70mm film handling done (sorta) wrong!

[Andrew Walker]

Hi Andrew - Welcome to the forums. There are lots of people here with a serious passion for quality film presentations. It's pretty clear to me that Tony just was horrified to see the leader being projected on screen because he didn't realize that was just the junk "test reel" with no audience. Don't take offense, misunderstandings happen and text is easily misinterpreted. (Also your print of Oppenheimer from Bridgeport Village was in the group of best-returning-condition prints, so don't sweat it.)

Victor - I don't think you have ran one of those old "Tango Test" reels (which was a short clip of Hateful 8 followed by a short clip of The Master) that Andrew is running from about 13-16 minutes into the video. Those had the original red/green "Christmas" leaders which were introduced in 2015 for Hateful 8. Unfortunately those leaders were so short the team assembling the prints had to add a slug of black with clear framelines in the middle of it. So when you see Andrew threading on black frameline leader in the video, that is the added slug to make the original Christmas leader long enough to reach back to the takeup platter. In essence Andrew DID thread on the Christmas leader.

FYI - The leaders are currently as long as they are because the majority of platter prints that had shorter leaders suffered BADLY in the first minute due to the projectionist having to push too many buttons and watch over too many things during startup, meaning he is distracted and not closely watching the platter when everything is starting up (and often not able to act fast enough even if something wrong was seen).

Long platter leaders like we send out now which force the projectionist to stand there for a couple of minutes solves that problem because there is nothing else to do but to check over the leader running down at full speed for the film possibly dragging off of a roller or a loop slapping, a brain wrap happening, a takeup platter not actually taking up, etc. The long leaders are there to protect the FEATURE and historical evidence over the last several years has proven that the practice of using long leaders works very, very, very well as long as there isn't some idiot bypassing them in some manner. (You know the type. They're those "I was taught to put da 8 in da gate by mah great granddaddy" people. The same ones that simply cannot grasp the concept that better ways to handle film have been learned over over the years and they are hung up on grossly outdated practices which are not in the best interest of the long-term health and presentation quality of the print just because "that's how I was taught".

Now before some reel to reel snob come in screaming about terrible they think platters are and romanticizing the fetish of watching reels spin and making changeovers, I'll just point out that barring a misthread or a physical issue with a specific platter, the platter prints in almost every single situation come back in better condition than the 2-projector changeover theaters. It's just a fact. Just like with platter prints though, extending leaders on the changeover prints has also proven to help massively to minimize the dirt and scratches at the reel ends. This of course assumes the projectionist doesn't handle the Academy/SMPTE/Fotokem heads or tails at all, otherwise the prints quickly become one of those where the viewers can tell when the changeovers are about to happen before the motor cue even hits the screen because the image becomes crusty with the dirt and scratches. It's all preventable, but people have to care.

That's good to hear about that Oppenheimer print. I always wonder what becomes of those prints after long runs like I had...10 weeks.

I get it that what is typed out can be misinterpreted. Just seemed to sound like it was a call to action to give me grief about what I had in my video. Either way its good to be on a forum where a bunch of people still have a passion for running film.

The only thing I'm going to disagree with you on is what you said about the condition of plattered prints vs prints that have only had change overs (reel to reel) done to run the shows. I've worked with patters a bunch but I've run more film using a reel to reel systems at Warner Bros, Fox, Disney, DreamWorks, Paramount, Technicolor and Deluxe. Change over systems have very little stress put on the film in general and the prints don't get subjected to all the stuff plattered prints see. Platters can work amazing...if everything is prefect. Right now I'm dealing with static on my Odyssey print...starts happening on the last bulk reel mainly. I know how to keep it from throwing the print and working on some other solutions. But I don't have to deal with that running reel to reel. I also don't have to deal with a plater that runs for a 40 feet of film and decides to stop taking up...what I'm currently working with. The more you put into a system the more can and will go wrong. *gets down off of my reel to reel snob soapbox*

With all that said, I love to run film anyway I can.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Not sure what you think I said or did that was "cringe". The way I loaded the film was the way instructed by Boston Light and Sound. There is no other way to load it as there hasn't been a makeup table in this booth for a very long time. They had a film bench in here last time I ran with Oppenheimer but now that's gone.

I also thread up with the Christmas leader on the print. The threading I showed was from the Tango test reel.

