Film-Tech Cinema Systems
  Home     Products     Store     Forum     Warehouse     Contact Us    
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   » Annoyingly short reels (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Annoyingly short reels
Leo Enticknap
Film God

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

- posted 08-24-2000 03:46 PM      Profile for Leo Enticknap   Author's Homepage   Email Leo Enticknap   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm getting increasingly frustrated by the practice of supplying prints on a large number of very short reels.

Example: just made up 'Beloved'. It consisted of 10 reels, 4 of which were well under 1,000 feet (including one of only 466). The complete print is 15,502 feet long, so it need not take more than 8 reels.

I used to believe that this was how the labs used up short ends of stock. But as John P. and others have explained, there is no such thing any more as they just join a new 6,000 foot roll of raw stock to the end of the previous one as it goes into the printer. This is why we get so many lab joins in the middle of reels.

If we accept that lab joins are a price we have to pay, then I can't think of any valid reason why each reel of a release print needs to be significantly shorter than 2,000 feet (except for the last reel, if necessary).

A larger number of reels per print than is necessary means higher transport costs, longer to make up and pack off if using a platter and more rewinding and relacing if running changeovers. A greater amount of wear and tear will also result, as a higher proportion of the print's total footage will be near the head or tail of a reel and thus be exposed to handling.

Is there any rational reason why the labs still do this?

 |  IP: Logged

Bill Carter
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 162
From: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Registered: Sep 1999

- posted 08-24-2000 03:55 PM      Profile for Bill Carter   Email Bill Carter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Generally, shorter reels like that mean that the film was changed/shortened after negative cutting had already begun.

Usually, the physical number of reels is "carved in stone" once the negative cutter begins conforming the camera negative. Changes may still be made within a reel, but footages per reel generally don't get rebalanced. Once the cutter has made certain shots "head" and "tail" shots for the various reels, that can be difficult to change. Major handling of camera negative like that is avoided as much as possible, because of the potential for wear and damage.

 |  IP: Logged

Rudy Bergman
Film Handler

Posts: 11
From: Long Beach, CA, USA
Registered: Aug 2000

- posted 08-25-2000 12:30 AM      Profile for Rudy Bergman   Email Rudy Bergman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
some of my fellow projectionists have developed the shady practice of tearing down a print in fewer reels than it arrives in. ive noticed the spare reel collection growing. this seems like it might cause trouble for somebody else down the line. am i correct?

 |  IP: Logged
Dustin Mitchell
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1865
From: Mondovi, WI, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

- posted 08-25-2000 01:27 AM      Profile for Dustin Mitchell   Email Dustin Mitchell   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
*cough* *splutter* Dear God yes Rudy!! GET THEM TO STOP THAT IMMEDIATLY!!! Problems this causes:
-adds more splices to the movie
-more handling of film, instead of having dirt/fingerprints build up only on changeover's (if anywhere) if will build up on hte 'new' splices
-sound drop outs
-more missing footage in areas of the film not edited to deal with it

That is a very, VERY bad and unproffessional practice.

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

- posted 08-25-2000 04:22 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
In a perfect world, all reels would be no less than 1800 feet except for the first one. When breaking down, it would be FAR easier if the only short reel in the batch was the last one to come off of the platter (the first one). It would also allow plenty of extra space for the attached trailer.

Of course, if this was a perfect world, all prints would be 70mm DTS dye transfer. It's ashamed this isn't a perfect world!

 |  IP: Logged

Kevin Crawford
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 207
From: Sacramento, CA, USA
Registered: May 2000

- posted 08-25-2000 12:36 PM      Profile for Kevin Crawford   Email Kevin Crawford   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Sometimes the reason for shorter reels is for smoother flow. IE scene changes. Pulp Fiction is a great example of this. The one that comes to mind is the first and second reel. The first reel ends as Jules and Vincent knock on the door, after the foot massage diatribe. The second reel is just as Marvin is opening the door. If you are doing change overs, it would seem to flow better. Or if you had a mangled print, like the one I got, it seemed smoother than I thought it would play.

Since I never wanted to see Beloved, and I never did. I do not know if this film is an example of that.


 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

- posted 08-26-2000 02:04 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm all for changing reels at a scene change, but anyone remember that changeover in Titanic where everyone is talking at dinner...the final shot was on the incoming reel and was horribly green on every print. The shot was only about 5 seconds long too. It then cut to a shot of Jack and Rose on the deck of the ship. That's just annoying.

