Library of Congress Prints

[Jesse Crooks]

Posting from my phone so it was too much of a pain to figure out how to attach the booking doc quoted above. Your programmers should have received it. If you can’t get a copy of it let me know and I can post it here at a later date.

[Jesse Crooks]

In the booking guidelines (a separate doc than the ones you’ve provided) they explicitly state:

“At no time may Library prints be viewed on a film viewing machine or projected other than for the specified play date agreed upon in the Loan Confirmation.”

The first time we booked a print from them I emailed Lynanne to ask whether this forbids the screening of test reels, and she confirmed that was the case.

Just run some PA-35. Not as good as running the actual film but good enough that the audience won’t have a clue unless there is some very wonky framing on a matted print, etc. The volume is usually the only thing you actually have to worry about, hence my previous recommendation of having people besides the film projectionist dedicated for that purpose. Any minor discrepancies in focus or framing between the test film and the feature should be minor enough that the typical viewer won’t have a clue. In their estimation, it’s better than doubling the wear on R1 and R2 at every venue (as is the typical practice).

As a side note, knowing that most venues usually test the first two reels I always pick the shortest reel (usually the last) to get the volume on prints we’re allowed to test. Saves time and puts less wear on the reels everyone else is running.

As for the rewind table situation, it blows my mind that the powers that be want to operate a 70mm venue but won’t provide the minimum requirements for safe film handling. They should be ashamed. For the cost of shipping a couple 35mm prints you could probably replace the rewind table and projector clutch parts you need. Unfortunately it’s a common occurrence. The people holding the purse strings don’t understand it, so they don’t want to pay for it. They don’t know that your reputation as an institution is on the line.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Your programmer signed a loan agreement that includes film handling requirements. Most of it is repeated on the form that ships in the can as posted by Paul, but have them give you the actual agreement. Same goes for any archive you borrow from. You are responsible for fulfilling the agreement, so you need to read it yourself. The programmers / bookers may have no idea what is important to communicate to you.

You can also ask them for a condition report so you know what to expect from the print. They inspect everything on the way out and the way back in, so they should be able to provide one (we usually ask for a general condition before we book a print, and they are usually happy to provide a complete inspection report if requested). While their reports include footage counts, they do not expect you to do the same, and I would not attempt to do so to avoid the unnecessary wear. I don't even use a frame counter to check cue placement on archival prints if they have lab cues, to reduce the handling and risk of wear. I do a rough check based on the ~3' distance between 15" reels on a Kelmar table (three lengths, plus another 1' 12 frames... not as precise as a counter but close enough to be within the margin of error for a good changeover). Since you mention not having a good method to mount your frame counter I'm guessing you place it on the tabletop, offset from the film path, which is not great. Kelmar sells an adapter that allows you to mount a Nuemade film measuring on their tables with the correct 10 degree backwards tilt, so that the frame counter is in the film path without an lateral offset or twist. That's the best option for your Kelmar table. If you only have a tabletop film counter, I would check the cues or questionable countdowns at your hand rewind station so that you can place the counter in line with the film path.

I'm glad you're still planning on resolving your rewind and clutch issues... archives make you fill out a venue report but they really don't ask enough questions. They make sure you're running reel to reel, and sometimes ask about storage methods and security, but fail to ask about numerous other issues that could lead to print damage. Contrary to what Leo suggests, the LOC loves it when their prints get shown, as long as you take good care of them. In fact, if you ever meet Lynanne in person she'll probably go in for a hug! Haha. Couldn't ask for a friendlier archivist!

One fun quirk with the LOC is that they like to ship the prints tails-out, emulsion-out. And like most archives they do NOT permit you do a test screening or run any test reels, so you should plan to have someone checking the volume for the public presentation. I always make sure we have a second person in the booth besides the projectionist to coordinate the volume adjustments for archival shows... got burned too many times by people demanding my attention while I was watching for a reel change.

