|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Author
|
Topic: Static!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 01-24-2000 04:20 PM
I agree. Get FilmGuard.We used to have film interruptions almost DAILY! Last winter, there were several films that had to be baby-sat almost all the time! [i]Jackie Brown[\i] wrapped 3 times in a row! You'd fix the first one and restart the proj. and it'd wrap 2 minutes later! S.W.Ep. 1 would wrap at the same place in every show. We'd actually set the timers on our watches and go to the platter when that spot went through. We got FilmGuard and we have had ZERO wraps. Not one! If your company doesn't have F.G. in stock, just use petty cash to get it. If the corporate monkeys try to nail you about it, just show them the rain check logs. In July, we averaged 3-5 interruptions per month. That average was taken over the last two years. Now we have FilmGuard there have been 7 interruptions in since October. Four of them were becasue of mechanical breakdowns. One of them was because of a manager's mess-up. Basiaclly, if you don't have FilmGuard, you ought to get it!
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 01-25-2000 08:58 AM
Kodak refined the formulation of its proprietary anti-static backing technology when the company developed its new generation of Kodak Vision color print films in 1998. We also developed an anti-static process additive that labs can add to the final wash in the print film process. Kodak began providing this additive ("Staticide 3000G")at its own expense to film laboratories around the world in early 1999. It helps reduce "static cling" on all print films, even those not manufactured by Kodak. Further improvements are underway.In the past year, reported incidents of "static cling" have decreased substantially because of these improvements. However, a few prints may still be prone to "static cling" under certain conditions (e.g., non-conductive platter surfaces, if there were variations in the amount of "Staticide" applied to the print, or changes in humidity). As noted by other posters, proprietary film treatments may help reduce "static cling", either by increasing the conductivity of the film, or by "balancing" the static charge between the emulsion and base side of the processed film. For help on reducing "static cling", see the article in the September 1998 "Film Notes for Reel People": http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/september98/pppp.shtml
------------------ John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist Worldwide Technical Services, Professional Motion Imaging Eastman Kodak Company Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419 Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243 E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays
Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999
|
posted 01-27-2000 01:00 PM
Gentlemen and Ladies:Wouldn't it be easier to simply return to acetate? There's been thousands of dollars of equipment damaged by this Estar stock, because of its unsuitability for platter projection (to say nothing of the countless man-hours expended repairing these mishaps, the interruptions to business, and resultant ill-will generated among customers). If theatres still ran on reels, there'd be no problems with implementing Estar, but the industry is several decades removed from that now. Dupont tried a polyester base film in the early 50s, after the demise of nitrate stock. Fortunately then, it could not be easily spliced, so it did not gain favor. Everyone's been doing a lot of backpeddling, trying to make a dielectric material behave like it's not a dielectric. That's why they make capacitors out of polyester. With all due respect to Mr. Pytlak, shouldn't Kodak just forget about Estar and concentrate on improving acetate, given that improvements are the objective? I know many people would agree that Estar is anything but an improvement. Besides, all good ideas aren't necessarily good ideas. Everyone is entitled to make a mistake from time to time. And Kodak, with all the good work and research they've done over the years, would be due for at least this one. I'm sure the industry would forgive them if Estar was discontinued.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 01-27-2000 03:35 PM
Kodak did NOT lead the charge to polyester film, and publicly urged caution regarding issues like its tremendous tensile strength, electro-static properties and potential for "flaking" when severely abraded (Report to Intersociety Committee at ShoWest in March 1994).But distributors and exhibitors demanded it. The January 1991 NATO News reported: "The (NATO) board also resolved, at the (NATO Technical Advisory) committee's request, to approve and recommend the use of polyester film, which is thinner (allowing more film per reel) and less liable to break." From 1991 to 1995, most polyester prints were printed on other manufacturer's film (e.g., "The Fugitive", "Free Willy", "The American President", etc. Kodak moved slowly and cautiously in converting from triacetate to polyester print film for theatrical prints, and began an intensive program to develop new technology to address the issues of polyester abrasion and static. This technology was used in the new Kodak VISION Color Print films, supported by a massive investment ($200 million) in a new machine to make base for the new film. Kodak VISION Color Print film has greatly improved performance and quality, and additional improvements are underway. Triacetate base is no longer being used for release prints. ------------------ John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist Worldwide Technical Services, Professional Motion Imaging Eastman Kodak Company Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419 Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243 E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
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.
|