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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » What happened to my tail leader? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: What happened to my tail leader? Aaron Garman Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1470 From: Toledo, OH USA Registered: Mar 2003 posted 06-29-2004 03:00 AM                     Much to my suprise tonight, one of our prints of Spider-Man 2 had a very big error: Reel 6 was missing the last two minutes and the tail! I don't have a digital camera to show you the image, but the reel just ended halfway through a frame of Alfred Molina and also had thick white tape over a few frames at the end. There was no tail leader, and the tape being there really threw me off. So I checked another print we had and the aformentioned reel was definitely wrong. We ordered a replacement of course, and just subsituted the good reel from the other print for our sneak tomorrow night. Any ideas why this would have happened? Another example of no quality control it seems. Now calling John Pytlak! AJG  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 06-29-2004 05:40 AM                        I suspect someone else got the missing footage. Likely the the operator taking reels off the processing machine accidently cut the film in the wrong place. Chalk it up to operator error.  |  IP: Logged Wolff King Morrow Master Film Handler Posts: 490 From: Denton, TX, USA Registered: Feb 2004 posted 06-29-2004 06:35 AM                        I've had that happen before on a few movies. Right now, I'm just wishing they would pick a direction and go with it. All 5 prints I got of Spider Man 2 were random heads/tails. Sony seems to be bad about that, though other companies are more consistant.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 06-29-2004 07:27 AM                        Print orientation depends more on the lab that made the prints than on the distributor. Release print labs usually use either unidirectional "loop" type printers, or bi-directional panel printers. Reels that get selected for inspection projection may not get rewound. It's likely your prints were made on bi-directional printers. Here is a typical bi-directional printer used for making release prints: http://www.rtico.com/bhp/6131e.pdf quote: MODEL 6131E WITH BI-DIRECTIONAL DRY PRINTING SPEEDS UP TO 960 FEET PER MINUTE AND FILM CAPACITY OF 4,000 FEET, PROVIDES EFFICIENT, HIGH QUALITY, VOLUME RELEASE PRINT PRODUCTION. BHP Model 6131E Dry Printers have been designed to maximize print quality, negative safety and production efficiency. The simpli - fied film threading path and fast bi-directional film transport system provide efficient, high quality dry release printing. Further use of the optional electronic fader permits fast preparation of intermediate negatives with unmatched quality, accuracy and safety of original camera negatives.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 06-29-2004 10:07 AM                     I can't say I pay a huge amount of attention to winding orientation, but I know that TES makes an effort to ensure a consistent orientation when they ship out prints. I don't know if they do so on lab-new prints, though. Did this change with the Sony move to ETS? The fact is, though, if it were really important, it wouldn't be difficult for the labs to keep it consistent. If they're loop-printing, then all reels will come out the same way, so it's just a matter of starting the negatives the same way. If they're bidirectional-printed, then they can just sort the reels in two piles, and when they "make" a print, pick head-out versions of all reels or tail-out versions of all reels. (Same deal if a reel get's pulled for QC. I suppose if all reels came out head-out (loop printed), then the tail-out pile might consist solely of pulled reels, and so if you got one QC'd reel that would mean you'd have an entire print that was QC'd, and that might be either good ("known quantity") or bad ("this reel has been run through a projector; it has greater chance of damage") depending on your perspective.) But it should be easy for theatres to rewind. In the ideal world, everyone would have a handy Goldberg automatic rewinder (suitably configured to not cinch), and then it's really no effort to toss the next reel on while you're inspecting the previous. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Dominic Espinosa Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1172 From: Boulder Creek, CA. Registered: Jan 2004 posted 06-29-2004 12:35 PM                     You would think that would be the case...However I used to have to make up my prints off a broken make up table that I used as a rewind bench. To get it onto the platter I would hold the takeup carriage (potts platters) up with a screwdriver. Amazingly I never had scratches prints with potts platters and never a thrown print. Plenty of dumbass brain wraps and rollers fall off though.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 06-29-2004 01:01 PM                     Re: winding orientation - TES only makes an attempt on used prints. There is no way they could possibly rewind half of Deluxe's reels before shipment. Re: sorting reels heads vs. tails - I wish. It'll never happen. I'm going to be the CAP coding would only add to the confusion. Re: QC'd reels - I'd much rather take my chances on reels that had never been ran through a projector. It's obvious when this happens, because there are fingerprints and small knicks and marks all over the ends of the reels on those which were check screened at the lab.  |  IP: Logged Chris Hipp Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1462 From: Mesquite, Tx (east of Dallas) Registered: Jul 2003 posted 06-29-2004 01:14 PM                     I had just the oppisite happen on a print last year. At the end of reel 2 it had about two minutes of another reel 2 on it, so it repeated the beginning of the reel again. I'm sure someone else got the other reel with the first two minutes missing. This was a new print.