|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: my favorite archive print so far
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 07-10-2009 08:08 AM
And there-in lies a really good argument for shipping on 6000ft reels. I've gotten a hold of a bunch of those 6000ft shipping containers for personal use and, yah, they are a bit unwieldy (no wheels...hehe), but the amount of wear and tear on a print down from four places within the print where it would need to be man (or woman) handled and potential points where frames could be lost, down to only a single point is a huge different from the standpoint of an archive print, imho.
And of course, once a print has been cut, it's cut; and its a hard argument to make to the projectionist that he shouldn't splice it onto 6000ft reels or a platter, when he is going to have to resplice all the leaders so it will play on 2000ft as nine times out of ten he is going to have to fix badly made, yellow tape and gack splices at the leaders anyway.
Paul, hi-five to your organization. If other archives followed such a policy, print life could be greatly extended. Not to mention that you can then easily identify and weed out the fart houses who routinely distroy prints.
The next step, of course, would be to hit them where it really hurts; bill back print repair and print cleaning time per hour costs to theatre that send prints back needing repair other than what would normally be expected in a cinema that runs a professional booth which trained personnel. But of course everyone is just waiting for digital to solve all these problems. Trouble is, that may be a long wait.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 07-11-2009 02:27 PM
Gee, Steve, beyond stupid? (what exactly is BEYOND stupid?). It can't be THAT stupid an idea since the industry seriously considered implimented it and at least two distributors did give it a trial run. And plenty of theatres were running 6000ft reels for quite a number of years, although I won't vouch for how good or not that impacted print condition.
My understanding is that the main complaints about LP reels came from the carriers and the depots which found the reels just too difficult to handle, needing new storage racks in the depots and in the trucks, etc., not to mention needing level 3 body builders to lift and move them.
As for the dual projector venues that can't run 6000ft reels due to reel size restriction, I would guess (and yes, it's only a guess), that there is only very small number which don't have long play arms or who can't install them due to physical restrictions.
As for the critical clutch problem, I do agree. And I'll give you that it probably would be difficult to insure that this issue not become the nemisis of running on 6000ft reels. Personally I was never a fan of 6000ft operation for just that reason and I think in the last 20 years I've played only two engagements on 6000ft reels -- PORGY & BESS and THE SOUND OF MUSIC. Getting the clutchs to perform optimumly on both ends of the reel load was not easy. So yes, you are right -- it would require tweeking on an on-going basis that most probably wouldn't happen in real-life situations.
quote: Steve Guttag
As to prints that have already been spliced...you arguement makes no sense. It is like saying...if there is dirt on the film already...why can't I just drag it on the floor now...it is dirty already. The goal with 2K only projection is minimize the need/chance for any extra film handling, splice making, frame removal....etc.
What? Who was suggesting that? My point was that the majority of prints that I have seen coming in which have already been plattered have had only one-sided splices or bad splices like Scott's example, which must be remade. All I said was, if you have to handle the print to remake splices so it's playable on 2000ft reels, then the same amount of handling will occur if you are resplicing the leaders or splicing onto platters. I was making the assumption that the film-handler will do everything possible to minimize dirt and scratches. Who's drag it across the floor? Of COURSE, I was not suggesting that.
quote: Steve Guttag
There is one very good and plentiful archive that will ban your theatre if you do anything to their splices....it is their print, not yours.
I don't even know what that means....what would I do to their splices except remake the ones that were badly made and require it? I don't know of any archival or classics distributor who object to that.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 07-11-2009 04:32 PM
Frank,
quote: Frank Angel
It can't be THAT stupid an idea since the industry seriously considered implimented it and at least two distributors did give it a trial run.
There almost can be no further proof of the silliness of the idea that the current industry thought it was a good idea. Note it was these same geniuses that tried to re-invent the wheel...er reel by not following any established standard in making their ELR reels...and guess what...they didn't fit worth a damn on a great many systems!
The other thing that killed it was that it did not eliminate splices but moved them to the exchange rather than the theatre...in short it didn't save anyone time/money except possibly the the theatre if the reels fit their MUTs and they didn't fall apart. And as everyone here knows...saving the theatre time/money is never the goal of this industry.
However...that all is not in the discussion...we were talking about archival print distribution...where the print is expected to play many different venues without damage and thus a system that inherently presents a possibility of MORE damage should be shunned. Even misthreads, which can and do take out single reels would now take out multiple reels.
There are also no benefits to it...once you have the first changeover...the theatre already has the expense of running on two machines and, quite frankly, have a trained professional paying attention on that show...not tending to other theatres or tasks. They have a very valuable property in their hands and should treat it as such.
