Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Static!!! (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Author Topic: Static!!!
Sean Thompson
Film Handler

Posts: 7

Registered: Aug 1999


 - posted 01-23-2000 11:19 AM      Profile for Sean Thompson   Email Sean Thompson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
We have been having a problem with static in our booth and we were thinking it could be the humidity or the temp. It has been staying pretty warm and dry up there and i was wondering what the best humididty and temp should be?

 |  IP: Logged

Ken Layton
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1452
From: Olympia, Wash. USA
Registered: Sep 1999


 - posted 01-23-2000 12:19 PM      Profile for Ken Layton   Email Ken Layton   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Get some Filmguard-----NOW!

 |  IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 01-23-2000 01:47 PM      Profile for Gordon McLeod   Email Gordon McLeod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The tempertureshould be between 60-70 f and relative humidity of 65%

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Colley
Film Handler

Posts: 25
From: Dacula, GA
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 01-23-2000 01:50 PM      Profile for Mike Colley   Email Mike Colley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Humidity in the booth should be between 50% and 60%. If you have doubts, get one or more hygrometers(depending on the size of the booth) from Radio Shack. They run about $20 each. If you do see the need for extra humidification, I've gotten pretty good results from the Emerson portable humidifiers. With regular maintenance, changing filters and using antibacteriostatic water treatment, they can last a pretty good while. I've found them at Grainger. If you can't locate the Emerson models, just make sure that it is the evaporative type of humidifier to minimize corrosion to your equipment. By the way, Filmguard does work as well as everyone claims. The theatres that I have tested have eliminated static problems in the prints treated. Good luck!

 |  IP: Logged

Bruce McGee
Phenomenal Film Handler

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


 - posted 01-23-2000 04:20 PM      Profile for Bruce McGee   Email Bruce McGee   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Ken said it best.

Get the FilmGuard. The static will be gone, your prints will look better, and your projector will run quieter.

And it smells good, too.

 |  IP: Logged

Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene

Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 01-23-2000 05:18 PM      Profile for Dave Williams   Author's Homepage   Email Dave Williams   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Oh yeah, love that film-guard. Has that high school shop smell that I used to love.

------------------
"If it's not worth doing, I have allready been there and done it"

 |  IP: Logged

Masao Garcia
Film Handler

Posts: 34
From: Lancaster, CA, USA
Registered: Oct 1999


 - posted 01-23-2000 10:58 PM      Profile for Masao Garcia   Email Masao Garcia   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I've been told that Kodak prints are treated with some sort of anti-static spray type coating to help reduce static. Does this coat tend to wear off? Because the Green Mile at our theatre has mucho static at the last reel. The Hurricane also has developed a bit of static at the end and "brain" wrapped today. I know some people here don't like the term, "brain", but I use it cuz I didn't learn any better. At least I put it in quotes. And as for going out and buying Film Guard, I work for Cinemark, so we all know that story...

 |  IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 01-24-2000 04:20 PM      Profile for Randy Stankey   Email Randy Stankey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I agree. Get FilmGuard.

We used to have film interruptions almost DAILY!

Last winter, there were several films that had to be baby-sat almost all the time!

[i]Jackie Brown[\i] wrapped 3 times in a row! You'd fix the first one and restart the proj. and it'd wrap 2 minutes later!

S.W.Ep. 1 would wrap at the same place in every show. We'd actually set the timers on our watches and go to the platter when that spot went through.

We got FilmGuard and we have had ZERO wraps. Not one!

If your company doesn't have F.G. in stock, just use petty cash to get it. If the corporate monkeys try to nail you about it, just show them the rain check logs.

In July, we averaged 3-5 interruptions per month. That average was taken over the last two years. Now we have FilmGuard there have been 7 interruptions in since October. Four of them were becasue of mechanical breakdowns. One of them was because of a manager's mess-up.

Basiaclly, if you don't have FilmGuard, you ought to get it!

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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


 - posted 01-25-2000 08:58 AM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Kodak refined the formulation of its proprietary anti-static backing technology when the company developed its new generation of Kodak Vision color print films in 1998. We also developed an anti-static process additive that labs can add to the final wash in the print film process. Kodak began providing this additive ("Staticide 3000G")at its own expense to film laboratories around the world in early 1999. It helps reduce "static cling" on all print films, even those not manufactured by Kodak. Further improvements are underway.

