Library of Congress Prints

[Jesse Crooks]

Your programmer signed a loan agreement that includes film handling requirements. Most of it is repeated on the form that ships in the can as posted by Paul, but have them give you the actual agreement. Same goes for any archive you borrow from. You are responsible for fulfilling the agreement, so you need to read it yourself. The programmers / bookers may have no idea what is important to communicate to you.

You can also ask them for a condition report so you know what to expect from the print. They inspect everything on the way out and the way back in, so they should be able to provide one (we usually ask for a general condition before we book a print, and they are usually happy to provide a complete inspection report if requested). While their reports include footage counts, they do not expect you to do the same, and I would not attempt to do so to avoid the unnecessary wear. I don't even use a frame counter to check cue placement on archival prints if they have lab cues, to reduce the handling and risk of wear. I do a rough check based on the ~3' distance between 15" reels on a Kelmar table (three lengths, plus another 1' 12 frames... not as precise as a counter but close enough to be within the margin of error for a good changeover). Since you mention not having a good method to mount your frame counter I'm guessing you place it on the tabletop, offset from the film path, which is not great. Kelmar sells an adapter that allows you to mount a Nuemade film measuring on their tables with the correct 10 degree backwards tilt, so that the frame counter is in the film path without an lateral offset or twist. That's the best option for your Kelmar table. If you only have a tabletop film counter, I would check the cues or questionable countdowns at your hand rewind station so that you can place the counter in line with the film path.

I'm glad you're still planning on resolving your rewind and clutch issues... archives make you fill out a venue report but they really don't ask enough questions. They make sure you're running reel to reel, and sometimes ask about storage methods and security, but fail to ask about numerous other issues that could lead to print damage. Contrary to what Leo suggests, the LOC loves it when their prints get shown, as long as you take good care of them. In fact, if you ever meet Lynanne in person she'll probably go in for a hug! Haha. Couldn't ask for a friendlier archivist!

One fun quirk with the LOC is that they like to ship the prints tails-out, emulsion-out. And like most archives they do NOT permit you do a test screening or run any test reels, so you should plan to have someone checking the volume for the public presentation. I always make sure we have a second person in the booth besides the projectionist to coordinate the volume adjustments for archival shows... got burned too many times by people demanding my attention while I was watching for a reel change.

I've never had an archive deny my request to make a minor repair, but I have had them take multiple days to get back to me with an answer... Last year I think it took the better part of a week to get an answer from UCLA about two bad splices that I wanted to redo. Make sure you inspect it as soon as it arrives so there is enough turnaround time to communicate with the archive if any issues arise.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Your programmer signed a loan agreement that includes film handling requirements. Most of it is repeated on the form that ships in the can as posted by Paul, but have them give you the actual agreement. Same goes for any archive you borrow from. You are responsible for fulfilling the agreement, so you need to read it yourself. The programmers / bookers may have no idea what is important to communicate to you.

You can also ask them for a condition report so you know what to expect from the print. They inspect everything on the way out and the way back in, so they should be able to provide one (we usually ask for a general condition before we book a print, and they are usually happy to provide a complete inspection report if requested). While their reports include footage counts, they do not expect you to do the same, and I would not attempt to do so to avoid the unnecessary wear. I don't even use a frame counter to check cue placement on archival prints if they have lab cues, to reduce the handling and risk of wear. I do a rough check based on the ~3' distance between 15" reels on a Kelmar table (three lengths, plus another 1' 12 frames... not as precise as a counter but close enough to be within the margin of error for a good changeover). Since you mention not having a good method to mount your frame counter I'm guessing you place it on the tabletop, offset from the film path, which is not great. Kelmar sells an adapter that allows you to mount a Nuemade film measuring on their tables with the correct 10 degree backwards tilt, so that the frame counter is in the film path without an lateral offset or twist. That's the best option for your Kelmar table. If you only have a tabletop film counter, I would check the cues or questionable countdowns at your hand rewind station so that you can place the counter in line with the film path.

I'm glad you're still planning on resolving your rewind and clutch issues... archives make you fill out a venue report but they really don't ask enough questions. They make sure you're running reel to reel, and sometimes ask about storage methods and security, but fail to ask about numerous other issues that could lead to print damage. Contrary to what Leo suggests, the LOC loves it when their prints get shown, as long as you take good care of them. In fact, if you ever meet Lynanne in person she'll probably go in for a hug! Haha. Couldn't ask for a friendlier archivist!

One fun quirk with the LOC is that they like to ship the prints tails-out, emulsion-out. And like most archives they do NOT permit you do a test screening or run any test reels, so you should plan to have someone checking the volume for the public presentation. I always make sure we have a second person in the booth besides the projectionist to coordinate the volume adjustments for archival shows... got burned too many times by people demanding my attention while I was watching for a reel change.

