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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » The Crazy Things We Find in Film Cans (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: The Crazy Things We Find in Film Cans Greg Routenburg Expert Film Handler Posts: 178 From: Toronto, ON, Canada Registered: May 2003 posted 06-08-2004 12:56 AM                     Isn't it amazing, the little pieces of history that can be found in film cans. Here is something I just recently found tucked into the side of a can that's probably been there for a number of years. I thought some people might appreciate it.  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 06-08-2004 01:55 AM                        I saw that same note in the same can four times in one year a while back.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 06-08-2004 03:46 AM                     That definitely dates back into the 90s!  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 06-08-2004 03:52 AM                     Maybe even earlier that that. Possibly the late 1980's? I am trying to remember - I think it was the movie Free Willie that was the first polyester print I ran in Cinema 5 of Mount Vernon. Whenever it was, there was a sticker inside the can that was very similar to what you posted.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 06-08-2004 03:54 AM                     Nope, The Fugitive was the first big polyester release in 1993 and there were major problems with it being too tough (platters getting turned over), too staticky and color bleeding issues. That note was mid-90s for sure. Within an hour or so, John will be by with a link reminding everyone that the prints of the Fugitive were NOT on Kodak stock.  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 06-08-2004 05:09 AM                     Are you sure? The reason why I ask this is because Plitt bought us out around 1990 or 1991, and I told him to cram it shortly thereafter. I am positive there was poly print I ran well before that. I thought it was Free Willie (which was filmed part in the Puget Sound area.) When did that film hit, anyway? Maybe I am starting to suffer from Alzheimer's disease.... Maybe I ran that thing in Southsound....Jeeze, I must be gettin' old.  |  IP: Logged Kenneth Wuepper Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1026 From: Saginaw, MI, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 06-08-2004 05:34 AM                     I believe our first experience with the new film base was around 1968 when we got a Mr. Magoo cartoon on it. The senior operator cut off the tail to attach the trailer/dater pack when he discovered that it did not cement with our chemical splicer. He left us all a note, "Warning, Cartoon has no tail". The booth got some "press-tape" splices to use on the few films that required them. We never did get a tape splicer before the theatre closed in 1972. Since it was first run and reel to reel there was no need for making lots of splices. KEN  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 06-08-2004 05:57 AM                        Kodak has made print film on polyester (ESTAR) base since the 1950's. It was used primarily for small gauge films (16mm and Super-8 prints) and for special venue (e.g., 70mm IMAX films, theme parks). Agfa-Gevaert was the first to really promote the use of polyester (GEVAR) base for 35mm theatrical prints. "The Fugitive", "Free Willy", "The Magic Garden", etc. were some of the first releases on Agfa polyester print film. Fuji followed suit with "The American President" in late 1995. A film on the earlier Kodak polyester print film (2386) was "Ace Ventura - When Nature Calls" in November 1995. Kodak had concerns about the static performance and projector abrasion issues of polyester prints, as well as the need for proper tension-sensing failsafes. I worked on a report on a survey of polyester print use in theatres for the movie "Mr. Wonderful". My report to ShoWest in March 1994 reported the issues of shedding, static, and fear of equipment damage. Improvements were needed. Kodak spent well over $200 Million addressing these issues, building a completely new ESTAR base manufacturing plant to add an abrasion-resistant, transparent, conductive anti-static backing to polyester film, found on the current Kodak VISION Color Print Films 2383 and 2393: http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr19960509-01.shtml That note is from the mid-1990s, BEFORE Kodak had introduced the significant improvements that VISION Color Print Films brought to the market.  |  IP: Logged Peter Hall Master Film Handler Posts: 314 From: London, UK Registered: Dec 2000 posted 06-08-2004 08:36 AM                        In NZ years ago we used to put all sorts in the film boxes, mainly for crossovers to friendly theatres. Typical were beers, film reviews, our thoughts and in once case I received a couple of porno mags to make the midnight shows seem shorter !  |  IP: Logged Christopher Seo Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 530 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-08-2004 12:12 PM                     quote: DO NOT LUBRICATE THE PRINT. It is not necessary. The print should run smoothly and quietly without additional lubricants. Can someone explain how this statement could have made sense?  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 06-08-2004 12:17 PM                     Was any advice given to projectionists when triacetate started to replace nitrate? Or were any articles published in trade journals at the time? It would be interesting to know what people thought of safety stock when it first came into widespread use. The strngest thing I ever found in a film box was a mouse (alive).  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 06-08-2004 01:24 PM                        quote: Christopher Seo Can someone explain how this statement could have made sense? Ten years ago, prints were more likely to have been properly edgewaxed by the labs. People were trying to lubricate prints with WD-40, or mineral oil, which could leach out the oil-soluble dyes and cause mottle. quote: Stephen Furley Was any advice given to projectionists when triacetate started to replace nitrate? Or were any articles published in trade journals at the time? Lots of publicity at the time. Kodak published numerous technical papers and informational publications. Here is the current publication: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/corp/environment/kes/pubs/pdfs/H182.pdf  |  IP: Logged Robert DeLoss Marken Film Handler Posts: 11 From: stockbridge, ga, usa Registered: May 2004 posted 06-08-2004 01:30 PM                     Stephen - To comment on your question about when safety film started to show up. I was a full time projectionist late "40's" and "50's", my HS and college days. My poor memory, I'm 70 now thus 50 years ago, tells me that safety was considerable thicker than nitrate, so plate tensions had to be constantly adjusted and sprocket wheels had to be turned or replaced much more often because the thicker film gouged the teeth faster. When I left the job and entered aviation, mid-"50's", about half the stock was still nitrate, but these things I mentioned where becoming big problems for the "moving picture machine operators". as we were called back then. Bob Marken  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 06-08-2004 01:39 PM                        quote: Robert DeLoss Marken My poor memory, I'm 70 now thus 50 years ago, tells me that safety was considerable thicker than nitrate, so plate tensions had to be constantly adjusted and sprocket wheels had to be turned or replaced much more often because the thicker film gouged the teeth faster. One issue during the conversion was that nitrate prints had much more shrinkage than triacetate prints. So projector sprockets designed to handle nitrate film which had shrunk about 0.3 percent during processing did not handle triacetate film (which only shrunk about 0.1 percent) as well. Kodak published work showing that triacetate film performed best on 16-tooth sprockets having a root diameter of 0.943 inches, rather than the 0.935 inch sprockets used for nitrate film.  |  IP: Logged Peter Mork Expert Film Handler Posts: 181 From: Newton, MA, USA Registered: Jun 2002 posted 06-08-2004 01:40 PM                     A faded sticker in a very old can said: SAVE COPPER DRIPPINGS - HELP WILL ROGERS HOSPITAL. I kept that one, and always put my copper drippings in an envelope and send 'em off.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.