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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » How can a small classics distributor protect his prints? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: How can a small classics distributor protect his prints? Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 01-17-2008 06:43 AM                        OK, let's say you are a small distributor and you just have a few prints struck of your classics titles. You have two needs --1) protect the integrity of your very expensive prints, of which you might only have one or two struck and 2) to distribute your titles to the largest number of theatres so as to make your print investment pay off. You toy with the idea that some of the bigger distributors of classic films have adopted, i.e., don't allow your prints to play platter and 6000ft change-over houses, but you realize that immediately chops off way too many potential engagements. Even allowing 6000ft LP houses still makes it an iffy economic proposition at best. So assuming you are going to allow your prints to play ALL platforms, what special instructions do you need to give to the theatres where you book your films, instructions that will help reduce as much damage to your prints as possible? How about these for starters: 1) Make the theatre agree that a well-trained, (licensed where they exist) projectionist MUST be at the projector at all times when the print is being run, even in platter houses -- and this would be the mandatory condition under which platter houses would be considered eligible to play these prints. In the event that something goes a-rye, the equipment can be stopped sooner rather than later if someone is actually next to the projector. 1a) If damage does occur at any time during the run, detailed documentation of it must be made and sent to the distributor immediately, not at the end of the run. You might want to pull the picture if you think the damage is such that further running it will threaten even more damage. Some damage is indicative of a systemic problem that will remain for each successive run thru that equipment. 2) only a SINGLE ID frame is to be cut at ONLY the HEAD of the each reel. But here I am thinking an alternative -- I would seriously look into the possibility of having edge printing show the reel numbers in the SDDS area (you know you are not going to use SDDS) -- this way you will not need ID frames at all. Any idiot will be able to see R4 printed periodically in between the sprocket holes within the body of the print and the leaders, hence no need for ID frames. 3) Given that it is known you will never have the luxury of not splicing the leaders because you will never only be running in 2000ft C/O situations, consequently the print is going to have to be mounted on other than 2000ft reels and that will require splicing leaders. I would have a competent film handler in my own employ make the leader splices BEFORE the print goes out to the theatre. This way the only thing the splice-jockey at the theatre need do is cut on the same frame where the splice already exists. Give explicit instructions that cuts should be made ONLY on the existing leader joint splice, removing the splicing tape and making the splice on that same frame. If worse comes to worse, the lazy booth zombie can just cut and tape over the existing splices without removing the tape, which is much better than him making an additional cut. 3a) Possibly re-inventing the wheel in regard to the 6000ft shipping concept. It was a very good idea. Granted, it might not have been able to work in the old system when truckers had to deal with thousands of prints, but for a small distributor, the 6000ft shipping reels and shipping cases might eliminate a whole cadre of problems, not the least of which is keeping stubby little finger off as much of the print as possible. Mounting would be a much more simple process with dramatically less handling of the print. 4) Apply film guard before the print goes out and again when it comes back. 5) INSPECT THE PRINT and make the theatre agree beforehand that any damage that it inflicts on the print will be charged back to the theatre. Let the theatre know that the print will be inspected after EVERY engagement. 6) As an added monetary incentive for the theatre to handle the print with care, require some sort of bond with the rental. 7) Require that the list of handling procedures that are expected of the theatre be signed by the both the manager AND the projectionist PRIOR to the print being sent out. 8) Make the theatre agree not to use any tape other than artist tape to hold down the film ends. 9) Have the theatre agree that it will ship back the print on the same reels that it was sent on. Use only SINGLE PIECE plastic reels in excellent condition which you have clearly marked in some fashion with your logo or name. The theatre agrees to be charged for any reels that it does not return. 