Advice for print repairs...

[Ryan Gallagher]

We have a fairly "rough" studio release print of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in our future. Screens on Saturday. The decision was already made to show it anyway, nostalgia reasons I guess. Not my call. Advice?

Inspection had enough "worry" areas, (due to length and age of prior booth repairs), that I ran a full screen test last night after hours. Indeed it has some running issues. And I'm wanting 2nd opinions on my best options to improve it's chances for the screening.

in R1 and R3, in a couple places near the beginning it missed (or tore) two sprockets and required reframing. R1 did it twice and eventually slacked the audio tension and I had to pause playback to rebuild the lower loop and set tension again. I have not re-inspected yet to see what if anything changed in those areas.

Some of these are perf repairs accomplished by long sections of full splices. The tape is quite old and has accumulated lots of dirt on the adhesive residues. I'm not really set up to do proper perf repairs with perf tape, is my best option just to re-do these repairs with fresh tape, despite it being overkill for perf repair only? Or should I get precise with splice tape and scissors and attempt to just repair the perf areas?

There is no SRD, DTS, or SDDS track, so I could even use narrow kapton tape, which I do have in various widths (I know that is not standard but it is what is sized correctly already).

Fold tape over the edge or not? etc. I assume not is the preference cause folding it over increases the width that has to make it through the gate and guides.

Just re-inspect it and run it again, but be prepared to re-frame or pause the film, doing minimal to "fix" it?

Beyond those running trouble spots, it has oscillating emulsion scratches throughout most reels, and no tail on the credits, which seems very brittle, cause that is another area no one has repaired, based on previous markings it seems people just kill the credits early before they get to the several feet of cracked sprockets, if they show them at all. I have a tail I could donate, but that long repair warrants actual perf or edge taping.

Other than obviously the two trouble reels, I expect re-inspecting the whole thing is warranted, we could have easily damaged a few more sprockets even on the reels that made it through in test.

I had our gate tension backed all the way off to improve the long fat splices' chances of making it, but was fairly tight on the shoe tension.

Since both problem reels occurred in one projector, I suppose I also need to compare our lateral studio guide placement against those large repairs, we might be too tight on our guides in that one gate. Alternatively we could attempt running this print without the lateral guides. But I haven't checked our lateral stability in that guideless setup on 35mm.

[Randy Stankey]

What kind of stock is the movie on? The original TMNT movie was released in 1990. It could be on, either, acetate or polyester film. If I was a betting man, I'd say it is on acetate.

Knowing what base the film has will help decide what to do and how to handle things. Hold a roll of film up to a bright light. If you can see light coming through, it's likely polyester. If it's opaque, it's likely acetate.

Acetate-Polyester.jpg

The roll of film on the left is acetate. The roll on the right is polyester.

If you have polyester film, repairs can be done with either a tape splicer or an ultrasonic/heat splicer. If you have acetate, it's either tape or cement. The decision on which methods to use would be up for discussion.

You can only do so much with a theater release print. You can cut and splice out bad parts. You can fix bad splices. You can clean or lubricate the film. I'm a big fan of Film-Guard but, these days, you have to be judicious in using it on somebody else's film. If you have bad sprocket holes (it sounds like you do) you can tape over them to repair them. They even used to make a special, perforated tape for repairing sprocket holes but I don't know where you'll find it, these days. You might be able to use regular splicing tape and punch the holes with your splicer but that should be limited to only a few inches of repair.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Thanks Randy, We are not set up for cement or thermal splices, just your average booth with tape and a NeuTaper splicer (actually 2 of them). So base is somewhat irrelevant, my co-projectionist did the original inspection, but if memory serves it is on acetate.

We have film-guard for spot cleaning and removing adhesive residues, but are not set up yet to wet clean a whole print with our kelmar cleaners (that need some TLC). Though I could see a gentle application of film-guard to the problem areas promoting lubrication to get it through the gate easier.

My instinct would be to just redo the most offending prior repairs on the reels that did not run without issue, clean the area, and re-splice them with fresh tape, most of it is all about perf damage, brittle print it seems. When I say clean the area obviously you have to be careful not to splice over wet film-guard.

But would you apply a full width "splice", or attempt to be more perf specific (despite not having proper perf repair tape)?

Where would you draw the line on how many continuous frames to perf/splice repair in this way, versus removing frames in favor of a single splice? The length of the prior repairs might be part of it's running woes.

