|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: VOTE Safety vs. Polyestar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 12-06-2000 07:00 PM
Well this is a no brainer...Theatre should still be using acetate, not polyester. Its foolish that Kodak and other companies have had to spend hundreds of millions on getting polyester to the point where it behave better in conventional theatres. The recommendation of tension sensing failsafes is all well and good but they are kinda like idiot lights in a car, they tell you when the problem occurrs they don't stop the problem. NATO was sold a bill of goods on polyester (kinda like the RED LEDs)...show me the percentage of booth personel that prefer polyester to acetate...I'd wager less than 10% would want polyester if acetate was offered to them. Steve ------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 12-06-2000 08:13 PM
The first major releases on polyester print film were NOT on Kodak film (e.g., "The Fugitive", "Secret Garden", "Free Willy", "The American President"). Kodak participated in a "trade test" of polyester with the Warner Bros. picture "Mr. Wonderful" (using ECP 2386) in cooperation with the Inter-Society Committee for the Enhancement of Theatrical Presentation. I gave a presentation of the results at ShoWest, mentioning concerns regarding the high strength, static, dusting, and need for tension-sensing failsafes for polyester prints. NATO and some distributors felt the advantages of polyester outweighed the concerns, and encouraged rapid conversion. Recognizing these concerns, Kodak began developing the technology now found in the new VISION Color Print Films, which have a transparent scratch-resistant, conductive, anti-static layer on the back side of the film.------------------
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
|
|
John Walsh
Film God
Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted 12-06-2000 08:38 PM
My understanding is that the studios and distributors wanted polyester- they're the people that buy the stuff. I'm sure this is true, because the change from acetate to polyester happened over the course of less than one year- virtually overnight in the motion picture business. The theaters didn't have a say in the matter.And, NATO may have voted for it, but I bet if they voted no, we'd still be using polyester. I simply can not understand why theaters that damage prints are not charged for it. It can't be because the exchanges don't inspect prints between theaters. Simply tell the next theater to inspect the print on arrival, or they will be responsible. While a theater could damage a print on the first day, then try and blame the previous theater, no one would get away with that type of thing for very long. I have to conclude that, for whatever reason, it's in the studios/distributors best interest *not* to make a big deal out of charging for damages.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 12-07-2000 02:33 AM
John,What were the reasons FOR switching to polyester? I think Steve hit the nail right on the head with his post above (I wouldn't even give it 10%), but I'm curious as to the studio's motive.
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 12-07-2000 07:03 AM
To quote from Agfa's ad for their polyester print film, published on page 7 of the July 1993 issue of Film Journal:_____________________________________________ "Increased mechanical strength, better dimensional stability, and the inert chemical structure of polyester make it the ideal film base for cinema release prints. Edge and perforation damage as well as base scratches are reduced to a minimum while invariable perforation pitch ensures the smoothest possible transport in the projector. In other words, less breaks and prolonged high presentation quality. In addition, polyester base film does not contain solvents, making it less harmful to the environment and easier to recycle." ____________________________________________ All true, but it took years of development effort and hundreds of millions of dollars for a new base-making plant for Kodak to develop VISION Color Print Film, introduced in late 1998, which addresses the unmentioned concerns of static and back-side projector abrasion. ------------------
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
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 12-07-2000 08:05 AM
John,I know you personally nor Kodak "pushed" for polyester use in conventional movie theatres. The foolish part I was referring to was the huge expense you all HAD to go through to accommodate polyester to it's current state. NATO I think was sold a bill of goods on polyester and the bulk of theatres out there to this day don't want polyester. It only costs the theatre money to have it with little or nothing to show for their money. Sure polyester doesn't break easily but it sure does stretch. Most people have found that they now loose yards/meters of film from stretching instead of frames from a simple break. Steve ------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 12-07-2000 08:14 AM
Steve:As I noted, all three major film manufacturers have converted to polyester for all their motion picture color print films. Kodak has decommissioned or reallocated the triacetate base machines to other products, so there's no going back. Polyester DOES have many advantages. Work continues to further improve the already excellent characteristics of Kodak VISION Color Print film. Proper tension-sensing failsafes will prevent film damage in the event of a jam or tension build-up. Most are simple devices that rely on a spring-loaded or tension-damping roller that trips a microswitch to shut off the projector if tension builds too high. ------------------
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
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic