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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » 6000' Spools

Author Topic: 6000' Spools Ian Joseph Parfrey Film Handler Posts: 56 From: Bollier Queensland Australia Registered: Sep 2004 posted 09-15-2004 06:02 AM                     Reading Joe Redifer's tirade in regards to the Delux Film Labs habit of printing the film title on the tails of each reel upside down and with a diagonal slash has prompted me to reply. The diagonal slash is there, Joe, so you can see at a quick glance whether the reel is head or tail out. Nice, simple solution. Who give a stuff if it is ugly? It serves it's purpose. Secondly, cutting off the identifier from the start of the reel on buggers things up for the next user of that print. And who cares if the lettering is upside down or not. Write a new one on 3/4" masking tape. Simple. Now, isn't it about time the labs and distributors got into the 20th century and started supplying prints on 6000' cores or spools? This will save much potential damage to prints as (typically) only 1 or 2 splices will have to be made. Who has had to sit through a film that has been assembled incorrectly? I have, twice. And that's 2 times to damn many. But what about those who don't have 6000' arms on their projectors, I hear the call. Well, if you don't have 6000' arms, then either modify your projectors to take them, get a DVD player and LDP or get out of the industry, because if you are that far behind then it's your choice and no one else should pay because of your lack of initiative. And by the way, most carbon lamphouses take 60 minute trims so that is no excuse. How much better would prints look without the end of reel scratching that happens every 15-20 mins? And how much quicker would print make-up and break-down be? Better presentation, quicker film handling, less complaints. I'm in heaven!  |  IP: Logged Jeremy Fuentes Mmmm, Dr. Pepper! Posts: 1168 From: Corpus Christi, TX United States Registered: Jan 2004 posted 09-15-2004 06:33 AM                     Good ideas Ian. Lets jump even further into the 20th century and get rid of projectionists altogether.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 09-15-2004 07:29 AM                        Extended Length Reels (ELR) were a project of the Inter-Society Committee for the Enhancement of Cinema Presentation. Bobby Pinkston led the engineering team that evaluated proposals for 6000-foot reels and shippers, and developed a viable design. Both Warner Bros. and New Line supported the concept, to the extent of using the ELRs for shipping a percentage of prints on a trial basis. Unfortunately, this good concept never really took off, for several reasons: 1. The reels and shippers originally used did not conform to the draft standard developed by Mr. Pinkston's committee. They were not as robust (cost limitations), and there were compatibility issues with some make-up tables. 2. The labs still were still mostly printing as 2000-foot reels. So the 6000-foot lengths still needed to be spliced together after processing. 3. Printing 6000-foot lengths would require substantial investment, but more importantly, could delay production since the first and last reels (titles and credits) are the last to be approved. With 2000-foot reels, the labs can begin printing the middle reels before final approval is received for the titles and credits. 4. Substantial capital investment would be required to equip film exchanges to handle and store the new reels and shippers. The old 2000-foot reels and cases would take years to phase out. 5. Some theatres did not favor the 6000-foot lengths, and were unwilling to equip themselves to handle the long rolls. In some cases, they had to break down the 6000-foot reels to 2000-foot lengths for changeover projection, using makeshift equipment. 6. Only Warner Bros. and New Line actively supported the ELRs. Other distributors tooks a "wait and see" attitude. The advantages and savings offered by ELRs depended on full-scale adoption of the concept. "Mixed Inventory" of 2000-foot and 6000-foot reels would just add to costs, and not save money or time.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 09-15-2004 07:57 AM                        Gee, exactly how many years ago did I write that? Also concerning the 6000' reels (an entirely different subject somehow in the first post of the same thread), why would I want ANY reel end scratches at all? I'd just mount the film on a platter and have an even better presentation while I sleep and milk the clock!  |  IP: Logged Bill Langfield Master Film Handler Posts: 280 From: Prospect, NSW, Australia Registered: Apr 2001 posted 09-15-2004 12:41 PM                        IAN, Mate!!! Settle down, relax. Clearly you work for HOYTS and have to run the place yourself? Oh, perhaps not being in QLD. Please don't dont say you work for BCC/GUO after that bullshit rant. 20th century? I think Joe posted his 'tirade' in THAT century. Bill. BTW: I sent you a short-sweet email. I note that you choose to have your email address pvt/hidden. Good one TROLL.  |  IP: Logged Ian Joseph Parfrey Film Handler Posts: 56 From: Bollier Queensland Australia Registered: Sep 2004 posted 09-15-2004 05:53 PM                     G'day Bill. Hardly a bullshit rant. I reckon more common sense. Whether you run 1 screen or 20, the presentation benefits would be there to see. You were close, Bill but not close enough..... would never work for Hoyts.... or BCC for that matter. They were instrumental in dropping manning rates in the 80's And guess what? Now they are screeming for experienced priojectionists and upping the rates again. Funny that!It's their problem now. I did my time with Village Roadshow starting in 1982 at Essendon Drive-in and ending in 1996 in the Village Theatrette then onto Palace and MIFF. So there's just a bit of experience there. But ultimatly these are my opinions and that's how they'll remain. Cheers and Beers Ian And here's my email address for anyone concerned that I may have anything to hide. Email address deleted by Admin for anti-spamming purposes. Read the FAQ and rules pages before you post again. [ 09-15-2004, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]  |  IP: Logged Matthew Jaro Film Handler Posts: 74 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Registered: Jul 2003 posted 09-16-2004 07:16 PM                        Ian ---- 6000 ft reels are a terrible idea. The reels are so heavy when loaded that there is a considerable inertia when loading or unloading a print. The Goldberg floating hub reels helped with that problem, but I imagine floating hub reels would be too expensive for distribution (considering the fall-apart reels that Fox uses). I could just hear the film chinching up and creating long vertical scratches as the dust particles rub against the print when the reel starts or stops. It's bad enough now with diagonal platter scratches that seem endemic with previously-run prints (not everyone aligns their rollers like the Film-Tech people do). Also, imagine all the new possiblites for crimping the edges if there is any unevenness to the wind. Think of what will happen to the Sony SDDS tracks --- hmmm --- maybe that would be a good reason to have 6000 ft reels after all.  |  IP: Logged Richard Fowler Film God Posts: 2392 From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA Registered: Jun 2001 posted 09-17-2004 09:26 AM                     During the "low bid" stage of developing the 6000 reel the resulting prototype reel had reinforcing ridges inside the reel spokes....not good for SDDS.  |  IP: Logged Bill Langfield Master Film Handler Posts: 280 From: Prospect, NSW, Australia Registered: Apr 2001 posted 09-17-2004 01:34 PM                        Ian, I started my time with GUO in 1977 [include other places here (try to ignore Hoyts)] And I will finish my journey at GUO. It was HOYTS who stuffed up our pay rates, NOT GUO/BCC. Regarding 6000' spools I agree, but it can't happen When we run 70mm we have, to carry a single trunk the size of a a 6000' for each REEL up to the projection room. HEY you have a point, just two or three of them in 35mm on 6000's would be EASY NO, that would TOO hard too. Load up the DVD instead eh? Now your job is... Manager/'projectionist'/Ticket seller/Candy/Usher/cleaner You are on the pulse, finally Ive woken up. Thank you. Bill  |  IP: Logged Ian Joseph Parfrey Film Handler Posts: 56 From: Bollier Queensland Australia Registered: Sep 2004 posted 09-19-2004 05:06 PM                     Hi Bill. Yep, you're on the money. My typo, sorry. Hoyts were, from my memory, the instigators in the whole "Choc-topper" business, but they did have background backing from the Village People and i suspect other chains too. ( Indie or otherwise. ) I probably spent too much time on the pickets!!! Do you spin much 70mm nowadays, or has the Dolby-Digital-Deathknell rung true? Baraka (shot in 70- screened in 70) was something else!  |  IP: Logged Ken Lackner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1907 From: Atlanta, GA, USA Registered: Sep 2001 posted 09-19-2004 08:54 PM                     I can understand most of JP's point's, except: quote: John Pytlak and there were compatibility issues with some make-up tables. I don't get it. Every theater I've worked at has built the 2K reels onto 6K reels, and then loaded onto the platter. How would there be MUT issues??  |  IP: Logged Aaron Sisemore Flaming Ribs beat Reeses Peanut Butter Cups any day! Posts: 3061 From: Rockwall TX USA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 09-19-2004 09:02 PM                     quote: Ken Lackner I don't get it. Every theater I've worked at has built the 2K reels onto 6K reels, and then loaded onto the platter. How would there be MUT issues?? The Warner/New Line ELR had a 1/2" spindle hole in the center. Many MUTs only have a 5/16" spindle, and cannot change spindle sizes. Adaptors are/were made, but didn't catch on. I also believe that some MUTs (a rare few) couldn't handle a 6000' reel. -Aaron  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 09-19-2004 09:21 PM                    Wasn't the thickness of the side flanges also an issue as regards alignment with the rest of the table & rollers?  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 09-19-2004 10:13 PM                     Yup! The simple solution for an AW3 mut was to use a 70mm shaft and make a spacer out of a media core cut to size, but it didn't take long for Christie to release an ELR mut shaft specifcally designed for it. Still though, it was the extra width that killed compatibility.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

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.