I've never had an archive deny my request to make a minor repair, but I have had them take multiple days to get back to me with an answer... Last year I think it took the better part of a week to get an answer from UCLA about two bad splices that I wanted to redo. Make sure you inspect it as soon as it arrives so there is enough turnaround time to communicate with the archive if any issues arise.

Thanks Jesse. Interesting on the no screening/test reels subject. Our agreement and projectionist instructions make no mention of that aspect. I had only heard it from here, no one in my org relayed such info. We tend to favor doing at least 2 reels test because our alignment/masking can be a bit fussy between formats on the turret having projector, god forbid some non-standard matting etc. Having come from 70mm setup most recently, other than loops, I also ran two personal 35mm flat reels today, but we were still considering playing two show reels the day of on the 21st, but perhaps best to forego that?

We run all our 35/70mm with two projectionists, just cause we often do DCI pre-roll and the booth layout is not conducive to an easy transition. Best to let one person focus on film, especially now that we are dipping into archival. So show-time volume monitoring isn't an issue (have iPad access for that too).

The Tails out Emulsion Out quirk definitely surprised us, and had I not grazed over that note when I first read your response the other day I would have been ready! lol. Weird to get things in one orientation but wanting them back in another for sure.

For those following along and curious I'll attached the NAVCC's current projection letter and loan agreement. I was not a party to the filling out the technical forms (our TD was probably consulted). We also got a inspection report from them when we asked for one today. Attaching as an example for any others curious.

Unfortunately replacing our reverse motor kelmar side was not in the cards yet, nor did I have an opportunity to drag my HFC rewinds into work (bike only transit). I've pushed some equipment improvement funding requests up the chain several times prior... but now that archives are involved I need to put the hammer down. No more until they grant some minimal improvements. Inspecting my arm clutch pads is still on my list before screening, minor tension bounce on one takeup.

[Jesse Crooks]

In the booking guidelines (a separate doc than the ones you’ve provided) they explicitly state:

“At no time may Library prints be viewed on a film viewing machine or projected other than for the specified play date agreed upon in the Loan Confirmation.”

The first time we booked a print from them I emailed Lynanne to ask whether this forbids the screening of test reels, and she confirmed that was the case.

Just run some PA-35. Not as good as running the actual film but good enough that the audience won’t have a clue unless there is some very wonky framing on a matted print, etc. The volume is usually the only thing you actually have to worry about, hence my previous recommendation of having people besides the film projectionist dedicated for that purpose. Any minor discrepancies in focus or framing between the test film and the feature should be minor enough that the typical viewer won’t have a clue. In their estimation, it’s better than doubling the wear on R1 and R2 at every venue (as is the typical practice).

As a side note, knowing that most venues usually test the first two reels I always pick the shortest reel (usually the last) to get the volume on prints we’re allowed to test. Saves time and puts less wear on the reels everyone else is running.

As for the rewind table situation, it blows my mind that the powers that be want to operate a 70mm venue but won’t provide the minimum requirements for safe film handling. They should be ashamed. For the cost of shipping a couple 35mm prints you could probably replace the rewind table and projector clutch parts you need. Unfortunately it’s a common occurrence. The people holding the purse strings don’t understand it, so they don’t want to pay for it. They don’t know that your reputation as an institution is on the line.

[Jesse Crooks]

Posting from my phone so it was too much of a pain to figure out how to attach the booking doc quoted above. Your programmers should have received it. If you can’t get a copy of it let me know and I can post it here at a later date.

[Ryan Gallagher]

In the booking guidelines (a separate doc than the ones you’ve provided) they explicitly state:

“At no time may Library prints be viewed on a film viewing machine or projected other than for the specified play date agreed upon in the Loan Confirmation.”

The first time we booked a print from them I emailed Lynanne to ask whether this forbids the screening of test reels, and she confirmed that was the case.

Just run some PA-35. Not as good as running the actual film but good enough that the audience won’t have a clue unless there is some very wonky framing on a matted print, etc. The volume is usually the only thing you actually have to worry about, hence my previous recommendation of having people besides the film projectionist dedicated for that purpose. Any minor discrepancies in focus or framing between the test film and the feature should be minor enough that the typical viewer won’t have a clue. In their estimation, it’s better than doubling the wear on R1 and R2 at every venue (as is the typical practice).

As a side note, knowing that most venues usually test the first two reels I always pick the shortest reel (usually the last) to get the volume on prints we’re allowed to test. Saves time and puts less wear on the reels everyone else is running.

As for the rewind table situation, it blows my mind that the powers that be want to operate a 70mm venue but won’t provide the minimum requirements for safe film handling. They should be ashamed. For the cost of shipping a couple 35mm prints you could probably replace the rewind table and projector clutch parts you need. Unfortunately it’s a common occurrence. The people holding the purse strings don’t understand it, so they don’t want to pay for it. They don’t know that your reputation as an institution is on the line.