Honestly since so many films are edited on an Avid nowadays, I'm surprised this is even an issue anymore. The director should be able to choose the spot where the cuts are made. That way he can ensure the cuts are at scene changes and does not disturb the soundtrack if frames are missing. I see so many cuts in mid-scene nowadays it seems like some guy at the lab is making the decision.

 |  IP: Logged

Tom Kroening
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 214
From: Janesville, WI USA
Registered: Oct 1999

- posted 08-26-2000 02:22 AM      Profile for Tom Kroening   Email Tom Kroening   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The reason they put them in the middle of a scene is because they jealous of us projectionists that can yell out "REEL CHANGE" at every cue. This way EVERYONE can tell where the reel change is : P

 |  IP: Logged
Brad Miller
Administrator

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

- posted 08-26-2000 02:25 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Oh no. I used to know a certain someone by the name of "Paul" who used to do that. When the first reel hit it was an immediate shouting "ok everybody REEL CHANGE, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, YAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!", followed by his own applause. He never missed a cue. He even kept logs as to how many minutes and seconds each movie was split up into various reels. The guy was just a concessionist too.

I don't know if he is still alive right now, for surely by now someone has taken him out back of the theater and beaten him to death for that.

 |  IP: Logged

Kevin Crawford
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 207
From: Sacramento, CA, USA
Registered: May 2000

- posted 08-26-2000 02:26 AM      Profile for Kevin Crawford   Email Kevin Crawford   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Not to mention that fact that it is a good place to pull a "Tyler". You know splice in single frames of pornography into a feature.

 |  IP: Logged
Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 08-26-2000 08:25 AM      Profile for Scott Norwood   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Norwood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Rudy - NO! The cut-the-film-when-the-reel-is-full method is horrible. It doubles (at least) the number of splices in the print and will cause no end of trouble for the poor projectionist who gets the print next and has to figure out whether the reels are in the correct order and add cue marks if necessary.

Grr....I cursed several AMC theatres for sending me prints like that...

 |  IP: Logged
Bruce McGee
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

- posted 08-26-2000 11:08 AM      Profile for Bruce McGee   Email Bruce McGee   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I can remember when alot of reel changes ended on fade outs. Now that computers are doing everything, this is just another thing that is not done anymore. With very few exceptions...

As for short reels, seems that I remember A Boy Named Charlie Brown (1969) having a long version, and a short version.

The last time I ran it, it was on 6 reels. I joined 4 and 5 to conserve space and found that the reel was full, but not too full. So when it went back, it was on 5 reels, with the 6th in the case, and a note telling anyone what I did. I never heard a peep.

As for the short version, there is a chunk cut from R1, I think, at a F/O. There is an audible neg. splice here. I used to have a copy of the soundtrack album, and there was a short sequence with Lucy and Linus just after this fade out.

I saw this film in 1969, and I think the scenes were there then. I wonder when it was cut?

 |  IP: Logged

Bill Enos
Film God

Posts: 2081
From: Richmond, Virginia, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

- posted 08-26-2000 11:38 AM      Profile for Bill Enos   Email Bill Enos   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Speaking of reel & splices, what about those nasty middle of frame white lab splices. I recently received a print with 14. That print must have been made from all the leftovers in the lab. Running reel to reel it's not too bad marking and removing the ones missed during build up but still a pain.

 |  IP: Logged
Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

- posted 08-26-2000 12:05 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I got a print recently where reels 4-5-6-7 were all really full, but reel 3 was only about 300 feet. You guessed it... the previous place didn't bother to look for the correct splice points and just cut the film when the reels were full.

At least I had the right number of reels though. Rudy, tell your people to stop that practice. If I ever get a 7-reel print on 6 reels, I'll be on the phone for a replacement whether the whole movie is there or not!


 |  IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

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

- posted 08-26-2000 01:17 PM      Profile for Leo Enticknap   Author's Homepage   Email Leo Enticknap   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Bill Carter's explanation about neg cutting would explain why productions that were orginated and edited not on film (e.g. A Bug's Life, Buena Vista Social Club) are about the only ones which do not have an unnecessarily high number of reels per print.

Incidentally, I get the impression that editors are now deliberately putting reel ends in the middle of a scene in order to minimise the chances of anyone joining the reels out of rack - exactly the opposite of what they did before the days of platters, which was to put a fade out to black on the end of a reel wherever possible, so that late changeovers did not look as gruesome as they would have done in the middle of a scene.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
   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.