Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | my password | register | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Maximum shrinkage able to be screened? (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: Maximum shrinkage able to be screened?
Trevor Anderson
Film Handler

Posts: 5
From: Fadden, ACT, Australia
Registered: Aug 2004


 - posted 08-10-2004 06:57 PM      Profile for Trevor Anderson   Author's Homepage   Email Trevor Anderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Hi guys,

I'm hoping that some of you may be able to give me some guidance as to the maximum shrinkage that 35mm and 16mm projectors can handle without damaging a print. Have you had any personal experinece of screening shrunken film. How are you measuring shrinkage if you do?

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 3987
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000


 - posted 08-10-2004 06:58 PM      Profile for Steve Kraus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Hey that water was really cold. Do girls know about shrinkage?

 |  IP: Logged

Dan Lyons
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 698
From: Seal Beach, CA
Registered: Sep 2002


 - posted 08-10-2004 07:53 PM      Profile for Dan Lyons   Email Dan Lyons   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
What type of equipment are you using?
Are the prints brittle or warped/vinegar?
Are any of the films in question mag?

Acetate films normally shrink with age, but should have no problems running on well maintained equipment; just be sure to thoroughly inspect the film before running it. If you run mag, then you have sprocket issues to consider.

It does worry me that you want to know the max shrinkage.. how bad is this film you are talking about? one way to tell for sure: when inspecting on the rewinds, take a spare sprocket of the same type that is on the projector(either vkf or C/S perf) and see how the film lays on it. If it doesn't fit.. it won't run.

danny

 |  IP: Logged

Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug

Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000


 - posted 08-10-2004 08:28 PM      Profile for Phil Hill   Email Phil Hill       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Steve Kraus
Do girls know about shrinkage?

Yes George, they do. Jerry told me.

>>> Phil

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 3987
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000


 - posted 08-10-2004 08:54 PM      Profile for Steve Kraus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I have a little bit of nitrate that I cannot project but made it through my KEM ok.

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17590
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 08-10-2004 08:59 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
From the projectors I have worked with (Gordon will undoubtedly mention a machine no one on the planet has ever heard of), the Century seems to handle shrunken film the best.

You should consider FilmGuarding it first. Anything that has shrank needs to be kept well lubed before and during use.

(Any bets on what Tony will say to that? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? [Wink] )

 |  IP: Logged

Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug

Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000


 - posted 08-10-2004 09:03 PM      Profile for Phil Hill   Email Phil Hill       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Brad Miller
(Any bets on what Tony will say to that?)
Which Tony? You mean Uncle Tony? J/C!

>>> Phil

 |  IP: Logged

Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God

Posts: 2913
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004


 - posted 08-10-2004 09:13 PM      Profile for Tony Bandiera Jr   Email Tony Bandiera Jr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think we all know what I would say, right? [Big Grin]

The title of the thread does leave an opening, eh? I'll let it go...

But on topic, Trevor, both Dan and Brad have given the best advice so far. Film Guard and a test with a sprocket before projecting. Check all splices.

Most splicers have good registration so I would think that if it fits the pins on the splicer ok it would probably do ok in the projector as well.

Edited spelling on "spoorket"

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 15887
From: Bountiful, Utah
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 08-10-2004 09:51 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I've had the best luck projecting warped/shrunken film on a Brenkert BX-80 alot more so than with any curved gate machine. That extra long film gate really does hold things in place. both OF the prints I had that were really bad were Eastmen MAG/OPTICAL. No other machine would run them in a watchable state.

Mark @ CLACO

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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


 - posted 08-10-2004 09:58 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
For really bad 35mm shrinkage, you might see if you can find some of the original sprockets from the nitrate era (pre-1950), which had a slightly smaller root diameter to handle the greater processing shrinkage of that film.

I agree with Brad. Treat the print to lubricate it, and use the lowest gate tension that gives a steady image.

If the print is "one of a kind", be sure to check with an appropriate film archive before risking damage through a projector, just in case it is the only surviving copy of a film.

 |  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 08-10-2004 11:31 PM      Profile for Daryl C. W. O'Shea   Author's Homepage   Email Daryl C. W. O'Shea   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Like Mark, I've had good luck with shruken prints on BX-80s and BX-60s. Centurys and Simplexes aren't too bad either.

 |  IP: Logged

Trevor Anderson
Film Handler

Posts: 5
From: Fadden, ACT, Australia
Registered: Aug 2004


 - posted 08-11-2004 12:46 AM      Profile for Trevor Anderson   Author's Homepage   Email Trevor Anderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks for the replies,

Just to clarify. I work for an archive and we have a large lending collection of prints both 16mm and 35mm (I also work a shift a week at the local art house and have installed projection and audio equipment). These are never preservation copies (ie one of a kind elements).

So what I am getting from the posts so far is that nobody seems to measure shrinkage before screenings and that would be what I would expect from my experience working here and in Asia.
We measure the shrinkage of films as a routine part of our film examination at the archive.

What brought this question up for me was that I sent some films to a local lab for copying and they weren't able to run them through their printer at around 1.3% shrinkage so I'm assuming that projection equipment wouldn't be able to handle anything at that level of shrinkage as well but we don't have the data to back that up.

 |  IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9390
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 08-11-2004 01:31 AM      Profile for Gordon McLeod   Email Gordon McLeod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
My motiographs have regular projected nitrate that is so shrunken the perfs are visable on screen

 |  IP: Logged

William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 08-11-2004 03:09 AM      Profile for William Hooper   Author's Homepage   Email William Hooper   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
When Leo Enticknap weighs in on this thread, I would also be interested in knowing what he used to repair dameged perfs. Did Jack Roe sell him CineBugs, Per-Fix machines & tape? The artsy craftsy method of fooling with slivers of splice tape gets on my nerves.

 |  IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3040
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002


 - posted 08-11-2004 05:21 AM      Profile for Stephen Furley   Email Stephen Furley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I know how the National Film and Television Archive repairs perforation damage, even when it is so bad that the whole edge of the film, outside the perforations, is missing for several frames. They keep a supply of old film, of various vintages and degrees of shrinkage, and find some which closely matches the film being worked on. They cut suitable patches from the edges of this, and cement it in place on the base side of the film. Of course, they are working on material to be printed from, not projected.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply 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.

© 1999-2018 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.