[Randy Stankey]

One reason I asked whether it is on acetate film is that, as it ages, acetate film gets brittle.

I, once, handled an acetate print that was so dry and brittle that it crumbled like a graham cracker when you handled it. I gave it a good bath in Film-Guard and was able to make it run but, still, I stood right by the projector, the whole time, with my fingers crossed.

That was the only print we could get. It was a "take it or leave it" proposition.

To this day, I still can't believe I even got the damned print to survive one run through the projector, much less much less four times!

[Leo Enticknap]

If this is an original release print of the original Mutant Turtles film, it was made in 1990, meaning that the print will be acetate. Polyester didn't start to be used for cinema release printing on a significant scale until 1996-97. It will also very likely smell of vinegar (aka acetic acid).

The problem with the splices is that the adhesive on 35-year old tape splices will likely have deteriorated to the point at which is is somewhere between very difficult and impossible to remove the original tape nondestructively. If it's possible at all, figure 10-15 minutes to remake each splice, including a lot of gentle rubbing with an alcohol-soaked nonabrasive cloth. You may decide that the time input simply isn't possible (this is a big part of the reason why some archival restoration projects take years to complete), and that your best bet is to tune up the projectors as best you can rather than devote mitigation efforts to the print itself.

A major factor in determining how likely an old and beat up print is likely to run without breaking is the model of projector in use. Some handle them better than others. One of the reasons I liked the Kinoton FP-20 is that you could put a print through it that was almost guaranteed to derail in any other mechanism. If there was perf damage the picture stability looked horrible, but you wouldn't lose any loops. The Norelco is not bad if the tensions are set correctly, surfaces kept clean, and the gate runners are not excessively worn. But in contrast, the Vic 8 and the GK-37 are both very intolerant of anything less than an acetate print straight out of the lab.

[Ryan Gallagher]

If this is an original release print of the original Mutant Turtles film, it was made in 1990, meaning that the print will be acetate. Polyester didn't start to be used for cinema release printing on a significant scale until 1996-97. It will also very likely smell of vinegar (aka acetic acid).

Surprisingly the color is good to excellent, not much vinegar smell yet. I'll have to verify it's vintage but expect it is 1990. It's age issues appear mostly to be brittle in places, wavy/warped heads/tails, and perhaps slightly shrunken overall (it does exhibit a touch of sprocket buzz on sprockets we are not used to hearing that from), I'll have to compare it to my 100perf strip for shrinkage.

The problem with the splices is that the adhesive on 35-year old tape splices will likely have deteriorated to the point at which is is somewhere between very difficult and impossible to remove the original tape nondestructively. If it's possible at all, figure 10-15 minutes to remake each splice, including a lot of gentle rubbing with an alcohol-soaked nonabrasive cloth. You may decide that the time input simply isn't possible (this is a big part of the reason why some archival restoration projects take years to complete), and that your best bet is to tune up the projectors as best you can rather than devote mitigation efforts to the print itself.

Noted. I won't expect to have enough time to really address it's overall condition or ALL the splices (there are many), merely the couple of problem areas that are risky for the lower loop etc. I have scheduling options to get us more bench time.

A major factor in determining how likely an old and beat up print is likely to run without breaking is the model of projector in use. Some handle them better than others. One of the reasons I liked the Kinoton FP-20 is that you could put a print through it that was almost guaranteed to derail in any other mechanism. If there was perf damage the picture stability looked horrible, but you wouldn't lose any loops. The Norelco is not bad if the tensions are set correctly, surfaces kept clean, and the gate runners are not excessively worn. But in contrast, the Vic 8 and the GK-37 are both very intolerant of anything less than an acetate print straight out of the lab.

I expect Century JJ's are somewhere in the middle of the pack. I feel like diameter of intermittent (as well as continuous and holdback sprockets) being on the smaller side leaves it easily susceptible to issues related to perf damage. Other than that our gate pads are very clean these days and we do lubricate them slightly with Film-Guard, most prints are stable between noon and 1-oclock on the tension knob, though our tension baseline might be a variable. The width of these old splices may be at play, and the setting of our lateral studio guides, but I hate to pull or move those only to discover we in fact need them for picture stability, and have to do a rushed job resetting them. I have some precision sewing snips arriving today that may be a better tool for trimming overhanging tape from previous fat splices etc.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Needless to say, I think my approach for running the screening, if we do re-experience missed sprockets... rather than reframing and preying it does not happen again, i'm more tempted to stop the show and reframe in the gate and reset the lower loop each time. Both for the print's preservation and my projectors!

