Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Shedding problems!

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Shedding problems! (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Shedding problems!

Bruce McGee
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1776
From: Asheville, NC USA... Nowhere in Particular.
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 11-07-2005 05:58 PM

We are running a new print of Good Night and Good Luck. We are running it on a Christie PG35. It is shedding like a snowstorm. It started Sunday afternoon. I ran it 3 shows in a row using FG and the Kelmar cleaner. Shedding continues. The pads (Film-Tech) are getting black fast. Fortunately, it does not look bad on the screen.

The traps and tension bands are clean. I have the tension set at 2.

Anybody got any ideas for me to try? This is the only print we have that is shedding. This projector ran Elizabethtown for 2 weeks, and there was no shedding with it.

Thanks!

| IP: Logged

Wolff King Morrow
Master Film Handler

Posts: 490
From: Denton, TX, USA
Registered: Feb 2004

posted 11-07-2005 06:24 PM

Same problem here, but John said the print has a special wax coating, which is probably why there's so much powder coming off.

| IP: Logged

Steve Scott
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1300
From: Minneapolis, MN
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 11-07-2005 06:25 PM

This is a print problem that has apparently occurred at most locations around Minneapolis playing this print. Assuming everything is within adjustment in your machine, it ought to be the fault of the film.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 11-07-2005 07:41 PM

It is a B&W film...typically gates/traps with lack of edge lubrication are gonna shed. Note, we have the AFI/Silver running this print since its initial release and no shedding or noisey operation...delrin skates and runner strips.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 11-07-2005 08:57 PM

I'm away from the office this week, for my daughter's wedding this Saturday.

From the description, it sounds like the projector gate or intermittent sprocket shoe is severely scuffing the back side of the film. Edgewax can only go so far to provide additional lubrication on B&W print film, and mostly helps the emulsion side. Be sure the film contacting surfaces are all clean and free of anything that could abrade the film. Use the lowest tension that still gives a steady image. Additional film lubricant like Film-Guard usually helps. Delrin gates/shoes greatly reduce abrasion of the film -- I recall that Christie offered optional Delrin pad rollers and intermittent shoe:

http://www.christiedigital.com/files/Support/Bulletins/polyester_print.pdf

quote:
CHRISTIE INCORPORATED
10550 CAMDEN DR.
CYPRESS, CA 90630
(714) 236-8610

Technical Field Bulletin
for
Polyester Print Shedding
Date: 2/1/00 No.: FB111
Product : P35GPS/M35GPS
Problem : The “scuffing”, or incidental surface abrasion due to contact of the film
with the projector, can lead to “dusting” or “flaking” of some polyester film stock.
Recommendation:
The following steps can be taken to reduce/eliminate the “dusting” or
“flaking” of polyester film.
1. Make sure gate bands and shoe(s) are in good condition and free from any film
residue build-up. Any “nicked” or damaged surfaces should be replaced. Make
sure that tensions and clearances are set to recommended levels.
2. Delrin pad rollers (598931-762) are available to replace the older metal rollers.
3. A Delrin Ultramittent shoe assembly is available as a replacement for the
standard metal shoe (196362P001). It has visible wear safety indicators and
stainless steel protective runners and is easily installed on any model P35 or
M35 projector.

| IP: Logged

Bruce McGee
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1776
From: Asheville, NC USA... Nowhere in Particular.
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 11-08-2005 07:52 AM

Thanks for all the comments. BUT, Is the base on this B/W film different from what the color stock uses? I've seen a little dusting in the past with color film, but have never seen what this does. The dust is allover the back of the lens, allover the intermittent, allover the trap, and the sprockets. As for the trap and bands, I clean them on every show. I suspected the lateral guides, but have ruled them out.

In the past, any shedding issues were stopped using FilmGuard. This is a first. This morning I will change the pads on the Kelmar cleaner, and see what we do today.

JP: Congratulations on the marriage! Best to your daughter and son-in-law!

| IP: Logged

Joseph Pandolfi
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 213
From: Milford, CT.
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 11-08-2005 04:45 PM

Same thing here. We have two prints and we were shedding crazy on our PG35's on opening weekend. So far we applied FG seven times on one and five on the other. I was there this past Sunday and the shedding has minimized on one with the 7 apps and virtally none on the other.

| IP: Logged

Bruce McGee
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1776
From: Asheville, NC USA... Nowhere in Particular.
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 11-08-2005 06:58 PM

I got to work this morning and ripped the projector apart and checked every inch of the film path. The bands were clean and had no build-up, or rough places on them. The trap has no build-up on it either. I checked out the intermittent shoe too. Nothing.

So, I replaced the black pads on the Kelmar cleaner, and re-soaked them in FilmGuard. First show, the cleaner showed some darkening, but there is no shedding now. The tension is still set at 2, and the screen image is rock steady. The 2nd show showed even less residue on the pads. The Kelmar cleaner was filthy and took awhile to get clean. It had a load of what looked like black mud on the rollers that come in contact with the film through the media roll.