You said:
quote: Frank Angel
And of course, once a print has been cut, it's cut; and its a hard argument to make to the projectionist that he shouldn't splice it onto 6000ft reels or a platter
And I gave my suitably similar stupid arguement...if dirty..what is wrong with more dirt. If the leaders have a splice...what is wrong with splicing it up more to make it into a large reel or platter. The problem is that you are now increasing the handling of the print, trusting the quality of the operator doing the build/tear down and their bargain-basement splicing equipment. While some would surly improve the spilce quality as they are pros with good materials...many are not and would degrade the print and possibly chop frames. If the rule is NO SPLICING...then the print has a greater chance of staying in its present condition.
quote: Frank Angel
I don't even know what that means....what would I do to their splices except remake the ones that were badly made and require it? I don't know of any archival or classics distributor who object to that.
Don't ever ask UCLA for one of their archival prints...you tamper with one of their splices, you won't be receiving their prints again. If you have a problem with one of their splices, you best call them about it.
At the end of the day, for an archival print, there is zero advantage to running it on a large reel system...2K is it.
I have a client, the AFI/Silver in Silver Spring, MD...they run a mix of current and archival...current titles that are going to play more than a show or two are built to 6K reels...ALL ARCHIVAL prints run on 2K reels and if they have three archival prints running simultaneously...guess what...there are three operators there to run them. Most folks running archival films though don't have multiple screens to contend with though (at least not more than one archival print running at the same time).
Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 07-11-2009 05:41 PM
quote: Steve Guttag
The other thing that killed it was that it did not eliminate splices but moved them to the exchange rather than the theatre
Incorrect, or at least partially incorrect. I played a bunch of ELR prints and none of them were spliced together at the exchange. They were one continuous piece of film.
What killed the ELRs was the fact that the reels were the worst design nightmare of all time and had an amazing tendency to fall apart with no mishandling put upon them. Also if there was a defect within the reel, the labs were then printing 6000 feet worth of film to replace it. That being said, the majority of ELR prints did survive in better condition than the ones shipped to the theaters on 2000' reels (that is, the ones where the reels didn't fall apart). It was a phenomenal idea, but terribly executed and as such, a failure.
quote: Steve Guttag
If the rule is NO SPLICING...then the print has a greater chance of staying in its present condition.
But the other problem is that many of these prints have next to no leader on them and that lack of leader is a major contributor to the reel changes looking like ass after only a few runs.
Plus we have to face the facts. Most reel-to-reel houses have old equipment that is poorly maintained and operators that aren't necessarily any better than the random multiplex kid. Just because the film is ran changeover in no way means the film is getting handled any better. As such we find the archival prints get beaten up almost as fast as the average platter print. The major difference is that the archival (changeover only) prints see far less rentals than their platter counterparts. After all, prints don't get scratched sitting on a shelf in an archive warehouse!
Places like the AFI are the exception and by no means the rule.
quote: Steve Guttag
At the end of the day, for an archival print, there is zero advantage to running it on a large reel system...2K is it.
Had the ELR been designed properly, that statement would be wholly incorrect. There is far more damage that happens at the reel changes during re-threading than the mere idea of running on large reels without ideal clutch tension. At least with the ELRs, there was typically only one "damage point" halfway through the movie, as opposed to every 15 minutes or so throughout the movie when running reel to reel on 2000 foot reels.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 07-11-2009 09:57 PM
Again, on clutch tension vs. the handling of several points during the movie, the ELRs win. Even at the Telluride Film Festival, by the last day after a lab new (often EK) print has only ran a few times (certainly not more than 8 passes total) there is damage at the reel ends, and they are exclusively 2000' changeovers, fully manual with a projectionist standing beside the projector the entire time. Bear in mind they also have a greater quality of operator too.
In contrast I service a changeover house for a museum who will build their prints to two 6000' reels. After they have ran the film for a week or two (brand new prints), the only damage is indeed "at the reel ends". The difference is that it isn't at the splice points, just at the ends of the 6000' reels.
As such, your theory is simply incorrect.
People in general do not understand the importance of long leaders and NOT threading with the countdown in the gate. As long as this continues to be a problem, archival prints would be better served on 6000' lengths because there would only be one point of damage during a typical 2 hour'ish movie. Poor clutch tension just won't put as many marks on a print as running a film on 2000' reels with handling involved.
I do agree with you, at this stage of the game though nothing will change.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Warren Dewey
Film Handler
Posts: 28
From: monterey ca usa
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 07-11-2009 10:44 PM
We play archive and new prints, or semi-new. I run changeovers
because it's fun and easy with a single screen. Normally, unless I'm playing 5 or more shows of the same non-archival title, I leave the reels at 2000'. Building and breaking down prints is not fun, for me anyway.
We don't get too many ultra-beat-up prints any more, thank goodness. But I do see out-of-frame splices occasionally, and many, many leaders that have the weakest possible connection with the film that follows, even with archival material. An archive print of THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK came with lots of missing tail frames, and the last chord of the closing theme cut off.
Our second-run print of CORALINE had not been cut at all, surprisingly. May have been a backup??
(Another unsung advantage of changeover-- it's easy to watch for the occasional variation in focus between reels. Also dts handles changeovers seamlessly, which is nice.
And our new Christie lamphouses came supplied with 2 cool changeover boxes made by Christie, complete with curtain motor switches.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
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.
|
Home
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
</vent>
Printer-friendly view of this topic