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 06-29-2004 02:42 PM                        Normally, the labs print several complete copies of the same reel on each large roll of raw stock, which then is put on the ECP-2D processing machine. After the film is processed and dried, it goes through a high speed viewer (video or rear screen projection) for inspection by the take-off operator. The operator lets one reel wind up onto a new core, then has a few seconds to cut the film between the reels, and wind the next reel onto a core. If the operator is distracted, they may accidently make the cut in the middle of a reel, instead of between two reels. Normally mistakes like this are caught since the reel ID / bar codes will not be on the outer lap of the reel. In most cases, the lab ships the prints to the film exchange on cores, as complete features (tracking bar codes and/or CAP codes on each reel to be sure each shipment has all the correct reels). The exchange "mounts" the film onto shipping reels, usually by simply putting the two flanges of the shipping reel onto the core. Mounting involving a rewind step is rarely used today. The film is then put into the shipping case / box for shipment to the theatre. (This the practice in the USA).  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 06-29-2004 06:00 PM                    Okay, I'm still a little unclear on this. Do you really prefer all reels the same way, even if that way is not the way you want? If so, WHY? As a reel to reel projectionist I prefer everything tails out as it speeds up the inspection process. But if I have a choice between a few in this time saving orientation versus all heads up I'd rather have the few tails out. Assuming the typical platter operator prefers them all heads up (meaning they don't inspect or prebuild to a platter reel) I don't understand why they would prefer them all to be tails out and requiring all to be rewound as opposed to getting at least a few where this extra labor could be avoided. Are so many people going through their functions so mindlessly that they'd rather do extra work than to merely look to see which way a reel is wound?  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-29-2004 07:04 PM                        I prefer to have all reels oriented the same way because it saves time when doing "proper" makeup for platters or 6000' reels, since it's faster to rewind one made-up 6000' reel of film than (say) three 2000' reels individually. When running off 2000' reels, I agree that it doesn't matter how the film comes in (though tails-out would save an extra rewind cycle). TES makes an effort to ensure that all reels are oriented the same way? Could have fooled me. Do they actually rewind the reels that are oriented in the "wrong" way? If so, wouldn't that clue them in to the problem of leaders attached with masking tape (or not at all)?  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 06-29-2004 07:14 PM                     Scott, in my experience, leaders attached with masking tape generally (80%) rewind just fine in a rewinder. This is actually the normal case for me, since most titles arrive head-out masking-taped and get rewound before inspection. (I'm with Steve, the more tails out the better. But us changeover guys must be the minority.) --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 06-29-2004 07:56 PM                     The biggest complaint boils down to multiplexes who get their prints on Thursday afternoon/evening, then have very little time to get all of the prints built before the night is over. Having to rewind half of the reels (2K reels at that) takes up quite a bit of time, even compared to having to rewind 6K reels. The basic groups are: 1. Changeover projectionists, of which there are extremely few in the big picture. (Plus they are used to constant rewinding anyway.) We will assume that any changeover projectionists are at least well trained enough to do a full inspection before running the show. 2. Platter projectionists who build straight from shipping reels to the platter. Yeah those guys suck, but it's amazing just how many do it like that. For this group, all heads out is a bonus. 3. Platter projectionists who build onto Goldberg platter reels. For these guys, having all heads out is a bonus. 4. Platter projectionists who build onto large (typically "hour length" reels), then platter from there. This group would generally prefer tails out orientation, but since most platter houses have 2 rewind benches, it's really no big issue at all to start a 6K rewinding on the other bench while you work on the other half of the print. Also, I think more and more of this quality conscious group are switching to platter reels. Any way you slice it, all heads out is the overwhelming preference. However if the reels cannot arrive all heads out, I do agree that most everyone I know would prefer they all arrive tails out than a mix-and-match orientation. Group 2 in this instance will simply build to 6K reels, then platter and group 3 will build to 6K reels, then rewind to the platter reel. Not sure if that really answers Steve's question, but for what it's worth. jhawk - shame on you for rewinding reels with masking taped-on leaders in a rewinder. (Actually, shame on you for using those evil things in the first place, but that's another argument.) Have you never seen what commonly happens to the ends of the reel? The edges get creased, sometimes the film gets flipped over and almost always the film gets a nice fold in it. Of course this wouldn't be an issue if morons would start breaking down with a splicer.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 06-29-2004 08:02 PM                     Actually, damage to the tail leader is consistently not a problem. (The tail leader is also the section of film one generally cares about least, to boot.) Perhaps it is coincidental that most of the masking-taped stuff I get is not too far misaligned... --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 06-29-2004 11:11 PM                    I'd bet it's 95% Type 2. So I don't know why they wouldn't rather avoid some rewinding.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

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.