I've never had an archive deny my request to make a minor repair, but I have had them take multiple days to get back to me with an answer... Last year I think it took the better part of a week to get an answer from UCLA about two bad splices that I wanted to redo. Make sure you inspect it as soon as it arrives so there is enough turnaround time to communicate with the archive if any issues arise.

Thanks Jesse. Interesting on the no screening/test reels subject. Our agreement and projectionist instructions make no mention of that aspect. I had only heard it from here, no one in my org relayed such info. We tend to favor doing at least 2 reels test because our alignment/masking can be a bit fussy between formats on the turret having projector, god forbid some non-standard matting etc. Having come from 70mm setup most recently, other than loops, I also ran two personal 35mm flat reels today, but we were still considering playing two show reels the day of on the 21st, but perhaps best to forego that?

We run all our 35/70mm with two projectionists, just cause we often do DCI pre-roll and the booth layout is not conducive to an easy transition. Best to let one person focus on film, especially now that we are dipping into archival. So show-time volume monitoring isn't an issue (have iPad access for that too).

The Tails out Emulsion Out quirk definitely surprised us, and had I not grazed over that note when I first read your response the other day I would have been ready! lol. Weird to get things in one orientation but wanting them back in another for sure.

For those following along and curious I'll attached the NAVCC's current projection letter and loan agreement. I was not a party to the filling out the technical forms (our TD was probably consulted). We also got a inspection report from them when we asked for one today. Attaching as an example for any others curious.

Unfortunately replacing our reverse motor kelmar side was not in the cards yet, nor did I have an opportunity to drag my HFC rewinds into work (bike only transit). I've pushed some equipment improvement funding requests up the chain several times prior... but now that archives are involved I need to put the hammer down. No more until they grant some minimal improvements. Inspecting my arm clutch pads is still on my list before screening, minor tension bounce on one takeup.

[Jesse Crooks]

Your programmer signed a loan agreement that includes film handling requirements. Most of it is repeated on the form that ships in the can as posted by Paul, but have them give you the actual agreement. Same goes for any archive you borrow from. You are responsible for fulfilling the agreement, so you need to read it yourself. The programmers / bookers may have no idea what is important to communicate to you.

You can also ask them for a condition report so you know what to expect from the print. They inspect everything on the way out and the way back in, so they should be able to provide one (we usually ask for a general condition before we book a print, and they are usually happy to provide a complete inspection report if requested). While their reports include footage counts, they do not expect you to do the same, and I would not attempt to do so to avoid the unnecessary wear. I don't even use a frame counter to check cue placement on archival prints if they have lab cues, to reduce the handling and risk of wear. I do a rough check based on the ~3' distance between 15" reels on a Kelmar table (three lengths, plus another 1' 12 frames... not as precise as a counter but close enough to be within the margin of error for a good changeover). Since you mention not having a good method to mount your frame counter I'm guessing you place it on the tabletop, offset from the film path, which is not great. Kelmar sells an adapter that allows you to mount a Nuemade film measuring on their tables with the correct 10 degree backwards tilt, so that the frame counter is in the film path without an lateral offset or twist. That's the best option for your Kelmar table. If you only have a tabletop film counter, I would check the cues or questionable countdowns at your hand rewind station so that you can place the counter in line with the film path.

I'm glad you're still planning on resolving your rewind and clutch issues... archives make you fill out a venue report but they really don't ask enough questions. They make sure you're running reel to reel, and sometimes ask about storage methods and security, but fail to ask about numerous other issues that could lead to print damage. Contrary to what Leo suggests, the LOC loves it when their prints get shown, as long as you take good care of them. In fact, if you ever meet Lynanne in person she'll probably go in for a hug! Haha. Couldn't ask for a friendlier archivist!

One fun quirk with the LOC is that they like to ship the prints tails-out, emulsion-out. And like most archives they do NOT permit you do a test screening or run any test reels, so you should plan to have someone checking the volume for the public presentation. I always make sure we have a second person in the booth besides the projectionist to coordinate the volume adjustments for archival shows... got burned too many times by people demanding my attention while I was watching for a reel change.

