Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: ELR Why not?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » ELR Why not? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: ELR Why not?

Carl King
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 199
From: Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 09-18-2000 12:56 PM

Who besides me thinks that it is time for the distributors to sart shipping prints to multiplexed on the ELR (extended length reel).

These things hold 5 or 6 thousand feet of film (3 standard reels). Building up and tearing down prints would be a lot faster and with only one splice to be made in most features there is a lot less chance of misframes. I mean who can't make just one splice correctly?

What do you think boys and girls?

| IP: Logged

Bruce McGee
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 09-18-2000 01:11 PM

I have a feeling that TES and others would have a field-day making bad splices. I dont think the labs would be able to do this easily either.

Can you imagine getting a ELR that is broken by the gorrillas at the depot?

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 09-18-2000 01:38 PM

Actually, some of the original Extended Length Reel (ELR) and case designs approved by the Inter-Society Committee for the Enhancement of Theatrical Presentation were pretty sturdy and robust. I also recall someone showed a very durable case and reel used in Scandinavia for shipping large 35 mm reels. Done right, ELRs are still a very good idea.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment 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

Dave Cutler
Master Film Handler

Posts: 277
From: Centennial, CO
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 09-18-2000 02:19 PM

I agree with John, if the ELR's were done correctly, they could be very cool.

Warner Bros. originally just spliced three reels togeather and called it an ELR (I hated that), but once fully inplace I think they would have had the labs start printing the ELR's. Don't the labs buy film from Kodak on 6000' reels anyway? That would transfer to ELR's nicely, any extra film could be used for trailers.

I don't think the shipping companies would be able to damage the ELR's as badly. The cases seemed pretty strong, and the reels were much more robust than the 2000' reels used today.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

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

posted 09-18-2000 02:27 PM

The problem with printing in 6000-foot segments, though, is that there will still be a need to make some prints in 2000-foot segments for theatres that can't accept the large reels. This, of course, creates the dreaded "dual inventory" problem for theaters, labs, and film exchanges...

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 09-18-2000 02:42 PM

Although Kodak supplies raw stock print film as 6000-foot rolls, printing 6000-foot picture and sound negatives is not a "drop in" for most contact printers at the labs. They do exist, but are not common. ELRs would need to be a preferred format before full 6000-foot ELRs were printed and processed in one operation without splices.

I've heard one reason nominal 2000-foot reel lengths are still used is that the first and last reels of a production are often the last to be delivered to the lab because the titles and credits are being negotiated. With 2000-foot reels, the lab can begin printing reels 2-3-4-5, while waiting for reels 1 and 6. With ELR-length originals, the lab would have to wait until all reels were on hand before they could begin printing.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 09-18-2000 02:42 PM

I'm still all for it. If there is a couple of theaters around somewhere that cannot handle anything more than a 2000 foot reel, they NEED to get new reel arms. If ceiling space is at a premium, they could feed from the backside or even mount the supply arm upside down to the ceiling and feed over to a roller on the front wall (yes, I've seen this done and it works quite nicely).

If the industry is going to change over to cyan dye tracks and say "tough" to those theaters still using exciters, surely they won't be concerned about those very few handful of theaters that cannot handle 6000 footers. It would greatly cut down on print damage through unnecessary handling!

| IP: Logged

Dave Cutler
Master Film Handler

Posts: 277
From: Centennial, CO
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 09-18-2000 03:32 PM

Printing to 2000' foot reels because the credits are still being negotiated seems a bit silly to me. I understand why they do it, but if the labs decided to switch I don't think it would add extra pressure to the labs. The extra pressure would be on the studios to get those credits done in time. I am sure the labs have a time frame they require the studios to get them the negative so it can be released by a certain date. That deadline might just have to be adjusted and if the studios can't handle it, then there movie will just have to be delayed.

If you are running changeovers I agree that you should atleast have the ability to run 6000 changes, even if it is regular practice to do 2000 changes. Upgrading would just be a requirement to keeping with the times.

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

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

posted 09-18-2000 04:46 PM

And what about theatres with AA2's the lower magazine is limited to 4000'
4000' rolls would actually make more sense anyway

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 09-18-2000 05:04 PM

Gordon, go to the picture warehouse and check out Bob Leader's AAII projectors.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

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

posted 09-18-2000 06:09 PM

The problem with 4000' reels is that they would be a huge annoyance for theatres that normally run 6000' reels. Either there would be an extra changeover for most features or the prints would be hacked up anyway to fit everything on two 6000' reels.

As for the "everyone should have 6000' capability"--I tend to agree with this, but there are lots of places that have AA-IIs and such. Also, some of the larger carbon-arc lamphouses burn carbons that only last for 1/2 hour or so (the big Ashcrafts come to mind...the smallish Peerless lamps that I've worked with would be fine for 6000' reels, but using up the stubs would be difficult).

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 09-18-2000 06:36 PM

We've talked about this before..... ELR won't happen anytime soon, because it does not help the studios (read: put or even save them money.)

Even if/when the labs can print 6000ft reels continuously, they should leave on the c/o marks just in case someone needs them...

Of course, no one wants to make life difficult for those people who can only run 2000 or 4000 ft reels, but there would be a _huge_ labor and money savings for theaters if ELR's became common- not to mention less handling of the print. There's just too many to be ignored.

If you take the magazine covers off a AA-II, you can put a slightly larger reel on. I know purists will think that sacrilegious, but it may be just enough to fit many films (although not all.) The way that pedestal is designed, you will never get a full 6000 reel on there.

| IP: Logged

Mike Spaeth
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1129
From: Marietta, GA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 09-18-2000 07:18 PM

Let's think about it - in the grand scheme of things, who still uses changeovers? I would say probably 10% or less of the screens in the United States are run by a changeover. If it would make life easier for the MAJORITY of people that use platters - by all means - go ahead with it.

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 09-19-2000 01:52 AM

Brad said:>>If the industry is going to change over to cyan dye tracks and say "tough" to those theaters still using exciters, surely they won't be concerned about those very few handful of theaters that cannot handle 6000 footers. It would greatly cut down on print damage through unnecessary handling!<<

...and he said it very well. Bring 'em on (and leave off the changeover cues while you're at it.)

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 09-19-2000 04:26 AM

Yes. Please drop the changeover cues on ELRs! They are useless. Besides, if someone just absolutely HAS to chop up the print to run on smaller reels, surely they have their own cue scriber. The labs shouldn't punish the 6000 footer changeover houses and platter jockeys just because of those couple of theaters that can't run 6000 foot reels. Think about it anyway. Are those projectionists going to actually slowly wind through the entire reel looking for those cue dots to know where to cut the reels apart? HELL NO! That would take forever! They would just chop the film wherever the reel got full and "at best" at a scene change and then just scribe their own cues on to effectively DOUBLE the amount of annoying cues on the prints. Leaving the cues in tact is a horrible idea in my opinion. Surely others can see my logic here.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

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.