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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Projectionist test (Page 1)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Author Topic: Projectionist test Kevin Owens Film Handler Posts: 2 From: Rainbow City, Alabama, USA Registered: Apr 2005 posted 04-19-2005 08:08 PM                     My GM recently told me that I needed to come up with a test for my projectionists to see if they all know as much as they should. Could anyone give me a few examples of something that they think every projectionist should know?  |  IP: Logged Dean Kollet Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 591 From: Florida State University Registered: Jul 2003 posted 04-19-2005 08:50 PM                     are these just going to be operators? if so, I guess I'd do something like this: Hands On: Threading Cleaning Basic Troubleshooting Buildup/Teardown Written: Any of your policies Terminology Basic Theory And just for shits and giggles, have them write out how to thread and projector, how to clean it, etc.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-19-2005 09:00 PM                        Look for "Projectionist Study Material" in the "Manuals" section on this site. There are a few aspects of that file that are somewhat dated (stuff about cement splicers, etc.), but it's still a useful file, and it should be pretty easy to turn most of it into a written test. You'll need to add some questions that relate to your specific setup, particularly if you have a "modern" sound system. Also see if your state or city has a requirement for projectionist licensing. If so, try to find out what is covered on that test and include that material as well. You should definitely have a practical review covering basic equipment operation, correct terms for equipment and major parts, film handling, troubleshooting, maintenance, etc. My personal feeling is that a "test" for this sort of thing is of questionable usefulness, and that you would do better to observe your employees at work and get a feel for their general level of competence, however.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-19-2005 10:08 PM                     Of course the LAST question on the test should be... How Much of the time is an image actually on the screen duiring a two hour movie......? If they don't know this answer then they don't know the theory. They should be sent back to the popcorn stand. Mark  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-19-2005 11:31 PM                     Funny you should mention a test. I've been working on a test, on and off, for quite a while, now. Click Here (PDF/Acrobat Reader format.) (400 KB.) (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike.) There have been several versions of this, some better than others. Some of you may have seen it in one of its other lives. (Esp. Cinemarkers!) Because of where I work I will soon be expected to pull this out of the closet, rework it and use it as a Final Exam for my students. Anybody who sees anything useful in this document, feel free to make use. (See Creative Commons above.) I would be appreciative of any suggestions or criticisms as well. (Especially in specifics on technical details that I may have gotten wrong or phrasing of questions/answers.)  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-19-2005 11:37 PM                     Godamn those fratistats!  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-19-2005 11:51 PM                     I have lost count of the number of people who have fallen for those "sucker answers"! I get people who SWEAR that film is made of "Tricloro-S-Triazinetrione" or that there actually IS a fratistat in a movie projector! It never ceases to be funny to me when somebody falls for one, even after all these years.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 04-20-2005 04:14 AM                     I gave daily quizzes during training to aid in memorization and then a standard all-inclusive test came at the end of a practice period during which time the trainees started the weekday matinees in the smaller houses only. I can remember a few of the points on the test: A frame of standard 35mm film is 4 sprocket holes in height. Soundtrack orientation is toward operator when threading. Clear the intermittent before threading. Identify frame lines on a sample strip of film. Differenciate between scope & flat film (use the same 6-8 frames from a flat and scope version of the same trailer). Names of soundtrack formats and locations. Standard fader setting is 7. Practical tests... Turn projection system on. Threading. Manual start. Adjust image: out of focus, out of frame and back to normal. Turn projection system off. Splicing.  |  IP: Logged Jason Miller Expert Film Handler Posts: 241 From: Little Rock, AR, Registered: Mar 2004 posted 04-20-2005 07:19 AM                    quote: Randy Stankey I've been working on a test, on and off, for quite a while, now. I hope I can be present the day that someone catches a print on fire by cinching it.  |  IP: Logged Mitchell Dvoskin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1869 From: West Milford, NJ, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 04-20-2005 08:39 AM                     I. What does ASPECT RATIO mean? A. The height of the picture on the screen compared to its width. B. The height of the image on the film compared to its width. As the question is worded, either answer would equally apply. The frame on the film has an aspect ratio, and there is an intended “projected” aspect ratio, which is not always the same. II. Match the aspect ratios to the names of the formats below: 1. Flat 1.85:1 2.39:1 1.33:1 1.66:1 2. Cinemascope 1.85:1 2.39:1 1.33:1 1.66:1 3. Television 1.85:1 2.39:1 1.33:1 1.66:1 4. Academy 1.85:1 2.39:1 1.33:1 1.66:1 5. European 1.85:1 2.39:1 1.33:1 1.66:1 1.33 is a “TV” format. It has not been an aspect ratio for projected 35mm movies since the early 1930’s. I believe the official aspect ratio 1.37. Technically, 1.85 1.75 1.37 & 1.66 are all flat. If you run older movies from time to time, remember that the scope aspect ratio was 2.35 (2.55 for mag only), not 2.39. I forget when it was changed to 2.39. Academy would be 1.37.