my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » ELR's: try again? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: ELR's: try again? Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 02-20-2003 08:32 PM                    Since it looks like film will be around a tad longer is there any movement to try again on "big" reels for distribution? Or perhaps going right to platter sized rolls? That create an even bigger universe of non-compatible theatres but given the commonality of platter exhibition (at least in the US) the neatness of a single strand solution would be mighty tempting even if 20 minute reels must coexist for some users.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 02-21-2003 03:11 AM                     I think shipping anything larger than 24 inch reels is just asking for problems. The ELR was a wonderful idea, poorly executed. (Those reels sucked!) I agree that I would LOVE to see the idea brought back and done properly. With the current condition of the 2000' reels and shipping cans, now is a great time to start switching over. However since the studios won't put their foot down against their filmmaker's completion date and keep letting them deliver later and later, this won't happen. Everything just has to be last minute.  |  IP: Logged Mark DeLettera Film Handler Posts: 54 From: Venice, Florida Registered: Aug 1999 posted 02-21-2003 02:12 PM                     Platter-sized roll ! 1,000 feet of 35mm Polyester = 4.2lbs Average feature would weigh from 38 - 50 pounds, without it's shipping container! Just my $.02!  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 02-21-2003 03:12 PM                     What?! There are people in the large format industry that can't grasp the concept of properly packaging a full print ... and we've been doing it for 30 years. I can't imagine what a popcornjectionist would do with a whole print shipped pre-assembled.  |  IP: Logged Tom Fermanian Expert Film Handler Posts: 101 From: Sainte Adele, Quebec, Canada Registered: Dec 2001 posted 02-21-2003 03:17 PM                     Details Details Details, you guys built this?  |  IP: Logged Michael Brown Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1522 From: Bradford, England Registered: May 2001 posted 02-21-2003 03:25 PM                     Mark, A feature still weighs the same regardless of weather it is on one big-ass reels or 6 normal 2000' reels. Cutting a feature up into more than one reel doesn’t make it weigh lighter. It will still weigh 38 - 50 pounds. I don't know what happens overseas but in the UK generally all reels (cans) are shipped together in one box. So there would be no issue of weight. The problem with shipping a feature on one reel relates to size and shape.  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 02-21-2003 05:11 PM                     The metal shipping cases used in the U.S. normally hold three or four spools, so a typical feature comes in two cases, but the spools and metal cases weigh more than the cores, plastic cans and boxes which we use. If you think 35mm is heavy, try moving a 70mm print. I've only done that once.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-21-2003 06:26 PM                        As always, I'm ambivalent on this topic. ELRs would be convenient (though not much of a time-saver) if they used standard aluminum Goldberg floating-hub 6000' reels as long as they were shipped only to theatres which could accommodate them. Regular prints on 2000' reels would have to be provided to theatres which couldn't accommodate or didn't want ELRs. Having said that, there are still some problems: a) double-inventory problem--distributors and depots would hate this, and it might prevent some theatres from getting prints that they want to show because they can't accommodate ELRs; b) extra cost--the best 2000' shipping reels cost about $10-20 each when brand-new, compared with $200+ per Goldberg 6000' reel (though admittedly theh Goldbergs would probably outlast plastic reels)...who is going to pay for this?; c) splices made at film depots are invariably awful and need to be remade, though this wouldn't be an issue of the ELRs were printed as continuous rolls; d) replacement reels would be a pain and an added expense if entire 6000' segments needed to be replaced. I do agree with Brad, though, that most of the plastic shipping reels in current circulation are beyond terrible. A couple of years ago, I would have no problem running films off of shipping reels (after inspection, of course)...I wouldn't think of doing this now, though.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 02-21-2003 11:46 PM                        New Line and Warner Bros. were the biggest proponents of trying ELRs. As Brad noted, a great idea, but the final implementation did not use the rugged reel and shipper design worked out by the Inter-Society committee (Bobby Pinkston and others). Unless all theatres and film exchanges are willing to convert (a costly venture), ELR implementation is unlikely without the studios championing it. Dual inventory (having features on both 2000 and 6000 foot ELRs) is a non-starter. Waiting for the titles and credits would delay an ELR release, whereas with 2000-foot reels, labs can print the middle reels first.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 02-22-2003 01:39 AM                     Here's a dumb question, could the studios still not print up reels 1 and 2 (movie without credits) and then in the corner of each ELR case enclose a trailer length'ish roll of film tagged "reel 0" and "reel 3"? When the theater is ready to send the film back, they just send back reel 0 and 1 as one reel, and reel 2 and 3 as one reel. Or is that just way too simple?  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 02-22-2003 09:35 AM                        Supplying the titles and credits as separate rolls would be "simple" for an experienced projectionist to handle, but is asking for trouble in theatres run by inexperienced "button pushers". And the extra handling involved with the small rolls would negate the advantage of less handling with ELRs.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 02-22-2003 10:12 AM                    Whoa...hold on here. During the brief ELR experiment did anyone actually print anything as a 6000' reel? I thought they were simply assembled by the lab or the exchange. While long strand printing should be the eventual goal if they're still printing as 2000' rolls and assembling then I really don't see your point about credits. The labs can still print the bulk of the film early then assembly can be done when the first and last reels are available. I would imagine this affects end credits more than heads so the Big R1's can be set to go and Big R2's tails out sans last reel waiting to have it slapped on. And to borrow a bit from Brad's idea, if ELR's became the norm and credit print was an issue the films can have the final reel break at the start of the credits so only minimal amount of film has to be printed and added to each Big R2 before they ship. The idea of minimal theatre handling is preserved.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 02-22-2003 10:33 AM                        Yes, most labs still printed in 2000-foot lengths, so ELRs were spliced together in "positive assembly". But if the titles and credits were delayed, you could not begin the splicing until the first and last reel were printed and processed. With 2000's, the prints are shipped to the exchanges as soon as all the reels are in hand. Rank (Deluxe) labs in the UK did have a system for printing feature-length rolls in one pass, which won an Academy Scientific and Technical Award in 1982: http://wwwdb.oscars.org/scitech_db/index.html  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 02-22-2003 03:15 PM                     I was only suggesting that for those big movies where the director can't get his shit together until the last second to use the reel 0 and reel 3 idea. Regardless, it would still help with future film handling, as those splices would no longer be handled for buildup and breakdown in the future. FWIW, both ELR prints I received had no splices in them.  |  IP: Logged Bill Enos Film God Posts: 2081 From: Richmond, Virginia, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 02-22-2003 03:27 PM                     It's bad enough to have a 2000' reel come apart when picked up but I had one of those 6000' el Busto reels drop its' load. Also if you're less than 6ft 5in carrying one of those cans was mostly dragging it. Tote one up 56 steps and you will quickly appreciate being able to split the weight in to two 3 or 4 reel cans.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.