I found the way to load and splice the reels on the platter pretty original and adventurous, so I was asking myself if this was the "approved way" by the studios for those venues without makeup table. I didn't know that the studios used to ship completely built movies to you, as I've only ever seen that with IMAX features, which do have an infrastructure for this...

I would've expected that any venue still doing film would at least retain at least one make-up table for every format that they present, even if it's just to be able to repair a film.

On the reality of platters v.s. changeovers... Changeovers involve more human labor, over time the chances of human errors accumulate and it requires just a small "oopsie" to damage a print, so I'm pretty sure that in most scenarios platters win for sake of consistency.

Right now I'm dealing with static on my Odyssey print...starts happening on the last bulk reel mainly.

I guess you have already checked the humidity in the room? If it's around 40% or below, it's often a problem and you want to get it up. Modern HVAC systems are good at removing moisture, which is usually fine, especially in a digital only booth, but for sake of avoidance of static electricity, you want it to be higher. Anything above 55% will generally avoid any static electricity buildup.

Edit: Autocorrect frustrations...

[Andrew Walker]

I found the way to load and splice the reels on the platter pretty original and adventurous, so I was asking myself if this was the "approved way" by the studios for those venues without makeup table. I didn't know that the studios used to ship completely built movies to you, as I've only ever seen that with IMAX features, which do have an infrastructure for this...

I would've expected that any venue still doing film would at least retain at least one make-up table for every format that they present, even if it's just to be able to repair a film.

On the reality of platters v.s. changeovers... Changeovers involve more human labor, over time the chances of human errors accumulate and it requires just a small "oopsie" to damage a print, so I'm pretty sure that in most scenarios platters win for sake of consistency.



I guess you have already checked the humidity in the room? If it's around 40% or below, it's often a problem and you want to get it up. Modern HVAC systems are good at removing moisture, which is usually fine, especially in a digital only booth, but for sake of avoidance of static electricity, you want it to be higher. Anything above 55% will generally avoid any static electricity buildup.

Edit: Autocorrect frustrations...

For sure reel to reel requires more human labor but I've found that to be a good thing. I also enjoyed doing change overs. There was a bit of an art to it.

It was pretty dry up in the booth for a while but recently it got really hot and humid outside. The static has been the same pretty much. Seems to always start when and hour is left on the print. Sometimes it starts a little earlier. I'm going to try something to eliminate the static on the print. I'll share more when I do some tests.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Yeah, but once you start doing changeovers multiple times a day, that art becomes an ordinary job quite fast, especially once people get involved that are primarily there for the paycheck and not for the art of exhibition. I guess you also want to live a life outside the booth? :P

It's a pretty long movie, so I guess it's the accumulation of static energy that gets you? I know a location that's doing an intermission and has split it across two platters, just to avoid any accidents.

The static electricity most likely is the product of the polyester rubbing against each other, so I was wondering if some film lubricant like FilmGuard might help. At least that should take away some friction and reduce the amount of static. Maybe Brad can chime in and indicate if FilmGuard can be used as a countermeasure against static buildup.

[Brad Miller]

Hi Andrew - the platter vs. changeover debate has raged on here for years, but there is one indisputable fact regarding the debate. We inspect every single print returned, and at the end of the day the platter prints win.

I'm not talking about one-off shows or a weekend engagement of a few runs. I am talking about running the same print for 1 week or more. Unless the platter system is not setup or calibrated properly, or it is misthreaded (or the projectionist won't put the damn fried chicken down when he/she is loading the print), the platter prints simply return in better condition.

Running reel to reel is a brute force method of running film. I get it that your studio gigs from before had very carefully setup systems, but for a film that needs to run more than a few times, the platter system is simply a superior method. It runs show after show only winding the film at projection speed and it is lightly fed into the projector each show with basically no stress. Compare that to a reel to reel system where you've probably got a typical Kelmar rewind table and a freshly rewound reel of film on it to be projected. Sounds great, right? Look closer. The outer wraps of that reel are wound tighter than the inner wraps. Meanwhile you're about to put it onto a projector with a conventional feed clutch that exerts more and more drag as the film reel empties...exactly the opposite. The result is very tiny amounts of film slippage on itself and that is what creates the crustiness at the tail end of the reels letting you know the reel is almost over. That effect is made even worse when metal reels with a slightly out of round hub are used.

But just put the debates aside because it's all pretty tired to be honest. The fact remains with very rare exception, the best prints come back from platters.

