Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Studio film processing inhouse 1930s

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Studio film processing inhouse 1930s

Author

Topic: Studio film processing inhouse 1930s

Steve Matz
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 672
From: Billings, Montana, USA
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 08-27-2014 03:35 PM

Don't think this has been posted before;Interesting Read!

http://silverscreenmodes.com/?p=165

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 08-27-2014 06:02 PM

Teaser topics are against the rules.

| IP: Logged

Steve Matz
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 672
From: Billings, Montana, USA
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 08-27-2014 06:39 PM

Nothing teasing about it;I was showing how the Film Studios did everything inhouse and had their own processing labs, etc. What! are you the new Forum Police! [Roll Eyes]

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-27-2014 06:40 PM

The article has a lot of inaccuracies, such as a 90-minute movie requiring nine 2000-foot reels, the last Paramount movie distributed on film being Anchorman II, and of course this fun typo:

quote:
Only now the actors don’t get so many beaks.

And this:

quote:
A 90 minute movie is usually 10,000 feet of film. If you’ve ever looked through developed film stock, it’s amazing how many frames it takes to advance a scene. Modern reels of film come in 2000 ft. lengths, so that’s almost nine reels of film per movie, and many movies last longer than 90 minutes.

Huh? First off, a 90-minute movie is closer to 8100 feet of film. And, his basic math is wrong; and even if he was right about 10,000 feet, that would fit (duh) on five 2000-foot reels.

Some of these bloggers really need fact checkers and/or proofreaders before they put their words out for posterity.

Steve - a better forum thread title would have been "Article with pics showing how film was processed in the past" or something describing the article.

| IP: Logged

Buck Wilson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 894
From: St. Joseph MO, USA
Registered: Sep 2010

posted 08-27-2014 06:46 PM

There's a very touching documentary video in the comments.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 08-27-2014 06:48 PM

Please fix your teaser subject title Steve.

| IP: Logged

Steve Matz
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 672
From: Billings, Montana, USA
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 08-27-2014 07:09 PM

The touching Documentary Video Buck Mentioned [thumbsup]

http://vimeo.com/101235645
Going Dark...The Final Days of Film Projection

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 08-27-2014 07:28 PM

quote: Article
A 90 minute movie is usually 10,000 feet of film. If you’ve ever looked through developed film stock, it’s amazing how many frames it takes to advance a scene. Modern reels of film come in 2000 ft. lengths, so that’s almost nine reels of film per movie, and many movies last longer than 90 minutes.

So firstly this "journalist" can't even get the basic math right, and secondly, look closely at the picture labelled "Theater projection room, circa 1930s". Those rectifiers are Irems, circa 1990s.

| IP: Logged

Steve Matz
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 672
From: Billings, Montana, USA
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 08-27-2014 07:34 PM

Actually LEO it says Projection Room 1950's,but I agree those Rectifiers are newer looking than ones from the 50's [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Buck Wilson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 894
From: St. Joseph MO, USA
Registered: Sep 2010

posted 08-27-2014 08:52 PM

I noticed that too. Passes pretty well otherwise. My first thought seeing those rectifiers was "Hey! We had one of those up until we closed! Surely they aren't THAT old....."

| IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 08-27-2014 09:30 PM

The pictures from the old times are pretty cool. Other than that, the article write up sucks.

I have said in a few other threads that film will still be around on a very limited scale going forward.

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 08-28-2014 12:49 AM

quote:
What! are you the new Forum Police! [Roll Eyes]

You'll find that usually whoever happens upon a thread first is the one that tells someone about the mistake. And because of the time zone difference here in South Korea, I was up at work before most of the other members...

And really, when I mention a rule like this, it's only because I've seen Brad respond extremely negatively to them and he's the one in-charge. And incidentally, he responded exactly as I expected...

| IP: Logged

Jarod Reddig
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 513
From: Hays, Ks
Registered: Jun 2011

posted 08-29-2014 01:02 AM

Really cool article! Great vid too.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

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.