Copy on the test reels front. I'll try to get ahold of that document, I already asked for the other attachments my programmer/TD did not forward (Projectionists Report and Venue Report).

As for the resistance on modest items towards improvements, it's not actual resistance. It's more of a human bandwidth and org-chart issue here, those that have purse decision/execution power (or a budget, if such a thing exists), are stretched thin as far as attention and role. It's not so much the dollar value that is the problem, it's the delegation, approval, and acquisition process. I've gotten minor equipment type things on a project by project basis (with more success than many predecessors), but it often takes up to a year or a budget cycle to materialize. I am self-compelled to provide exact links and costs for anything that is not on amazon, or risk tripling acquisition time. If it involves tracking down more rare items or quotes, the attention problem only compounds itself. I can do that leg work too, but not sure it would be appreciated as a time saver, rather than stepping out of an invisible lane. I can go around the busy person (and have), but that is also not appreciated.

I can only speculate as to why it's this way, I'm on the outside looking in, in fact none of production dept. really has even minor purchasing power without running things up the respective flagpoles, and often whole campaigns.

We have time and no money, they have the money and no time. But I digress.

[Frank Cox]

I'm a bit surprised at the requirement to use tape to hold the ends of the film down on the reels.

I've never seen one of these but I assumed they would use those heavyweight paper reel bands with the red string. I was told masking tape (of any kind) was a bad thing, until the last few years I had film here when the reel bands seemed to disappear.

[Ryan Gallagher]

I'm a bit surprised at the requirement to use tape to hold the ends of the film down on the reels.

I've never seen one of these but I assumed they would use those heavyweight paper reel bands with the red string. I was told masking tape (of any kind) was a bad thing, until the last few years I had film here when the reel bands seemed to disappear.

Archival artist tape is the norm now (acid free etc). Masking tape both dries and has pressure/temp sensitivity problems, can crumble into dust or leave horrible goo leading to further print damage. There is also often a requirement not to "re-use" any tape... always fresh and re-label.

I think the industry moved away from the bands generally due to not holding the wind as securely in place for shipping? Or just availability of those bands. I've only seen bands on a handful of original vintage release prints so far, but don't have a large sample size.

When I do encounter bands, I still use artist tape under them.

Even the higher quality colored "painters tape" is no good for longer term application... the adhesive still turns to a gooey mess over time.

That said, I don't know what they do at the archives for storage... they may very well remove all tape upon return inspection and store them with an archival band of some kind.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Posting from my phone so it was too much of a pain to figure out how to attach the booking doc quoted above. Your programmers should have received it. If you can’t get a copy of it let me know and I can post it here at a later date.

My folks sent me everything they were provided and submitted in return, none of which matches that document or language, so I'd be curious to see it if you have a copy handy. Attachment D is also MIA (which they asked for now), I haven't seen with the NAVCC form looks like for a projectionists report if any repairs are made.

The additional documents they provided me (claiming it is everything) are, I'll share the ones without personal info on them:
- Attachment B Loan Confirmation Sample
- Attachment C LCR 3-242
- Paramount Theatre Loan Agreement
- Paramount Theatre Venue Report
- Our Date Specific Screening Attachment (Loan Confirmation)
- Welcome to the Loan Program Doc

[Ryan Gallagher]

Woo, first NAVCC screening was a relative success! Thanks for all the assistance and perspective.

Excellent looking print, though slightly shrunken Acetate (.3%).

Our only gotchya was that our last 35mm running was Brutalist on 24" FT reels with thicker flanges. Our Arms/SRD alignment was tweaked to be quite flawless with those. A slightly shrunken acetate print back on our 6-hole house reels was less than happy in the block error domain (more than usual horizontal alignment variation in WinDRAS). Averaged 5-6 error rate but with lots of individual F/errors. Mostly stayed non-reverted though, only we noticed.

Always something to fix. Arm alignment combined with print and reel condition is my first brush diagnosis, cause there were repetitive aspects to the block errors that seemed to correspond to interaction with reel flanges and print oscillating a bit on the first couple 702 rollers. I include reel condition because we had one reel that performed quite a bit better. These are the same "best we have" reels that haven't caused such issues in the past.

A second guess would maybe be feed tension is on the low side and contributing, it was backed way off to a minimum condition for the 24" reels prior. But I would assume that impacts vertical jitter more than horizontal alignment.

And then obviously, seek better house reels. My personal 7 goldberg cast ones came to the theatre today, but did not deploy them for this screening, gotta at least run a house print off them before I claim them to be better than existing.