10) STRONGLY suggest the theatre use Neumade Splicing Tape. 11) (and I am not sure about this) reel bands? yes or no? I am leaning toward saying yes -- but really good ones. It is a know fact that they will prevent film spilling all over the reel edges should the hold-down tape give way. I know some of the younger guys who have not worked with them routinely don't see the worth of them, but those of us who used them for years on prints know that we rarely opened cans to find film spaghetti wrapped around the reels as is very common today. Reel bands were the reason. With regard to item #2 alternative -- how difficult is it really to print or even hand write the reel numbers on the internegative in the SDDS area, let's say five or six times in the last two feet of picture and the first two feet of leader? -- hell, as far as the leader, after the two feet of black protection frames, you could print the reel number in each frame big as life and forget about edge numbers. Edge numbering would only necessary in the body of the print, and again only for a few feet. In all but scope titles, you could even print the reel numbers in the frame line for a few feet a the beginning and end of each reel. Having reel number identification at the joins would go a long way, IMHO, in stopping the mutilated fan-folds of splice after splice at the heads and tails. I guess my question is, for those of you who are familiar with print lab procedure, how difficult would it be to get that information into the print. I am talking just the reel numbers with perhaps an H or a T in front of it so there would not be this idiotic compulsion to chop off an ID frames, sometimes over and over. Discuss among yourselves.....  |  IP: Logged John Walsh Film God Posts: 2490 From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way Registered: Oct 1999 posted 01-17-2008 07:57 AM                     All good ideas, but the problem is if the theater had to do all of the items above, they couldn't afford to run the print in the first place. The industry is at the point where, even if you offered a 'film-threader' extra money to take care of a print, they couldn't because they simply don't know how. Many distributors bear some blame also, because most will not tell you about print damage when you book the print. They only say something like, it's got some damage but it's runable. For better or worse, digital is the soultion to this problem.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-17-2008 08:13 AM                        Agreed with John--the list is too onerous and would result in too few bookings. While I respect what UCLA and other archives require of their borrowers (2000' reels, full-time operator, lots of paperwork), it would be suicide for a commercial distributor to do so. What really needs to happen is for distributors to simply _inspect_ prints after every engagement and _bill_ for replacement footage and/or reels in case of damage. Any damage would need to be repaired prior to the next booking. The distributor would also need to make this fact known to the exhibitors and ensure that everyone who damages a print gets charged. For clarification, there could be a checklist for what the distributor considers to be "print damage" included with the print. The problem with advance requirement of manager and projectionist signatures is that many venues that run film occasionally do not have either one on staff and may not even know who the house manager and projectionist will be until the day of the show. Not every place that runs film is a full-time commercial cinema. In addition, I am strongly in favor of blue plastic cans (or good metal cans without deteriorated cardboard liners), good plastic reels, and reel bands. I think that 6000' shipping reels would cause issues because many venues that show repertory films cannot accommodate larger reels.  |  IP: Logged Mitchell Dvoskin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1869 From: West Milford, NJ, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 01-17-2008 08:56 AM                     What Scott said. Your list of rules would result in either no bookings or would be ignored. Shipping on 6000' reels would be a disaster. Many arts centers that run films can't handle them, even to load on a platter. My suggestion from years of running 35mm films at the Loews Jersey and other arts centers. 1. Reserve one or two prints exclusively for theatres that can run 2000' reel to reel. You can have the theatre sign a document that they will run in this manner and will not remove the leaders. Many archives require this already and charge damages if the leaders are cut. 2. Don't worry about the rest of the prints. Just inspect them when they come back and bill the theatre for any damage that requires reprinting footage. 3. Put a notice in the can requesting the operator to remove their splicing tape at breakdown. This will probably be ignored by it does not hurt to ask. Any tape should be removed when the returned print is inspected. 4. Also in the notice request that the leaders not be splice back on, just wrapped around the correct reel. This will negate the tempation of the next venue to chop additional frames. In fact, I would send it out that way.  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-17-2008 09:21 AM                        Great suggestions, here are a few more: Absolutely, positively NO NEW CUE MARKS to be added to the film. The distributor will guarantee the cue marks are on the film where they are supposed to be and the exhibitor is explicitly prohibited from adding or "re-inforcing" cue marks. And though it is probably a given, the print should be on a polyester base. As for reel ID's, the distrib can ship with the film a list with pix of the various head and tail ID frames. Of course, the distrib should make sure the film is shipped safely and properly packaged.  |  IP: Logged Richard P. May Expert Film Handler Posts: 243 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Jan 2006 posted 01-17-2008 10:15 AM                     From a lab standpoint, putting reel numbers on the edges is fine if requested very early in the process. Manual edge numbering is time consuming, and the lab will charge the distributor for doing it. If the prints are made by one of the BIG labs, it probably will not happen, since it isn't part of the "factory" routine. In the days gone by, reel and footage numbers were routinely printed on the edge of the sound track negative, and printed thru onto the release print. By the time platters came in, and this could really be useful to the theater, it was dropped. Generally the outer edges of the print film are not even exposed in the printing process unless by special request, as this could affect the exposure of the track. Many of Frank's ideas are great, but regrettably depend on the interest and diligence of the individual theater operators. Regardless of what kind of instructions are in the can, the distributor has no control while the print is in the theater. Holding a print or two for trusted exhibitors can at least get those who are probably the higher revenue producers a decent copy. Sorry to say, much of the time the print is just a neccessary nuisance for the theater to pack up properly at the end of the run. Disclosure: The more prints that are ordered, the more business companies such as the one I'm associated with get. RPM  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 01-17-2008 02:02 PM                       I keep a handful of 35mm prints of the intermission shorts and trailers I've made that I loan out as demos. Athough there's an appreciable amount of money tied up in them, you really can't worry about things happening to your prints. Scratches, splices, and damage are going to occur because that's part of doing film business these days. It goes with the territory. As noted, if you limit engagements to venues based solely on what kind of projection service they have, then you... well... limit yourself.  |  IP: Logged Ron Funderburg Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 814 From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA Registered: Nov 2007 posted 01-17-2008 02:32 PM                        The problem with film is it is film and while I love film it has the draw back it can (and will be) damaged. It has always been this way and always in the runs of films there has been damage done no matter a union projection shop or the mom and pop theater. Sound of Music is a good example it played years at individual theaters as long as three years in some case and longer in others. I read somewhere (and looked but couldn't find it in my book marks) that one locations played it for 5 years straight replacing the entire print 2 times for heat damage and individual reels many times for scratches. It was run on 20 minute reels, of course it had a carbon arc light source but heat is heat! The film eventually fades! It gets scratched and dirt will find it! How can you enforce your rules? How can you insure that the fines for damaged film will be paid if they don't run film from you on a regular basis. I wanted to run Young Frankenstein back in 2002 or 2003 for a Halloween only showing. Thinking about it had to be 2003 because Halloween was on a Friday that year! So back to the story, contacted Criterion and they said sure! We will ship it to you right now $1000 against damage and $300 for the one time showing you pay the freight or we can send you a DVD we prepared of the show you pay $150.00 and send the DVD back, you can show it a week for $150.00. Well no DVD or projector for it at the time so we didn't do it that year!  |  IP: Logged Brian Guckian Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 594 From: Dublin, Ireland Registered: Apr 2003 posted 01-17-2008 04:21 PM                     One interesting approach to this problem is to structure the given business in such a way that extensive theatrical rentals are not actually required. This can be done by having an alternative income stream (e.g. DVD sales, etc.). In this scenario Frank's hypothetical small classics distributor can in fact afford to restrict access to its product, and be selective about who shows it. Paradoxically...this could make the product much more sought after, human nature being what it is. One can then go further and inspect and assess venues seeking to screen the material...a process the venue would have to pay for. No approval would mean no product - this being a step up from previous venue inspection schemes in the industry which did not carry any actual penalties for non-compliance. Frank's checklist could inform the assessment criteria. You could also demand evidence to show the Projectionists are properly trained (and paid), and that the venue is being serviced properly. In the specific context Frank is talking about, these ideas could also be applied in the digital domain, to combat "digital done wrong", as well. The interesting thing about this approach is that it is preventative in nature, and perhaps more positive than billing people for damage after the fact. Indeed, we know that some types of print damage are extremely expensive to remedy (e.g. damage to archive prints, etc.). Plus, it would rightly re-position the film print as a valuable item that must be handled with care and its presentation taken seriously.