The new film stock is as you may have noticed getting thinner and thinner (as well as having an inconsistent thickness throughout a reel). It's a serious issue that most everyone dealing with it has acknowledged and yet as far as I can tell Kodak isn't going to do anything about it. As you have noticed, the static is worse than on other prints too. You can try whatever various things you want, but at the end of the day you're just wasting your time. If you want the problem to stop, the only useful solution is to edge wipe the print with FilmGuard. As an added bonus it will also help cut down on the print shedding, so the print will project cleaner for more passes.

Lots of people have been having static issues so we literally threw this video together last night since it shows the method better than trying to explain it in print/photos. Once you try it once, you will understand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilzWr94zSD8

[Andrew Walker]

Yeah, but once you start doing changeovers multiple times a day, that art becomes an ordinary job quite fast, especially once people get involved that are primarily there for the paycheck and not for the art of exhibition. I guess you also want to live a life outside the booth? :P

It's a pretty long movie, so I guess it's the accumulation of static energy that gets you? I know a location that's doing an intermission and has split it across two platters, just to avoid any accidents.

The static electricity most likely is the product of the polyester rubbing against each other, so I was wondering if some film lubricant like FilmGuard might help. At least that should take away some friction and reduce the amount of static. Maybe Brad can chime in and indicate if FilmGuard can be used as a countermeasure against static buildup.

I did change overs for a paycheck running different shows all day everyday when I worked at the studios. It was something I always tried to make look as good as I could. Usually because it was for the director, actors, fiends and family, producers, heads of the studio, press. The saying was you were only as good as your last change over.

I think I used FilmGuard a long time ago...but I don't remember using it to get rid of static. Pretty cool if that works.

[Andrew Walker]

Hi Andrew - the platter vs. changeover debate has raged on here for years, but there is one indisputable fact regarding the debate. We inspect every single print returned, and at the end of the day the platter prints win.

I'm not talking about one-off shows or a weekend engagement of a few runs. I am talking about running the same print for 1 week or more. Unless the platter system is not setup or calibrated properly, or it is misthreaded (or the projectionist won't put the damn fried chicken down when he/she is loading the print), the platter prints simply return in better condition.

Running reel to reel is a brute force method of running film. I get it that your studio gigs from before had very carefully setup systems, but for a film that needs to run more than a few times, the platter system is simply a superior method. It runs show after show only winding the film at projection speed and it is lightly fed into the projector each show with basically no stress. Compare that to a reel to reel system where you've probably got a typical Kelmar rewind table and a freshly rewound reel of film on it to be projected. Sounds great, right? Look closer. The outer wraps of that reel are wound tighter than the inner wraps. Meanwhile you're about to put it onto a projector with a conventional feed clutch that exerts more and more drag as the film reel empties...exactly the opposite. The result is very tiny amounts of film slippage on itself and that is what creates the crustiness at the tail end of the reels letting you know the reel is almost over. That effect is made even worse when metal reels with a slightly out of round hub are used.

But just put the debates aside because it's all pretty tired to be honest. The fact remains with very rare exception, the best prints come back from platters.

The new film stock is as you may have noticed getting thinner and thinner (as well as having an inconsistent thickness throughout a reel). It's a serious issue that most everyone dealing with it has acknowledged and yet as far as I can tell Kodak isn't going to do anything about it. As you have noticed, the static is worse than on other prints too. You can try whatever various things you want, but at the end of the day you're just wasting your time. If you want the problem to stop, the only useful solution is to edge wipe the print with FilmGuard. As an added bonus it will also help cut down on the print shedding, so the print will project cleaner for more passes.

Lots of people have been having static issues so we literally threw this video together last night since it shows the method better than trying to explain it in print/photos. Once you try it once, you will understand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilzWr94zSD8

I can tell there are some strong feelings about platters vs reel to reel. I think a lot of the returning print quality has to do with the rooms and the operator. At the studios we ran with the highest quality control we could get. I've run for Nolan a couple times over at Warner Bros. He would sit in the front row in Screening Room 5. So picture quality was key and had to be perfect. But all of our shows had to be perfect. We would also have to run the same print over and over. Usually for staff, filmmakers, press and heads of the studio. Our prints would usually get inspected by film shipping on the lot. The point I'm trying to make is that in the field platters probably have the edge over reel to reel. But in a hyper controlled environment like the studios, reel to reel wins hands down.