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-20-2005 09:27 AM                     It MIGHT catch fire if you cinch a piece of NITRATE film! The aspect ratio question is one that I've been wrestling with: PROJECTED aspect ratio would be correct. But, how far into terminology should I go when training newbies? Most of these students have only been donig the job for a few months. They only work once per week, as opposed to every day like they would in a commercial theater. I've been flipping back and forth on that one. I think I'm going to put the work "projected" back in. . Same question with the Academy/TV vs. 1.33/1.37 thing: Is is sufficient to simply point out that movies USED to be the same size as what your (standard) TV screen is today? In my booth, we can project 1.85 - 1.66/1.77 - 2.39 - 1.37 Yes, I know that 1.85, 1.66, 1.77 and 1.37 are all considered "FLAT" but I'm boiling things down a bit. In daily use, I call them "Flat", "European", "Scope" and "Academy". With the "European" lens there are two aperture plates. Since my screen is on the stage's fly system I can adjust the screen to match the picture. It's a little bit more legwork but it's cheaper to cut another plate than to buy another lens. The lens collars and aperture plate handles (Simplex PR-1003) are all marked with the names of the format in paint marker. Each week I write the correct information on the label at the tail of the print. The operator simply has to go read the label and install the lens/aperture that's called for. Most of the time the correct lens is already in place so it's just a formality to check it. So, do you think I've boiled the question down too much? You don't realize how hard it is to take information that you know by heart and put it down on paper so that it's clear to other people until you try it!  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 04-20-2005 12:06 PM                     This will probably make me seem like an insensitive prick but... Avoid turning this into an opportunity to show off. Those multiple choice examples are needlessly complicated and you will confuse your projectionists, especially if they are complete newbies. Trick questions are silly and unprofessional and, in addition, can create an atmosphere in which the student is mistrustful of his teacher. I can understand how exciting it is to have the opportunity to train someone. Still, I would urge you to keep it simple. You can always offer "advanced training" at a later time. The typical American film handler newbie only needs to know how to identify the scope format versus flat. From a practical standpoint, they need to know which lens and aperture plate is for which format and how to mount/dismount (or engage/disengage) the lenses and plates. If your theatre has moveable masking they will need to learn how to use it. The average newbie doesn't need to know what the numbers mean. Unless you actually use 1.66 (and all that jazz) there is no reason to even bring that up in a "basic training" situation. Even with flat/scope I only mention the actual aspect ratios in passing. If they retain the information that's fine but they are not expected to learn/memorize any of it because it doesn't figure into their ability to do the job at the most basic of levels. Again, if your theatre uses 1.66 and 1.85 then you *do* need to delve into the subject of aspect ratios a little deeper than this. In most cases, however, the reality will be that your projectionist-in-training doesn't plan on being one for the rest of his/her life. Don't burn yourself out because, once in a while, you will find an excellent operator who is interested in learning more. Conserve your energy to groom that one when he/she presents him/herself.  |  IP: Logged Mitchell Dvoskin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1869 From: West Milford, NJ, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 04-20-2005 01:10 PM                     The people who trained me some decades ago used the term "half frame flat" to refer to 1.85. I have never heard anyone else ever refer to it that way, so I don't think it was official terminalogy. I don't know anything about 1.77, but 1.75 was a Disney aspect ratio.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-20-2005 01:16 PM                        The problem with not addressing stuff like 1.66 and Dolby A and <insert some other picture or sound format not normally encountered at a first-run multiplex> is that eventually, everyone will have to deal with a 1.66 or Dolby A print, even in a standard multiplex. There will be a theatre rental or Summer Movie Camp or any number of other reasons why films in oddball formats will show up and,when that happens, the operator will have to deal with them. If he is aware that these formats exist, then that reduces the chance of an emergency call about "the subtitles are getting cut off" or "the sound is bad." Is there anyone here who has worked in a theatre for over a year who _hasn't_ handled an Academy or 1.66 print?  |  IP: Logged Mark Hajducki Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 500 From: Edinburgh, UK Registered: May 2003 posted 04-20-2005 02:09 PM                     The nature of the test would depend on the aim of your training; if all that is required is people able to perform basic projector operation then most of the more complex items can be missed out, if you want projectionists who understand about film projection then it is worth introducing them to the more complex stuff. If the course is part of their eductation it is worth going into the technical detail since this add to skills that will be usefull in other areas of their eductation. quote: Manny Knowles Those multiple choice examples are needlessly complicated and you will confuse your projectionists, especially if they are complete newbies. The wrong answers on a multiple choice test have to be beleivable otherwise the test is pointless. I have come across some nasty varients which are negatively marked and in which none, any or all of the options could be correct. quote: I don't know anything about 1.77, 1:1.77 is approximately 16:9 (consumer 'widescreen' TV) quote: Scott Norwood Is there anyone here who has worked in a theatre for over a year who _hasn't_ handled an Academy or 1.66 print? How many cinemas (especially multiplexes) showed those films using their 'flat' lense not noticing that the subtitles are off the bottom of the screen.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

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.