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 01-17-2008 05:44 PM                     If the potential profits of the title only warrants one or two prints...then restricting it to 2K reel houses will not hurt its income and will ultimately prolong their lives. If the potential profits warrants a wide release, print replacement has to be factored into the potential profits of those wider releases. I would still assess any theatre the cost of replacing damaged film. You don't need to tell the exhibitor how to run their business (you don't want them telling you how to run yours) but by having a penalty in the contract, perhaps backed up by a security deposit, will ensure the exhibitor does their part or cover you if they don't. I guess because I work around so many 2-projector venues, I don't see the limitation of restricting to those houses. Steve  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 01-17-2008 07:55 PM                        Stick with 6000 ft reels (or more). Less film damage since there is a reduction of heads and tails. With the thinner mylar film, you might see 8000 ft on a 26 inch reel. Even if "plattered" there is only one splice. Louis  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 01-18-2008 03:30 AM                        In a relatively small country like Britain it's a bit easier to police this informally. There are only so many venues which show this sort of stuff, and you very quickly get a sense of which ones look after prints and which don't. When I worked in those theatres, I'd get Artificial Eye's print of a recent French film, or the BFI's of an archive rerelease on crossover, recognise the handwriting on the label and know almost straight away whether I was going to open up a nicely packed off film with leaders reattached and taped down, everything head out or tail out, etc., or reels that had just been thrown back into the cans any old way. There were probably 20-30 such venues around the country. If I was sitting in the distributor's shoes, I'd use that local knowledge to target the problem venues. All it takes is a change of one staff member to turn a good venue into a problem venue or vice-versa and so, as always, good training is the key.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 01-18-2008 05:09 AM                        All good points. One thing that comes to mind is that obviously the theatres that would run a classic would be specialty houses to begin with. A distributor like SWANK or the late Kit Parker, who would be willing to go thru the added expense of striking a new print is doing so because he 1) has some sense that a particular title which has not had decent prints, has intrinsic value which doesn't diminishes by time, i.e., a respected classic (let's say, for example, THE GRADUATE) and 2) he knows his theatres and knows before any decision is made to strike a new print, many have already been crying for a decent print to play of this or that title -- Ron's pleading for a good print of YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, a good example. So this actually is a rather unique situation -- the theatre WANTS to play his title and rather than they being just a grind house that couldn't care a hoot about protecting the print, I think they would jump thru a few extra hoops to get mint or near mint prints. In this scenario, the distributor and exhibitor are not adversaries but real partners. The distributor gets a commitment from a number of theatre before any money is actually laid out to strike the print. The more I think about it, I am not as pessimistic about a good symbiotic relationship being established between the two. That relationship goes quite a ways to solving some of the problems we discussed. Look, I wanted to run a print of DER GOLEM. Eastman House has the only print in the USA. There is another in Germany but with German intertitles. Before Eastman House would book it with us, I needed to fill out a 26 page questionnaire (I kid you not)about our operation -- everything from the equipment, to what's the temperature range in the booth, to how often the security guards pass the booth door, to type locks on the room where the prints are stored until shipment, and names and contact numbers of everyone responsible for the print from the time it gets off the trunk to the time it's handed to Airborne. It went on and on, and believe me, I didn't blink an eye or see it as a burden; I was happy to go that extra mile. I think the rep theatres that a specialty distributor does business with are very different than the commercial, assembly line operations, even to the point where if they don't run regularly, and don't have a qualified projectionist on salary, they might be willing to go find one just to be able to run that new