|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Author
|
Topic: 16mm prints on 35mm reels?
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Bedford
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 597
From: Telluride, CO, USA (733 mi. WNW of Rockwall, TX but it seems much, much longer)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 07-13-1999 07:06 PM
Last year, while running a print of The Groove Tube, I walked into the booth and there it was, right after the last roller: The film had split in half at a splice, after passing the shutdown switch, and half the film was being taken up on the reel and the other half being taken up on the floor. It was in a lame portion of a lame film, but I too, had a 16mm looking film on a 35mm looking reel.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 06-05-2002 11:26 AM
"the reel magazines that I've seen just have "valve rollers" which supposedly make the upper and lower magazines airtight (though nitrate film doesn't need air to burn, so I can't imagine that this would be terribly helpful)."The idea of the fire traps is not to make the spool boxes, (magazines), airtight, but to prevent the passage of flame into the spool box, a bit like a miner's safety lamp. Before projecting a few minutes of a nitrate print recently, on one of a pair of long disused projectors, I threaded a few inches of film through each of the fire traps, and ignited the outside end. The flame did not pass through the traps; I wouldn't have tried running the film if it had. Don't ask awkward questions about where this was, it was not in a public cinema, but was in a still fully equipped box, despite years of dis-use. It was a private screening, just for myself, and one other person, not that I got to see much of it, I was too busy keeping my eyes on the gate. I inspected every inch of the film very carefully before running it, then ran it through the mech with the lamp off, watching and listening for any problems, then inspected again before running it with smaller than normal carbons, and somewhat reduced lamp current.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thomas Procyk
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1842
From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 06-05-2002 01:57 PM
They always seem to send the absolute worst prints for kids matinees. When Regal had their "Free summer kid's film fest" thing, there were some horribly old films in the lineup: Hey There its Yogi Bear, Here Come The Littles, Smurfs and the Magic Flute, and some He-Man Adventure.Yogi Bear I believe was from the 60's. That's what the copyright in the credits said. Not sure if the print itself was, but it was mono and there were various stretches for several minutes where the image was a dark purple, and you could barely make out the outlines of the characters. Audio was fine, though. Here Come The Littles was a disaster. Triacetate print that was as brittle as a potato chip. They still wanted a 4-screen interlock despite my protests. Walking by the take-up platter, I noticed it winding funny. Not exactly 16mm size, but just a bit smaller than 35. It was missing the sprocket holes on one side, and there they were in a pile, being shaved off by a roller. So we had to stop a 4-screen interlock packed with screaming day-care kids. About 3 minutes of the print was ruined. Smurfs had green lines through the entire image, too many to count. I don't even know why they bothered to show it. 42 splices in Reel 1 alone. I ran this 2 years in a row, second year it came in 1/2 a reel shorter, and fell apart" at the theater afer ours. Never ran He-Man. The manager from the previous theater brought it to us clamped, and carried it in the rain. The print that Brad is talking about has actually crossed my mind before. Something sharp in the middle of a stuck roller could make an entire print irreparable. (is that a word?) =TMP=
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gerard S. Cohen
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 975
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: Sep 2001
|
posted 06-05-2002 10:18 PM
"...intentionally...?" To damage a print deliberately to make it unusable but still viewable, as for example in a stock footage library, the device used was called a Film Mutilator. Photos of benchtop models appear in the 1934 Neumade Products Catalog. It could be set to make one or more scratches through the length of the film on emulsion side, through the image, or through the sound track, or both. There was a drawer to catch and permit disposal of the emulsion shavings. I believe they were made in 35mm and 16mm sizes. [Perhaps it didn't sell well, there being those who mutilate film frequently for free, no device needed save inattention...] The device to divide a length of film is of course a Film Slitter, sometimes made at home for slitting double-8mm amateur film from 16mm stock, but more often done on precision machines at processing labs, such as those of Eastman Kodak.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|