Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Annie Get Your Gun

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Annie Get Your Gun

Author

Topic: Annie Get Your Gun

Edward Jurich
Master Film Handler

Posts: 305
From: Las Vegas USA
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 09-28-2004 11:11 PM

We are running a wonderful print of "Annie Get Your Gun". Wonderful in that it looks really good but has a few problems. I understand this is the only print MGM has for release, at least with cut leaders and tails. It seems to be a composite print made up of different pieces put together. It runs fine but if you run this print beware that you can't just start it and walk away. I've had to refocus several times for each showing. The start of reel 5 is the worst going way out of focus.
And, this print took me back for a second when I noticed the film edge was marked "KODAK NITRATE". It is of course the marking from the negative, or is it [Eek!]

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 09-29-2004 05:26 AM

quote: Edward Jurich
And, this print took me back for a second when I noticed the film edge was marked "KODAK NITRATE". It is of course the marking from the negative, or is it

If "KODAK NITRATE" are white letters against a dark background, the words are most likely printed from the negative. If the letters are dark against a light background, the print could be nitrate. [Eek!]

| IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002

posted 09-29-2004 06:36 AM

quote: Edward Jurich
And, this print took me back for a second when I noticed the film edge was marked "KODAK NITRATE". It is of course the marking from the negative, or is it

I hadn't realised that it was old enough to have had any elements on nitrate. It's a long time since I've seen it, but it didn't look that old. It's 1950 acording to the IMDB.

I have a 1951 short which has 'NITRATE' edge printings from the negative, and I know that some of the original elements for the 1951 re-make of 'Show Boat' were on nitrate, while others were safety. This film really was something of a transition, as some of the original recordings were optical, while others were magnetic.

I can't remember the exact date now, but I know that, at least as far as Kodak products are concerned, the final nitrate base was made only a few years after the introduction of triacetate. Various other safety bases, mainly diacetate, had been available since at lease 1912, but had never been very widely used for 35mm film. Why was triacetate accepted so much more readily than the earlier safety bases had been? Was it that much better? whas the fire risk felt to be no longer acceptable?

I know that diacetate is difficult to (cement) splice, and that which I have handled tends to be brittle, but I don't know how much of that is due to age. When it was new, was triacetate that much better than diacetate that it was to become universal in just a few years, while diacetate was, for 35mm, still little used about 40 years after its introduction?

Of course, triacetate was very useful for 3-D, and was introduced just in time for the first 3-D boom.

| IP: Logged

Edward Jurich
Master Film Handler

Posts: 305
From: Las Vegas USA
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 09-29-2004 09:39 AM

quote: John Pytlak
If "KODAK NITRATE" are white letters against a dark background, the words are most likely printed from the negative

It's white letters against a dark background which I guess covers up the "KODAK SAFETY" marking on the print.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 09-29-2004 01:44 PM

Is there any trick that can be used to identify the type of base you are working with, short of setting it on fire? For example you can tell the difference between triacetate and poly by holding a reel up to the light -- if it looks translucent, it is polyester; if it blocks the light, it is 3acetate. Any such identifier for nitrate?

| IP: Logged

Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 09-29-2004 01:56 PM

There is no quick test, short of setting a frame on fire. It is unlikely that they would have sent you a nitrate print, but check the Kodak date code on the edge. If it is after 1951, it is definatly safety stock.

/Mitchell

| IP: Logged

Jeff Taylor
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 601
From: Chatham, NJ/East Hampton, NY
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 09-29-2004 01:59 PM

After its initial release Annie reverted to the Irving Berlin estate where it sat for years without seeing the light of day. If MGM's got it now they must have finally made a deal to get it back.

| IP: Logged

Thomas Procyk
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1842
From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 09-29-2004 03:20 PM

Frank -- I've seen instances of translucent acetate film, where when held up to the light it looks bluish, as opposed to polyester which looks golden when held up. [Confused]

=TMP=

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 09-29-2004 03:45 PM

quote: Frank Angel
Is there any trick that can be used to identify the type of base you are working with, short of setting it on fire?

For many years, Kodak put a fluorescent dye into the triacetate base, so that it would glow under an ultraviolet "black" light. Looking at a roll of film with ultraviolet illumination quickly showed if the roll had a mix of nitrate (no glow) and triacetate (glow) elements.

| IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 09-29-2004 06:59 PM

Well, the UV method sounds like a lot of fun especially if you serve margaritas, chips and salsa in the darkened booth but I think the fire test would still have you beat for pure entertainment value. And with refreshments it's no contest.

| IP: Logged

Jeff Joseph
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 131
From: Palmdale, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 10-01-2004 12:39 AM

A few points:

We once had a 35mm Technicolor print of "Annie Get Your Gun"; half of it was nitrate; half was safety. It was printed right on the "cusp" of the transition to safety. The print was donated to an archive.

Warners (not MGM, Warners) did make a deal to do limited releases of the film over the last few years; they struck at least one new print. Why you'd have a print made up of several is beyond me; the new print was, well, new. And last time I checked, they did not have more than that print. What is the print number? Where did it come from?

One more note: We came across a trailer of "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" from a mid 1950s reissue. The trailer was nitrate Technicolor, with the end cut off and a new, safety Eastman tag with a different releasing company at the end. In other words, they were sending this trailer out (this mostly nitrate trailer) into at least the mid 1950s. I suspect this is not the only time this happened.

By the way, nitrate was used later in Europe and elsewhere. There was a German 3-D short from 1952 that was release printed on nitrate stock.

Jeff

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 10-03-2004 04:35 AM

Not to get too far of the thread, but what has happened to Kodak's date codes? I don't see them any more. Today I ran a print of THE TRIPLETTS OF BELLEVILLE (Sony Classics) and although it clearly said K*odak Saf*ety with dots in between letters, there was no three symbol date code. Is the arrangement of the dots between the letters some sort new code? There were quite a few other numbers printed there in addition, none of which was a date. I wonder why a code is even necessary; if they can print other numbers, why not just print the numeric date on the edge? Why was a code even necessary for all those years? Who was Kodak hiding the film manufacturing date from?

Btw....TRIPLETTS OF BELLEVILLE = one really AWESOME animated film. And even though Sony spells the title triplets on it's applied label, the film credits spell it tripletts.

| IP: Logged

Dan Lyons
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 10-03-2004 01:44 PM

Kodak doesn't use that silly code anymore. They've been printing the actual year on the edge for some time now. [thumbsup]

| IP: Logged

Edward Jurich
Master Film Handler

Posts: 305
From: Las Vegas USA
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 10-08-2004 03:19 PM

quote: Jeff Joseph
Why you'd have a print made up of several is beyond me; the new print was, well, new. And last time I checked, they did not have more than that print. What is the print number? Where did it come from?

This print came from Warner since it was shipped back to Warner. We only ran it for one week and it's gone so I can't get a print number but the theater owner did say it was the only print so it may well be. Some reels have several lab splices and focus shifts after some splices so I'm assuming different film stock. This is the only print I've had run on these Norleco's that has had focus shift after a splice and Shark Tale has rock steady focus so it had to be the "Annie" print.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

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.