I was checking for correct placement of changeover cues (Hi, Steve G!) - I was at the tail end of the reel winding back to the head, from left to right with the soundtrack side facing away from me, and there were the cues opposite the soundtrack (on my side) where they should be. In a nutshell, I was rewinding the reel, emulsion in.

Then, I realised that the emulsion was facing up! Since the leaders were poor and did not identify head/tail orientation clearly, my first reaction was that someone had mistakenly cue-marked the head of this reel. But no, because the image-orientation and subtitle printing were the right way around.

So I rewound the spool, and threaded the projector (after hours) for the first time ever(!) with the emulsion facing the lens and the base side facing the lamp just to make sure I wasn't crazy. It worked, with the subtitles right there in um...black and white. The image was a little soft, however.

The rest of the feature's spools were printed conventionally. So what is this all about, and has anyone ever seen this before?

 |  IP: Logged

"2.1 The photographic emulsion shall be on the side of the film which faces away from the projector lens."

In other words, in a 35 mm release print, the image should read correctly when viewing the film through the emulsion side. This orientation would normally be achieved when contact printing an original negative (or a duplicate negative) onto print film with emulsion-to-emulsion contact. Negative film is exposed with the emulsion toward the camera lens, so the image reads correctly through the base side of a negative film, and a contact print is a "mirror image" of it.

The reel 2 you had was evidently printed with the wrong orientation. In a contact printer, this could be done by printing with the base side of the negative in contact with the emulsion side of the print stock. Printing through the base would also explain why the image "was a little soft".

BTW, the normal orientation for 16 mm prints is with the emulsion facing the projector lens. This is because 16 mm grew from an amateur format where reversal camera originals were usually projected, rather than contact prints. Today, 16 mm prints may have either orientation, requiring slight refocusing of the lens and sound optics for optimum results.

Back in my old TV days, we would get stuff now and then with reversed emulsion in 16.

The station would get calls complaining about soft focus.

Instead of calling MCR, they'd call me. All I would do is adjust focus on the TP-6, and 66.

The engineers always said that they thought the film was just soft.

As I noted, the preferred orientation for 16 mm should be emulsion toward the lens (like a reversal camera original), but prints with the opposite orientation are not uncommon. As you know, some of the Kodak projectors (EASTMAN Model 25, EASTMAN Model 30, KODAK Pageant) allowed refocusing the sound reader for optimum frequency response.

The STANDARD (SMPTE 194) orientation for 35 mm prints is with the emulsion side facing AWAY from the projector lens. The image will read correctly through the emulsion side. There should be no exceptions.

Winding orientation on a core or reel is a different, but related, issue.

 |  IP: Logged

Try:
*emulsion
*soudtrack
for the emulsion in/out winding orientation

*HPS
*THX
for sound discussions

No controversy.

Although SMPTE Recommended Practice RP39 specifies emulsion-in winding for optimum focus performance, it is based on Kodak tests with TRIACETATE prints on reels having small hubs. There is not enough data to specify the optimum winding orientation for polyester prints, and with the large hub diameter used on platters, the focus performance shouldn't vary too much with winding orientation anyway.

Recent experience does show some correlation of winding orientation with sensitivity to "static cling", since the natural "curl" of the film affects how easily the film can "pull in" with a slight static attraction. My article "Platter Patter" in the September 1999 issue of "Film Notes for Reel People" recommends "on a platter, use the orientation that gives the best winding and pay-out", which may vary with humidity.
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/september99/pointers.shtml

Regarding the issue of scratching the print by having it rub on the surface of the platter, many feel that the analog soundtrack should be up, to protect it from abrasion. But others can argue that abrading the right hand side of the picture would just as serious. The best solution to this problem is to position the guide rollers carefully so as not to abrade the film in the first place.

 |  IP: Logged

Were they triacetate prints? Again, SMPTE RP39 says emulsion-in should give better focus stability, especially on small hubbed reels.

 |  IP: Logged

Dropping back the focus of the lamps will allow these to be run with less directed heat and thus without smearing.

2D is still emulsion away from the lens and thus, no smearing no matter how high the intensity of the lamp.

Yep...sample sent to Kodak (James J Delabarto) a little over 6 months ago on a field lens he arranged to be sent here for that purpose. I e-mailed him only recently (less than a week ago, actually) to see if he ever found out anything on it.

Apparently, there's another 18k setup in Florida which has the same problem.

Is there any real reason why 3D prints cannot be printed with the same emulsion side as 2D?

It would solve a serious problem very quickly as our 2d suffers now not only from the high gain screen, but also from lower light than necessary to compensate for the smear.

Thanks

------------------
"I heard a voice behind me say...'Reach for it, Mister'... I spun around...found myself face to face...with a six year old kid! Well I just threw my guns down, walked away... LITTLE BASTARD SHOT ME IN THE ASS!"