In the past year, reported incidents of "static cling" have decreased substantially because of these improvements. However, a few prints may still be prone to "static cling" under certain conditions (e.g., non-conductive platter surfaces, if there were variations in the amount of "Staticide" applied to the print, or changes in humidity).

As noted by other posters, proprietary film treatments may help reduce "static cling", either by increasing the conductivity of the film, or by "balancing" the static charge between the emulsion and base side of the processed film.

For help on reducing "static cling", see the article in the September 1998 "Film Notes for Reel People":
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/september98/pppp.shtml


------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Professional Motion Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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


 - posted 01-25-2000 02:55 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
To: Masao Garcia
I note that in addition to your recent "static cling" incidents, you have had ongoing static problems in the past as well. I see that you are from Lancaster California, in the middle of the Mojave Desert. What is the typical relative humidity in your projection room? Does it get especially low in the winter? Any hope of using humidification to increase the humidity closer to the recommended range of 50-60 percent RH?

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Professional Motion Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

 |  IP: Logged

Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999


 - posted 01-27-2000 01:00 PM      Profile for Tim Reed   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Gentlemen and Ladies:

Wouldn't it be easier to simply return to acetate?

There's been thousands of dollars of equipment damaged by this Estar stock, because of its unsuitability for platter projection (to say nothing of the countless man-hours expended repairing these mishaps, the interruptions to business, and resultant ill-will generated among customers).

If theatres still ran on reels, there'd be no problems with implementing Estar, but the industry is several decades removed from that now. Dupont tried a polyester base film in the early 50s, after the demise of nitrate stock. Fortunately then, it could not be easily spliced, so it did not gain favor.

Everyone's been doing a lot of backpeddling, trying to make a dielectric material behave like it's not a dielectric. That's why they make capacitors out of polyester.

With all due respect to Mr. Pytlak, shouldn't Kodak just forget about Estar and concentrate on improving acetate, given that improvements are the objective? I know many people would agree that Estar is anything but an improvement. Besides, all good ideas aren't necessarily good ideas. Everyone is entitled to make a mistake from time to time. And Kodak, with all the good work and research they've done over the years, would be due for at least this one.

I'm sure the industry would forgive them if Estar was discontinued.

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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


 - posted 01-27-2000 01:15 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Well said Tim! I wholeheartedly agree with the return of acetate. However, I don't see it happening. Perhaps our good friend John Pytlak can explain all the reasons the industry switched to polyester for us. I can think of no one better to do so.


 |  IP: Logged

Erich Loepke
Film Handler

Posts: 43
From: Ft. Worth, TX, USA
Registered: Sep 1999


 - posted 01-27-2000 01:54 PM      Profile for Erich Loepke   Email Erich Loepke   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Speaking of past mistakes, how about Eastmancolor?

Also, did Kodak produce regular Eastman stock and SP simultaneously? I have a 1981 print that's on Eastman film stock, and does not have SP on it anywhere.

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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


 - posted 01-27-2000 03:35 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Kodak did NOT lead the charge to polyester film, and publicly urged caution regarding issues like its tremendous tensile strength, electro-static properties and potential for "flaking" when severely abraded (Report to Intersociety Committee at ShoWest in March 1994).

But distributors and exhibitors demanded it. The January 1991 NATO News reported: "The (NATO) board also resolved, at the (NATO Technical Advisory) committee's request, to approve and recommend the use of polyester film, which is thinner (allowing more film per reel) and less liable to break."

From 1991 to 1995, most polyester prints were printed on other manufacturer's film (e.g., "The Fugitive", "Free Willy", "The American President", etc. Kodak moved slowly and cautiously in converting from triacetate to polyester print film for theatrical prints, and began an intensive program to develop new technology to address the issues of polyester abrasion and static. This technology was used in the new Kodak VISION Color Print films, supported by a massive investment ($200 million) in a new machine to make base for the new film. Kodak VISION Color Print film has greatly improved performance and quality, and additional improvements are underway. Triacetate base is no longer being used for release prints.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Professional Motion Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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


 - posted 01-27-2000 04:12 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
That's good to know Kodak wasn't behind this polyester mess. However, if the studios were worried about fitting more feet on a reel, why do I keep seeing 8 reel prints that should be on 5 reels? It's getting worse and worse lately. Also, whatever happened to the ELRs? (I'm still squirming at the idea of a Technicolor ELR.)



 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.