|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
Author
|
Topic: I've heard of not leaving a reference frame, but this is rediculous!
|
John Wilson
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/269.jpg)
Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 05-19-2000 10:24 PM
I made up our 'glorious' used print of "Pitch Black" last Tuesday and came across an interesting piece of work by another film handler (in another country).Instead of leaving a reference frame on the heads and tails, he/she decided the best thing to do would be to actually leave 4 or 5 frames of leader/tail black as well, thus this would have been projected on screen. I'm not sure of their reasoning, but if this catches on, I'm going to take a course in vacuuming. ...and we wonder why they're pushing digital projection... ![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/frown.gif) ------------------ "It's not the years honey, it's the mileage". Indiana Jones.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
John Wilson
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/269.jpg)
Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 05-19-2000 10:38 PM
Right, except that these were not image frames left on the leader, these were BLACK _from_ the leader left in the print to project on screen.Not every reel, mind you but most. ------------------ "It's not the years honey, it's the mileage". Indiana Jones.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Bruce McGee
Phenomenal Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/131b.jpg)
Posts: 1776
From: Asheville, NC USA... Nowhere in Particular.
Registered: Aug 1999
|
posted 05-19-2000 10:48 PM
I like the ones that have been thru the mill and have 10-15 frames spliced together at the end of the reel. Is everybody too lazy to peel tape? Or is it some glaring reason that I dont see?Since I am preserving the prints that I have in the collection, I try to repair all the splices at the end of the reels. Usually, all they need is new tape. The ends butt perfectly. I've got several prints with no splices in the body of the reel, and 6-8 cuts at the head and tail. I think that there are too many theaters out there that dont give a damn about the prints because after they use them, they're out of their hands. LURKERS: People are having to fix your slack work! Technicolor sure wont do it!
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Wilson
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/269.jpg)
Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 05-19-2000 10:52 PM
Dustin wrote:>>Let me guess, the errors were in the second half of the movie? When everything is black? I certainly hope so, the begining is quite light.<< You'd think that would be the case, but no...there seems to be no reason to it whatsoever.
One more thing, could they have chosen a worse scene to put those ugly black changeover cues than the one where there is a shot of a guy's head and very white background and whammo! there's the motor cue, then to another shot much darker then back to the original shot of the guy and whammo! there's the changeover cue. Don't these guys think? Perhaps Filmguard could be modified to remove unsightly cues from prints? One wipe and they're out with the wash! ![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/smile.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
John Walsh
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/168.jpg)
Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted 05-20-2000 12:24 AM
John Wilson wrote:"I made up our 'glorious' used print of "Pitch Black"... <snip> ..."4 or 5 frames of leader/tail black..." Well, the previous projectionist was just giving patrons the "Pitch Black" they paid to see.... ![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/smile.gif) Actually, I leave 6 image frames on the head/tail leaders when I make up a show. The reason is I know most of our prints go to a few 2nd run houses after. And many have come back to us after even that. Also, any one of those reels could then be used as replacement reels even later. It is very difficult to get the tape off when it's been stuck on for several weeks- simply chopping off the frame is really the only practical thing to do. Usually a frame gets chopped off with each run. I can't stop that, but I can minimize the danger of misnumbered reels. I do not want a print without at least one, never cut off, all-important ID frame to prove which reel is which. I am willing to lose 1/4 of a second to get that security. And, my feeling is, it should not matter anyway. Everything after the c/o mark is "extra" and should not be needed. Now, I would never cut off all 24 frames after the c/o, but 6 should not matter. If you are running c/o's, you would stomp on that pedal long before anyone sees those frames. It's like people who think they are getting screwed because they are not getting to see the image under the 70mm mag striping- It was never meant to be shown anyway. It's just the "run-out" in case you were slow on the c/o button. Yes, I know, "Lion King" had dialog right up to the c/o. But, that is a very rare occurrence- which happened because the editor made a mistake. I will gladly help correct the editor's mistake (and not chop off any frames for ID at all) if he leaves a note in the can. If he does not, I have to assume that making up this film will be no different than the thousands before it. Audio pull-ups should be (and usually are) taken care of by the