PS, please someone demote me from my new "Film God" status. I am not yet worthy. ;-)

[Ryan Gallagher]

Oh and I meant to share their inspection report we got upon request for anyone curious about NAVCC reporting format:

[Brad Miller]

Ryan, your SRD issues has nothing to do with your arm alignment or feed clutch tension setting. Issues like SRD tracking will show up more on smaller hub reels. The Film-Tech reels are simply more gentle on film than other reels. They are lightweight, have 8 inch hubs and the hub will spin perfectly true whereas many Goldberg and other types of metal reels don't even have a truly round hub or one that is properly centered. Those issues create the bouncing on every revolution that you are seeing.

The other possible culprit is that your feed arm shafts are likely slightly bent or there is a little bit of a "tight spot" at some point in the revolution of the reel. Sometimes putting new felt pads on can fix this, other times it's a slightly bent shaft or worn out plates. In short, you need to look at your feed arms and your feed reels because that's where your issue is.

Also remember that shrunken film generally will not track as well as unshrunken/polyester film on SRD error rates. You are blaming lateral tracking in WinDRAS on the feed arm alignment when in reality the cat702 has rollers to force-align the film laterally as well as the Davis loop itself. This completely throws that theory out the window. Your lateral tracking concerns are due to the print having shrinkage (and also possibly the quality of the printing and any wear in the SRD area). Its as simple as that.

There is nothing to fix.

Don't re-adjust your feed arms. Also don't go tightening up the feed arm clutch or you will just become one of those theaters that cinch scratches the ending of every reel. The feed backtension needs to be as loose as you can get away with using the largest reels. Everything smaller will have more backtension by definition at that setting, so adjusting for the largest reel will work fine all the way down to 2000 foot shipping reels with smaller cores. Instead look into the 2K reels you were using and the clutch for a slight tight-spot in the revolution as I noted above.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Ryan, your SRD issues has nothing to do with your arm alignment or feed clutch tension setting. Issues like SRD tracking will show up more on smaller hub reels.
......

Copy all that Brad. My only reason for suspecting something is "different" alignment wise now is two fold:
1. Upper reel arms were removed and re-installed/aligned using the FT reels after removing our 70mm DTS readers before Brutalist.
2. A house print that normally tracks fine, also had some additional similar issues on both machines when under test (using the same set of house reels).

But I believe you that a bulk of this tracking issue can be possibly be ascribed to print condition, original track printing, or reel core size/condition and perhaps something bent or clutch condition/behavior. It just feels like there is something "different" now in tracking behavior linked to the reel rotations that wasn't present last season running 35mm on these same reels, that visually run well except for slight flange rubs in some spots (no pinches). But that something different could easily be a bent shaft like you suggest among the possibilities.

I did not have an ample service window before this one to take apart the clutches and check the felt condition, which I will do. I may pick up a cheap dial indicator to get a final word if and how bent our existing spindles are, visually I had moved the best ones to the feed arms previously. I have AFG-1 in route that might prove useful in the alignment space for mounting and dismounting our DTS readers in the future. Ideally I'd love to get our quick release plates back in working order, that or a custom mount for the 70mm DTS in a way that can utilized without making the stack taller.

If it was only this shrunken print I would not look any further, but our house print doing it too is the fact that indicates something has in fact changed worth looking into. And the only "known" variables changed since last season were the clutch tension retune, and the fact the upper arm comes off and on unfortunately in our 70/35 changeover procedure (at this time).

[Ryan Gallagher]

Having said all that, I may personally pick up one FT 35mm reel to use as a baseline to compare how much our house reels are contributing to tracking problems.
That and/or bring in my NIB sheet metal style goldberg reels for comparison.

[Ryan Gallagher]

For reference, here is our scope view and windras symptoms on that print. If you watch the scope closely you can see these "blips" on the right hand of the waveform that were periodic in nature (period associated with reel turning rate).

Scope View
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TNQ...usp=drive_link

Windras View
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Voe...usp=drive_link

[Brad Miller]

But if you run your "house" reel of film, I'll bet you don't see those blips on the waveform, do you? When acetate film shrinks, depending on how it was wound and stored will often cause a tiny, tiny, tiny bit more shrinkage on one side (or point) of the stored reel...which is likely what you are seeing on the scope.

Also is your "house" reel of film you use for testing something that is basically junk, meaning you can cut it up if you need to? If so, cut yourself a healthy size loop (10-12 feet, but not so large that it drags the ground) from the END of that roll and the END of that reel running from a reel vs. that loop (which will have effectively ZERO backtension on it).

Be careful that when running the loop it isn't dragging on anything. Below are pictures of how I typically setup rollers for the running of loops. If done properly, these rollers can live there permanently like this and not interfere with running of reels. (Ideally I would have used a longer bolt on top of the SRD penthouse, but again since there is effectively zero tension there when running a loop, a short twist like that isn't hurting anything.) The reason for this is you don't want to start scuffing up the SRD track...or in the case of these pictures, you don't want to scratch up your target loop. Plus this design keeps the film from dangling in front of the lens when you are making critical adjustments.