[Randy Stankey]

Polyester didn't start to be used for cinema release printing on a significant scale until 1996-97.

Thanks for the info. I knew that there was a phase-in from acetate to polyester because I remember handing both kinds of film for a while until almost all were poly but I guess I had my timeline off by a few years.

That brittle film that I ran was through a Simplex PR-1003 with a straight gate and the only major modification was a Kelmar red LED reader. The movie was the original "Phantom of the Opera" (Silent) and we had a live, professional orchestra come in to play the music, on stage.

I had to do a test screening before the orchestra arrived, a dry run for the orchestra conductor so that he could take notes from the film, a rehearsal for the orchestra and, then the go-show for the audience. I built the print with about fifty feet of Mylar leader so that the projector didn't snap the film upon startup. I used fifteen seconds of black film so that the projector had a chance to stabilize before the movie came through. I stood by the projector with my hand near the stop button, practically the whole time.

It was, certainly, one of the most butt-clenching shows I ever ran!

As to what to do with busted sprocket holes? If it's only one or two frames worth, I'd just tape over them as if they were a normal splice. Make sure that the tape is stitched down really well. Yes, the picture will probably jump but that's better than blowing a loop or, worse, breaking the film and causing a pile up. If it's more than a couple of sprockets worth, you might be able to find sprocket repair tape if you ask around. Fail that, do you have any yellow cue tape? Just put it over both sides of the film, stitch it down and carefully punch the holes with your splicer.

I'd also consider putting tape over both edges, even if there are only busted sprocket holes on one side. That way the drag on the film will be equal on both sides as it hits the projector gate, hopefully preventing the film from being pulled off center.

Beyond that, all I can say is to double check everything and keep those butt cheeks clenched at all times!

[Leo Enticknap]

Surprisingly the color is good to excellent, not much vinegar smell yet.

Low fade color stock was introduced in the early '80s, following a big campaign against Eastman Kodak that Scorsese was heavily involved in, to raise awareness of the problem of movies going pink. Two researchers - Henry Wilhelm and Carol Brower - did a ton of work to figure out the chemistry of what was happening, and, astonishingly, self-published the resulting book and made it available entirely free to download (they could easily have gone with the sort of academic publisher that would have released it in hardback only at $150 a copy). Anyways, the takeaway is that Kodak prints of mainstream Hollywood movies from around 1982-83 won't go pink, though there are still the other issues associated with acetate base (shrinkage, brittleness, susceptibility to perf damage as it gets older, etc.). Fuji, Agfa, OrWo and Tasma color prints from the '80s '90s aren't as dye stable, but I'm sure that there was a lot of industrial espionage / ripping off of patents going on, because those release print stocks also got better.

As for polyester, the conversion for release printing was a joint initiative involving NATO (before it renamed itself to pretend that it's a soccer team), the SMPTE, and Eastman Kodak. The base is cheaper and more resilient, and there were also environmental reasons for pushing the change. This all happened in the mid-90s, and somewhere I've got the references and SMPTE journal articles covering it, but finding them would take some digging. A major issue when polyester first started to be used for mass print runs is that they couldn't get the antistatic layer on the base side right initially, with the result that multiple layers of film would be sucked into platter brains. Sometimes the brain wraps were so bad that the tensile strength of the stock caused serious damage to platter and projector components, and around the turn of the millennium, heavy duty humidifiers were a common sight in multiplex booths. I remember some pretty gruesome photos in the early days of F-T. By the early noughties, the antistatic properties had been refined pretty well, and polyester prints were no longer a problem - just as the days of (mainstream) film projection itself were numbered!

[Ryan Gallagher]

We do have yellow cue tape... i'll consider that if all we need to do is a run of sprocket repairs. And yes both sides makes sense for even pulling.

It did not get in the schedule other than day of, but we are coming in 3.5 hours before doors to do a bit of TLC on it.

[Randy Stankey]

No! Three hours isn't nearly enough time! Dammit, Jim! I'm a projectionist, not a magician!