The print is running tonight without the cleaner, as our night crew is not good at rewinding the cleaner between shows. I will check it out tomorrow and report back.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 11-08-2005 08:06 PM

With Christie projectors, the likely area causing the scuffing abrasion is the metal version of the Ultramittent shoe assembly. That's why they made a Delrin version available.

| IP: Logged

Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 11-08-2005 08:51 PM

I saw this film this past weekend at the Brooklyn Academy of Music and the print looked and sounded as old as the story. Almost every frame was filled with what looked like was positive dirt, but I now realize must be shedding.

In addition, the soundtrack was full of noise, which surprised me because I was pretty sure it was presented in digital sound and I don't see how a dirty or shedding print could cause noise in a digital soundtrack. But maybe it was SR analog.

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 11-08-2005 09:57 PM

That makes at least 3 reports here of sound problems with this movie (Martin, Sam Graham, and me -- see the reviews forum).

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 11-09-2005 12:42 AM

Simple Martin, you saw it in analog. Any print that shedds badly WILL have it's digital tracks damaged (except usually dts) because the gate is being clogged with hardened deposits. So running it in analog, the "noise" you heard was dirt on the soundtrack.

There is a setting to adjust the clearance of the intermittent shoe on the Christie projectors. There is no need to go the delrin route...just align the shoe stop.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 11-09-2005 12:45 AM

quote: Brad Miller
just align the shoe stop.

I used to align the shoe stop to where the shoe would retract in half way with the stop closed on the sprocket with film loaded.

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Bruce McGee
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1776
From: Asheville, NC USA... Nowhere in Particular.
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 11-10-2005 06:24 AM

I adjusted the intermittent shoe stop. No more shedding at all since Tuesday. I'm still running the cleaner, because the black crud is still coming off the print. I'll stop running the cleaner today and see what happens. At this point, I think this problem is solved.

| IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 04-23-2006 03:38 PM

[ Was there another topic more suitable for issues with "Good Night and Good Luck (2005)"? The search finds a topic so-titled, but clicking on it returns "You have requested a topic that does not exist!" I seemed to remember one, though...]

We finally ran Good Night, and Good Luck this weekend, and we ended up with two prints from Swank (via TES. Swank\#0001 and Swank\#0007). Both were pretty bad, and I have to assume this has something to do with the Kodak 2302 stock -related issues.

We run a fair number of Swank films (including, sadly, these occasional "Swank prints" of WB films that WB has given over to Swank and which Swank contracts out to TES to handle distribution of, all to avoid giving non-theatricals ETS prints. I suppose it's a mechanism to segregate the prints, but for us it tends to result in worse prints than we would otherwise see, as well as making it much harder to get quality replacements), but rarely are the prints this bad. That coupled with the my suspicion that this title was not the most popular of bookings and recollections of discussions on FT leaves me with the feeling it was substantially more damage-prone than most.

In our case, both prints were characterized by two kinds of damage. Vertical black base-side scratches and almost-hook-like damage extending from the perfs into the SRD area, in some cases impinging more than half-way through into the SRD block. Furthermore, even the DTS timecode was intermittant and troublesome!

We did see substantial shedding on our Century C's (2K lamps; no FilmGuard) with this print. Since we're a university (second-run venue) and rarely see new prints, it's extremely rare we see shedding at all. I found it necessary to clean the trap and the intermittant sprocket between reels (running changeover). We also found PTRs removed quite a significant amount of particulate matter, enough to justify cleaning PTRs after each reel (rather than every 2 shows -- 1/night -- as usual). Dirt was primarily removed from the SDDS areas (as you might expect).

While I can certainly see how the shedding issues could lead to damaged SDDS and even SRD tracks, I wonder how they might be more inclined to lead to damage in the image area (vertical scratches). Is there some vector I'm just not thinking of?

Is it possible there was some sort of misprocessing of the 2302? I know that in the FITA topic Good Night and Good Luck, John P. notes various heat-related issues, and that the print was subject to RP151 edgewaxing. Is the edgewaxing responsible for the shedding in the perforation area? [I would not think the wax would migrate in that far?]

Similarly, I wonder, what would it have taken for WIP to have produced 2383 (or 2393) prints of this? While they might not look quite as good pristine, I have to wonder if they would not have held up better, such that a 6-month old print would look a lot better (it could hardly have been worse).

Would it have been necessary to strike new intermediate elements, or could color prints have been made from the existing internegatives? (I see from Kokak's datasheets that 2302 and 2382 have different trim/tape values, esp. that they are uniform for 2302 whereas 2383 has a blue bias.)

According to the Box Office Mojo statistics, Good Night, and Good Luck had a relatively slow widening (at least, by comparison to many films these days):

quote:

Week 1: 011 theatres; Oct 7-9, 2005
Week 2: 068 theatres (+057); Oct 14-16, 2005
Week 3: 225 theatres (+157); Oct 21-23, 2005
Week 4: 272 theatres (+047); Oct 28-30, 2005
Week 5: 657 theatres (+385); Nov 4-6, 2005
Week 6: 668 theatres (+011); Nov 11-13, 2005
Week 7: 803 theatres (+135); Nov 18-20, 2005

One might think (naively, I guess) that there would have been time for the first hundred theatres to have given feedback to WIP that the prints were problematic, and time for them to decide to try 2383 instead. [Maybe they did?]

Is there a significant price difference between 2383 and 2302?

Hmm; quite a lot of questions here, I guess. Sorry to "wax" so much...

--jhawk

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.