editor in the same way. If he can't find a few seconds to allow a "clean" looking and sounding c/o or platter splice, then he's to blame for it. I'm not an archivist. I'm not going to worry about chopping off too many frames because in 100 years this print might be the only copy left. That the print I received will survive 100 years from now is very small. Besides, that's the film's owners job. I can do more towards that end by handling the print properly and keeping the projector clean. I'm not insensitive to the future, it just that I need (and am payed for) to deal with the "here and now." To me, that means that with the limited staff we have (and most other theaters, I'm sure) previously run shows must go together quickly without questions. Leaving several uncut ID frames on the heads/tails is the only way for you prove which reel number is which.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Walsh
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/168.jpg)
Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted 05-20-2000 09:41 AM
I'm laughing because I have visions of Joe on the floor, gasping like a fish for water, saying; "SIX!? SIX!?..."But I'm serious. About 23-30% of the features we get have been run, and many of those we had when new (we get them back for some reason.) And if you've ever been through the embarrassment of reels in the wrong order, it only takes once or twice for you to make GD, 100% sure it won't happen again. After 25 years, and literally making-up almost 1000 features, it's happened twice (once with the starring actress in the theater,) both times because there was no ID frame and I trusted what was written. If I left only one, the next theater operator has no problems cutting off the ID frame, because it's proven to _him_ that the reels are correct; he doesn't care about the next guy (me!) Brad is right, a common sense thing is to cut off the other way, leaving the last frame. But, we don't have that quality of operators. Most of the operators in my area are ushers forced into the job. I will never trust that the previous operator marked the reels correctly. I know if I leave only one or two frames on the head/tail, they will be chopped off when/if I get that print back. You all probably now think I'm the kind of guy that never cleans, throws the film on the floor, etc. I can't prove that one way or the other, but if you've read my previous posts here, you should'nt think I'm deranged! I just made up "Shanghai Express" for a sneak tonight. We are also running, "Gladiator," "Road Trip," "Dinosaur," "Flintstones,"U-571, "One From the Heart," "Screwed," "Held Up," "Battlefield Earth," and "Basketball." Tell me where in any of those films removing up to 12 frames would ruin the continuity (worst case: six for me, six for crazy people who keep chopping.) Or, tell me where I'm wrong techinally, about the way an editor should create reel beginnings/endings, pull-ups, etc. Brad's idea about cutting off one frame and taping it on the leader is a good one. Gotta think seriously about that. I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't want to do something that is really wrong. But my goal is: no wrong reels, _ever_. How can I get as close to that goal as possible?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
![](/ubbmembers/64b.jpg)
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 05-20-2000 12:31 PM
After a while you think you've seen everything. Then just when you think it can't get any worse, it does.I received a print of "Tango" which I played for a special audience last summer. I knew I was going to be playing it again for our regular movie season at Mercyhurst. I spent a lot of time making sure I broke it down JUST RIGHT so I'd have an easier time of it when I had to build it up again. I even made notes for myself where the splices, etc. were in the reels so I knew where to look when I was inspecting it again. I knew that other people might play the print in the mean time but I didn't think they could foul it up THAT bad. Well, when I got the print back it WAS... THAT bad! The same print number. The same label that I put on the tail. It looked like a totally different print. I have, on occasion, called up the people who had the print before me. 90% of the time these people have NO IDEA what they are doing is wrong. It doesn't pay to try and explain it to them. They are simply NON COMPUS MENTIS! The only thing I can say is, "That's what I get paid to do."
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/26c.jpg)
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 05-20-2000 01:37 PM
Maybe I'm dense here, but I fail to see why leaving SIX id frames makes it any easier to tell what reel it is, than leaving one frame. If you cut-off six, then the next projectionist will cut off the seventh, then the eighth, etc. If that print is in six different booths, you will have probably lost 12 frames total. That's not a lot in the grand scheme, but Brad's right, sometimes words or "things" happen in those last few frames. Anyone who doesn't believe that, go check out a new copy of the last reel of the original SCREAM.Somebody asked if everyone's too lazy to peel tape. I'm not, but most of the tape that comes into my booth is the cheap crap that won't peel except in tiny little pieces. When I see that stuff, I trim that frame off. Neumade tape is the best! Mike
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
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.
|