[Josh Jones]

Welcome to the board Drew! I did notice in your video you seemed to be struggling with the splicer on the platter deck. What worked for me was to place the splicer at the edge of the deck, and squeeze the handle down with your thumbs while grabbing the deck bottom with the rest of your fingers. You may find that a bit less awkward the next time you need to splice on the deck.

The platter vs changeover debate is one that has raged on this forum for over 20 years. My opinion is that if your going to run the feature more than a handful of times, platters make more sense. The world has changed since the DCP changeover, and now if your getting stuff from an archive, they likely will not let you run prints any other way than via changeover. 20 years ago the theater I worked at hosted the library of congress film preservation festival. They knew we only had a platter system, and almost all of the material we got had already been plattered.

[Andrew Walker]

Welcome to the board Drew! I did notice in your video you seemed to be struggling with the splicer on the platter deck. What worked for me was to place the splicer at the edge of the deck, and squeeze the handle down with your thumbs while grabbing the deck bottom with the rest of your fingers. You may find that a bit less awkward the next time you need to splice on the deck.

The platter vs changeover debate is one that has raged on this forum for over 20 years. My opinion is that if your going to run the feature more than a handful of times, platters make more sense. The world has changed since the DCP changeover, and now if your getting stuff from an archive, they likely will not let you run prints any other way than via changeover. 20 years ago the theater I worked at hosted the library of congress film preservation festival. They knew we only had a platter system, and almost all of the material we got had already been plattered.

Wasn't struggling with the splicer...just trying to be gentle with the film. I've been using guillotine and block splicers for the last 30 years.

Platters make sense to people that have used them the most. I learned on platters...but did the vast majority of my projection career doing change overs. For theaters running the same film for weeks and months...platters make sense. But there are far fewer problems with change overs than running platters.

[Steve Guttag]

I'll go on record that I object the premise of the subject to this thread. Everyone's a critic. I also see unsolicited advice that may or may not be pertinent. I think Andrew did just fine and many more have done far worse. I would take a fleet of Andrews. I'm not saying he is the best I've seen (nor could i judge that from a few of his videos...yes, I've seen more than the linked one).

Now, if I knew that he kept the machine properly lubed, I'd like it even more. What i've seen a bit, lately, is equipment left to just run without maintenance.

I'd also would have liked it if I saw that film was being inspected as it was being built and the joins/splices checked.

Oh...and reel-to-reel is always better and how God intended it to be!

[Marcel Birgelen]

Wasn't struggling with the splicer...just trying to be gentle with the film. I've been using guillotine and block splicers for the last 30 years.

Platters make sense to people that have used them the most. I learned on platters...but did the vast majority of my projection career doing change overs. For theaters running the same film for weeks and months...platters make sense. But there are far fewer problems with change overs than running platters.

I guess the distinct difference here is between running a cinema, where you indeed run the same film x times a day, v.s. running something like a screening room or working as a contractor and being hired as projectionist to screen movies. One is production work, often with minimal supervision, while the other is essentially a special gig every time, involving professionals in the field. While film has become somewhat of a speciality those days, you can't, unfortunately, expect the same level of quality and commitment from someone working their shift at the local multiplex. That's where automation and platters come in and that's the bar most people here are comparing stuff to,

[Tony Bandiera Jr]

Ok, seeing as so many have not only missed the point of this, and also my comment saying "To be fair, most of it shows a good amount of care and attention to detail, but the aforementioned comment in that timestamp set me off a bit." Overall Andrew did an excellent job and I agree that he was very through, with a few exceptions.

Before I address the points I noticed that prompted this thread, I'll address a few specific replies:

"It's pretty clear to me that Tony just was horrified to see the leader being projected on screen because he didn't realize that was just the junk "test reel" with no audience."

I was fully aware that was the case and had no issues with that at all. I always projected leaders myself on test screenings. And thank you Brad for adding: "Don't take offense, misunderstandings happen and text is easily misinterpreted."

I'll go on record that I object the premise of the subject to this thread. Everyone's a critic. I also see unsolicited advice that may or may not be pertinent.

Object all you want to, I stand by the premise of this thread and the comment of blasting Andrew in the comments was tongue in cheek as per the devil emoticon. As Brad noted, text can be misunderstood and perhaps the devil emoticon did not provide the right intention.