I've never had an archive deny my request to make a minor repair, but I have had them take multiple days to get back to me with an answer... Last year I think it took the better part of a week to get an answer from UCLA about two bad splices that I wanted to redo. Make sure you inspect it as soon as it arrives so there is enough turnaround time to communicate with the archive if any issues arise.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Thanks Paul. The included contact information is helpful. I'll have to ask my programmer for the LOC Loan Agreement document to read the rest!

[Paul Finn]

Here are the LOC documents I have received enclosed with the prints. .... Paul Finn

[Ryan Gallagher]

The last time I was involved with a new venue seeking to show LoC prints was around 2014. We basically just asked them for a title that we knew that we had and they let us play it. There was a questionaire that we had to complete, and probably some shipping paperwork involved, too. The process was generally pretty painless, aside from needing significant advance notice for the booking.

One point of irritation is that there seems to be no catalog of available prints and formats from the LoC. You either have to know that they have something available or ask them to check. They do some excellent restoration work, and it would be great if they had a catalog or at least a listing of recent restorations that are available for booking.

I'll have to ask my programmer what his method was to deduce print availability from the otherwise format-free registration list. Time consuming approach would be to cross reference registry listed films with IMDB technical to see if there were prints issued at some point in the film's history. But IMDB seems pretty unreliable for that.

Doesn't seem Waiting to Exhale is on blu-ray yet, I wonder if the DCP was also not an option. If so, good use of the LOC print.... even the Stream versions appear to be 720p only.

[Scott Norwood]

The last time I was involved with a new venue seeking to show LoC prints was around 2014. We basically just asked them for a title that we knew that they and they let us play it. There was a questionaire that we had to complete, and probably some shipping paperwork involved, too. The process was generally pretty painless, aside from needing significant advance notice for the booking.

One point of irritation is that there seems to be no catalog of available prints and formats from the LoC. You either have to know that they have something available or ask them to check. They do some excellent restoration work, and it would be great if they had a catalog or at least a listing of recent restorations that are available for booking.

[Paul Finn]

You will receive very specific/detailed handling, projection, and shipping instruction sheets with LOC prints. I will look for the information and post it if I still have it.

Paul Finn

[Allan Young]

Another person who would know all the ins and outs is Larry Smith. He is Nitrate Specialist for LOC. So one would assume he is pretty familiar with all the ins and outs at LOC. You can find him on Facebook. He was also the co-owner of New Neon Movies in Dayton where all the 3-strip Cinerama screenings took place.

Oh, is that where he ended up? Cool. I met him a couple of times at the Cinerama screenings. Nice chap.

I don't think he was co-owner though, just the manager.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Chinagraph on the base side and click strips can both be removed without leaving a trace after the show, if applied carefully.

Yeah that is our current practice if change over marks are missing or very confused. I'll also have to keep an eye on what he is trying to book from LOC, 35mm+Optical/Digital audio is fine. We lack 35mm mag pre-amps in the CP200, and at least one of our 70mm mag heads is too suspect to run more prints IMHO (original Ampex head with signs of being worn out). We ran one last season but it's not something I want to repeat until we swap that head, and sourcing one is still on the purchases wish list with all the other things.

Another person who would know all the ins and outs is Larry Smith. He is Nitrate Specialist for LOC. So one would assume he is pretty familiar with all the ins and outs at LOC. You can find him on Facebook. He was also the co-owner of New Neon Movies in Dayton where all the 3-strip Cinerama screenings took place.

Thanks, I'll look him up and go to the source if I have questions that our programmer's contact is unable to answer.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Another person who would know all the ins and outs is Larry Smith. He is Nitrate Specialist for LOC. So one would assume he is pretty familiar with all the ins and outs at LOC. You can find him on Facebook. He was also the co-owner of New Neon Movies in Dayton where all the 3-strip Cinerama screenings took place.