print of THE GRADUATE. I was going to put in new speed control motors just to run a silent film. Is it really true that lots of places don't have the ability to run 6000ft reels? That surprised me a bit. And here again, the distrib would gather much of this information before a decision would be made to strike a print. Perhaps arrangements could be made to have a booth upgraded to be able to run 6000 ft if the theatre knew just installing the arms and a rewind would enable to book a list of the new prints of titles they would love to run. Hell, send them a set of Kelmar arms with the print. Films Inc. in the early days of anamorphic 16mm prints used to send out B&L anamorphic lenses with their prints to schools that didn't have them. Reason I mention the LP capability is because I still think the 6000ft idea is so worth pursuing. If it could be made workable, it sure could eradicate a host of potential print problems. It might mean having to design better cases than the ones WB used in their first attempt, which I don't think they really were seriously interested in refining it and making it work. Perhaps cases with small wheels built into one edge and handle on the other like on suitcases would make handling them lot easier than the early cases. Anyway, these are all good ideas and thanks for your help. As this develops I hope I can give you some positive news regarding new prints of some great classic titles.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 01-18-2008 06:21 AM                     Forget the 6K reel idea...just dump it straight out...it WILL cause more damage than it prevents. First off...yes there are some venues that 2K is max due to space constraints...are your reel arms going to come with a means to make the ceiling higher?. How well do you think the clutch tensions are set on all of the 6K reel systems...care to carefully inspect the perforations at the benginning/end of the reels? SMPTE calls for a maximum of 3:1 ratio of hub to flange. Thus, with an 8" hub, you have a 24" flange maximum....not exactly 6K of film. Most 6K houses run 5" hubs and 24" flanges minimum...with 26" showing up. 25" flanges are about the maximum size you can count on fitting just about every MUT or rewinder. If the theatre has magazines...which will keep your leaders/tails from hitting the floor, larger reels are prohibitive. With 6K reels and 5/16" spindles, you again have the makings of damage...the spindle is physically too weak and most no longer turn true. The key/keyway is not strong enough to turn that much mass. Have you ever looked at a 5/16" system and looked at the keyway of those reels or even the keys on the spindles? Sure, using a dog-pin or finger-hole drive would alleviate that but how many of those systems are out there? There is a reason 1/2" spindles came out and it was to deal with larger reels...the nice thing about 1/2" is even the metric coutries went with it and called it 12.7mm though their drive dog hole larger. With 2K reels, you maximize your venues (everyone can handle it), minimize your shipping costs (no special cases though Goldberg does have ELR show shippers) and you minimize your potential damage by a human error likely only damaging one reel, not the entire print or half the print. If the venue is compelled to run a show on 2K reels, while you don't guarantee problem free, you do increase your odds of having a person monitoring your film during its run. It is by far the safest way of handling limited availability prints. If the venue wants to run these sorts of rare films, they should pony up with correct equipment and people to run it. It really is that simple. Steve  |  IP: Logged Brian Guckian Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 594 From: Dublin, Ireland Registered: Apr 2003 posted 01-18-2008 08:12 AM                     Steve, what about dual inventory 2000ft and 6000ft prints, with the latter limited only to venues with 1/2 inch spindles? This isn't as unrealistic as it sounds. Even with a specialised title, one needs at least two prints, surely? FWIW I developed a (limited) 6000ft reel ELR system in association with a UK company in 2005, aimed only at specialist titles. It hasn't yet been taken up, mainly due to lack of interest, but to be fair, it did also depend on Projectionists not losing the interchangeable centres that came with the reels, and this obviously was a weakness. However - given your valuable comments Steve on the engineering forces involved in 6000ft reel loads and 5/16 inch bores, one could restrict the use of this format to just 1/2 inch spindles / bores. This would allow the use of fixed 1/2 inch bore 6000ft reels. BTW, the research undertaken developing our system showed maximum safe capacity of 6400 ft / 71 mins using polyester print stock on a 24 inch reel. The better Distributor / Exhibitor relationship that Frank suggests could make it possible to "intelligently" distribute either 2000ft or 6000ft formats. Indeed we incorporated a database function for the Distributor into our ELR system, acknowledging that of course, certain venues would not be able to accommodate 6000ft reels (but NB, 6000ft reel capability does seem to be more common in western Europe, at least).  |  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.