Since no one seemed to have actually watched at least that part of the video I referred to, the comment was 14:10-14:15 "You don't need to wear gloves when threading the projector(fair point) ...because all of this is just leader, it's supposed to be touched."

How many of you getting your feathers ruffled have stated in past threads that "touching the leader bare handed was bad because the dirt and oil on your hands migrates as the film is repeatedly wound and rewound." Pretty hypocritical when in the film days this forum was all about that concept of NOT HANDLING LEADERS BAREHANDED.

Now here's the second and only other thing that I wanted to call out, with timestamps.

6:48 Gloves worn as he mentioned he was going to be handling picture. Excellent practice and solid advice. But....
7:18 Splicing R2 to R1 and handling the film and taping the splice WITH NO GLOVES ON. C'mon, why? A neumade splicer can easily be used wearing gloves.
8:30-8:44 Gloves are back on, ok that's a good thing, BUT AGAIN:
8:45 DOES ANOTHER SPLICE WITHOUT GLOVES ON.

None of that made any sense and was the main thing that first caught my attention. I repeat for the peanut gallery over all most of what was done was excellent film handling practice but the things I saw and called out on this reply were very out of place with the intent of the video, which was to highlight proper film handling technique. (Which again I state MOST of the video did show.)

To Andrew: Hope you understand now the things I noticed and maybe you can explain why they happened.

[Steve Guttag]

So you have a glove fetish? Tongue in Cheek would have been to wonder where the KFC bucket was (and I would have placed somewhere in the picture, to see if anyone noticed).

Leader is meant to be touched. The reason for the longish leader that is provided with modern prints (and what I always put on prints in my days of showing movies...repurposing old trailers, is that yes, human hands can touch it as it is "scrap." Will dirt and oils get on it...you bet. Will it reach the important parts? Nope. I always removed it before shipping out. I suspect that F-T ultrasonically cleans the stuff upon return or before it would ship out again.

That leaves the splicing technique. Again, the glove fetish. Use em or don't. It doesn't bother me. Keep your hands clean. Building up on the platter, you already are exposing the picture to numerous places where it is going to touch rollers and the platter decks at the moment the film is slack for the splice. How the film lays, what it touches, how the slack is taken up after the splice will all, potentially deposit dirt and or abrade the film in the area of the splice. But okay...the gloves...that is what we jump on.

I object to the title because it reads "70mm film handling done wrong!" It is sensational to attract views. Switching the part in parenthesis from "mostly" to "sorta" still has it in the negative. Why not "70mm film handling done (mostly) right!" ? Less sensational, sure, but more accurate and more encouraging to those now that are entrusted with the continuation of film presentation.

As I said, everyone's a critic. You could find flaw in most anyone's technique. Even if they use gloves...they don't change them enough. I've seen archivists handle film where their gloves were blackened with the film that had passed through. What was the point after that? To redistribute the past dirt to another section of the print? I have no problem with people using gloves and I've been known to use them myself. But like everything else, there is a technique to them and if one wants to just pick apart others, one can find flaw in everyone. Why not, primarily, promote the good, even when pointing out the less-good? There was plenty of good in the video to work with.

[Ryan Gallagher]

On the gloves topic, the fact they shipped with the print implies one is supposed to use them somewhere in the process. ;-) I think we can assume, for better or worse, every projectionist is choosing their own adventure as to which part of the process they are suggested for, if they use them at all. hehe. 1 pair of gloves really supposed to last 4 weeks of threading? yada yada.

If it was my booth, I'd wear them if I had to perform inspections, during unpack/repack if on cores, during splicing (but probably only on one hand), but not during threading unless I was obviously going to be handling lab or archive leaders on archival prints. Each print got one glove (maybe two) in my booth, at least when I was involved, and all were one off screenings.

Youtube algorithm knows me too well, cause I had another booth Odyssey thread up appear in my feed. I however will not share it here, becuase the thread title involves an general vibe I may not attribute to it.

I think it would be more fun to just all share booth processes in video form and see what we can improve/learn from each other. I learned most of my improvements so far to our booth and my process so far from here! Thanks Brad for keeping the forum going.

[Marcel Birgelen]

I confess to her Majesty, the Immaculate Celluloid Holiness, that I've handled actual film, not just leaders with my bare hands, without wearing proper protection. I hope she'll forgive me and I'm not doomed to DCI hell forever!