[Leo Enticknap]

I would assume this even extends to typical things like temporary cue marks when the lab ones are missing or incorrect.

Chinagraph on the base side and click strips can both be removed without leaving a trace after the show, if applied carefully.

I've had to do this once or twice on prints that had no changeover cues whatsoever, thanks to the print being a filmout from a DI. It somewhat amused me that the archives that supplied them all imposed the usual FIAF-derived rule to the effect that anyone who builds up their prints will be taken to a cellar and introduced to The Gimp (and therefore that they must be played using changeovers), but yet did not supply the changeover cue marks needed to comply with that rule.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Thanks Leo for the backgrounding of the various status of the lent prints. Steve, definitely HEARD on the zero alterations or repairs without authorizations. I would assume this even extends to typical things like temporary cue marks when the lab ones are missing or incorrect.

We typically operate with some kind of digital backup when available, so I'm not worried about print preservation being a sticking point and causing show cancellations (yet).

Honestly my biggest concern stepping our game is in booth habits and conveying the understanding that anything and everything will be blamed on us unless we document it ahead of time. If that means it's better to take more time documenting during inspection, including taking photos, so be it. If it means we don't rewind until after the screening when it can be 100% fully attended at slower speeds so be it. etc.

As for our equipment for 35mm, I'd love to get our kelmar reverse motor swapped for a clutch unit. And it's time to service the reel arm clutches too. In adjusting tension previously for 24" reel running with Brad's input, I noticed at least one of them had a slight bounce due to oscillating clutch resistance. Reel arm felt pads probably haven't been cleaned and oiled in at least 5 years or more, more likely far more, possibly due for replacement.

The Goldberg-Auto needs to go into the back room and I'll put my personal HFC manual winder in it's place, just so no one is even tempted by the monster. My personal like new condition house reels will be moved into the booth, specifically for archival collection type engagements, until they buy us some more house reels anyway.

[Leo Enticknap]

The LOC has the ability to strike new prints so just because you source it from them does not mean that it is, necessarily an archival print.

We need to clarify the definition of "archival print." Any print supplied by a studio, private, or accredited nonprofit (i.e. FIAF member) archive will have one of three broad provenance categories:

• A release print from the original distribution of the movie in a given territory. Per the FIAF code of ethics, these would normally be considered primary evidence of the movie's production, and therefore not allowed to be projected at all. The only usual exception is if the archive holds more than one of these, and allows the one in worse (or worst) condition to be screened, in order to allow audiences to see what an actual original release print looks like on the screen. But even then, the archive will usually only allow the screenings in their own theatres (e.g. George Eastman House at its on campus theater, or the British Film Institute at its South Bank complex), and will almost never let it fully out of its custody.
• A release print struck directly from preservation elements dating from the film's production, e.g. the cut camera negative or an internegative that was used to strike original release prints. Generally, the same applies as for an actual original print. While in theory, if this print is trashed, a new one of the same generation could be struck, the source element may have decomposed, or simply be considered in too problematic condition to be printed again. But an archive access officer may be more likely to allow such a print to be loaned to a trusted theater with which it has a trusting relationship going back decades.
• A release print struck from preservation elements made during a full-scale preservation or restoration project: for example, if the archive acquired the cut camera negative of a production originated on nitrate, then struck a contact printed polyester fine grain positive from that, followed by a printing internegative, and then finally the print from that interneg. In that scenario, if the print is trashed, another one could be struck from existing preservation elements without having to touch anything original, and so the only issue would be the cost of the new print. Prints lent by archives to third party theaters, and especially ones that don't handle such prints routinely, almost all fall into this category.

All three of these are technically "archive prints," because they are owned by the archive. But they exist in decreasing order of importance for safeguarding the content on them in the highest possible technical quality, and therefore archives will make decisions as to who to lend them to accordingly.