I had my prints come in Monday for the following Wednesday. First, I needed the time to get the print built and screened so that it could be ready to show without glitches. I needed time in case I had to call in for replacement film or if, somehow, shipping got delayed. I did have one movie where I only got the first half of the movie. The second can arrived at the airport at 7:00 for an 8:30 show. I drove 80 MPH, through town to get it back to the theater on time. I did get the movie on the screen at showtime...but just. I really, really don't like doing that kind of thing even though, despite all precaution, they happen.

Anything less than 24 hours is crazy! Even then, I'd still rather have a week's lead time on movies.

[Ryan Gallagher]

No! Three hours isn't nearly enough time! Dammit, Jim! I'm a projectionist, not a magician!

I had my prints come in Monday for the following Wednesday. First, I needed the time to get the print built and screened so that it could be ready to show without glitches. I needed time in case I had to call in for replacement film or if, somehow, shipping got delayed. I did have one movie where I only got the first half of the movie. The second can arrived at the airport at 7:00 for an 8:30 show. I drove 80 MPH, through town to get it back to the theater on time. I did get the movie on the screen at showtime...but just. I really, really don't like doing that kind of thing even though, despite all precaution, they happen.

Anything less than 24 hours is crazy! Even then, I'd still rather have a week's lead time on movies.

LOL Randy. Definitely heard on the lead time. We tend to get our prints at least a week out or more, one rare exception this season had the second can arrive the day before (got lost in shipping).

TMNT was in hand 2 weeks ahead, got first inspection about a week out. But that inspection was "iffy" enough that we decided to pencil in a preview for our programmer to make a final call if he wanted to show it or not or opt for the blu-ray. He said yes after seeing most of the 1st reel. So then it became trying to resolve a couple problem spots on three reels in a 2nd effort today before the screening.

Happy to report we resolved the running issues and had a wonderful screening, or as wonderful as this print can allow without even more time on the bench. Besides a couple perfs that were giving us trouble, found a fresh partial tear. And my original assumption that we were losing sprockets in the intermittent causing framing issues turned out to be incorrect, though condition made it a good guess, after careful examination we discovered 2 existing splices that were 1 perf out of proper framing (both within the same scene sequence, adding up to 2 perfs (there was an visual element in frame that was easy to mis-read as a frame line). Fixed those and didn't have any more framing jumps. Didn't lose any lower loop or audio tension either whole screening.

This poor print however, in our haste and short timeline today, the one thing we did not catch was that the last 3 seconds of the existing credits and tail (I say tail cause it didn't have one) were spliced back on in reverse at an old cue tape mark. We had wisely already faded audio cause the end was so beat up and splice heavy, so if anyone was still in the house, they were spared a satanic verse or two of backwards audio! We did pack it up with about 6 feet of black tacked onto those poor credits (as well as reverse the backwards section).

Put that one down in my book as a first, though I'm sure others have seen it!

Other evidence it has been handled by less attentive folks in prior booths, someone actually did a master tape label job on it stating it was 1.33:1. NOOOO. It is 1.85:1 open matte. LOL

Surely someone has screened it since those mis-framed repairs, unless it broke twice within a few feet of eachother on the last screening (unlikely). To send it back out knowing there are framing errors is just rude!!

[Leo Enticknap]

Nice job!

The provenance of that print is very likely that it was an original release print that did the rounds of the multiplexes. In those days, 99.9% of prints would have been plattered, with several build up and tear down cycles during their service life. Some of the chains paid projectionists little more than the minimum wage and offered them the bare minimum of training, meaning that film handling practices were often, shall we say, suboptimal. At the end of the first run, the studio would probably have selected two or three prints to keep for second run and rep screenings thereafter, with the result that you were playing one of those. As well as the rough treatment the print has received, you were also dealing with 35 years of acetate decomposition: that would have caused significant shrinkage and brittleness if the print has not been stored in an atmospherically controlled vault with low temperature and humidity during that time.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Yeah confirmed acetate, and most certainly an original 1990 print from WB. Was showing early signs of shrinkage, wavy heads/tails. But color was quite good still, only the blacks show a little loss of contrast. The quantity of repairs and splices and emulsion scratches is where it showed all the age.

she ran very stable, things seem to have gotten much better for us in that department after I had a go at our spindles with a dial indicator. Now if we can just get more excellent house reels, got 10 new 70s, 35s are on the wish list. Have about 12 that are usable, enough to have two prints in the inspection pipeline unless we put them back in the cans tails out.