, 09:47 PM:

Then there was Dan Quale, when the country collectively WISHED there was no such thing as a Vice-President. [Eek!]

John H. said: "...John (P), pretty much all one-sheets do the back-illumination thing..." Well, kind of. If you illuminate a standard 1-sheet from behind, yes, it will be back-lit, but the problem with that is, the paper base structure is combined with the image created by the ink on the front side. This washes out the contrast of the inked image and adds the paper texture to what is seen from the front.

To improve the contrast and elimintate the "image" of the paper base mixing with the image of the ink surface, a mirror image is inked on the back side, matching perfectly the placement of the image on the front. I've heard this called a "transparancy" 1-sheet. When light is passed through the two litograph inked images on both sides of the paper, the color of each is combined and the poster takes on a much richer look with greater color saturation and contrast, and free from the paper image.

The down side is that, for reasons that I have never found any explanation, the ink on the transparancy 1-sheets tends to crack at the folds much more readily than do regular 1-sheets. Go figure.

And that, boys and girls, is way more than anyone wants to know about 1-sheets. [Razz]

Frank

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-11-2003, 09:52 PM:

Kodak makes a material called "Duratrans" that offers great image quality, illuminated by either reflected or transmitted light. Available for large format ink-jet printers too, for small/custom production runs.

Kodak Duratrans

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 02-11-2003, 09:56 PM:

Sorry, I was unclear. When I said "Pretty much all one-sheets do the back illumination thing," I meant "Pretty much all one-sheets are two-sided with the mirror image on the back."

Where "all" is defined as "all one-sheets ordered by exhibitors for display purposes, not necessarily ``one-sheets'' available through other channels for other kinds of promotional purposes."

You fold your one-sheets? Ugh.

--jhawk

Posted by Richard C. Wolfe (Member # 431) on 02-11-2003, 11:13 PM:

Many years ago, I'd say about 30, I had a theatre with backlighted poster cases. All the posters at that time as I remember it were only printed on one side. I thought they looked great backlit. I suppose if compared to the double printed ones used today they wouldn't be as good, but there was nothing wrong with the way they appeared.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-11-2003, 11:25 PM:

Is that true, that the standard poster is now the double printed type? I thought the typical poster was still one sided with the more expensive two sided ones requested by those with backlit cases.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 02-11-2003, 11:31 PM:

I rarely ever see one-sided posters anymore. In fact I haven't see too many one-sided posters in the last 10 years or so.

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 02-14-2003, 01:04 AM:

Ah Daryl, you're obviously not working in an art-house (if you can call half this crap art!). I'm sitting here looking at my poster storage and I'd say a good 75% are single-sided.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 02-14-2003, 02:40 AM:

Ah, but I have been. Since we hold must films for about 8 weeks, I only see about 3 single sided posters a year at that venue.

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 02-14-2003, 12:32 PM:

Hmmmm - you must be getting the GOOD art films!