Reel to reel question

[Brad Miller]

Frank - Steve and I will forever debate this. The one thing we DO agree on is to always wind emulsion OUT on platters.

Regarding running on reels I will give you this example. My screening room is a very short throw/large screen scenario with unusually short lenses to be able to fill the screen such that I can just B A R E L Y get the image out of the barrel of the lens without vignetting. It is well established that the shorter lens you use, the most sensitive focus will be. (A 40mm lens will be more sensitive to focus than say an 80mm lens.)

To make matters worse in my room, I have a digital projector on the centerline and my two JJs are 8 feet apart (so they are angled inward) and they are also shooting downward. Keep in mind this is on a 30 foot throw. That required a TON of careful shimming, optical and lens shifting to minimize the keystoning AND to keep all 4 corners AND the center of the image in focus. (I also have 9 different formats for each projector, so matching all of those lenses for focus and centering was yet another level of pain on top of everything else.)

The point to be made there is that I store all of my prints emulsion out and wind exclusively emulsion out. (Both feed and takeup reels spin counter-clockwise.) That's standard lab practice and as noted there are archives that require emulsion out. When I run a print (which was stored emulsion out), despite the focus sensitivity of the room, I never have to adjust focus mid-reel. Keep in mind I run on everything from 2000 foot to 8000 foot reels.

On occasion I will run someone else's print that has been stored emulsion in and every single time it's a shit show of inability to keep the entire image in focus at the same time. The other consistent finding is that focusing adjustments are needed from the beginning to the end of the reel on a print that has been stored emulsion in for a length of time. Again, this is my consistent finding over the years and that has been without exception, although it's far more exaggerated on setups like this with short lensing.

For clarity, I am speaking there in reference to acetate base prints. While maintaining focus isn't quite as bad with polyester prints that have been stored emulsion in, keeping the center in focus in relation to the 4 corners can be problematic since emulsion in winding exaggerates the natural curl of polyester. Again, these problems don't exist for me if the print is stored and ran emulsion out and I doubt there are many other setups with such short lenses where focus is the most critical.

Another couple of friends of mine who stand firm in storing and running emulsion in will say they've never had any problems with their emulsion in practice, but they are also in "long throw/small screen" type of setups where you naturally have a much greater depth of field in the lens for focusing. My argument against them is that they aren't in a venue where it's going to be easily seen on screen and that the longer lensing's depth of field is concealing any focus issues.

Case in point Ryan's theater is a very long throw, small screen venue. It's just not going make any difference in his setup. He will never be able to see it.

Regarding returning prints tails out, since most people's rewind tables aren't exactly capable of providing great winds, I have taken Steve Kraus' long-standing opinion that it's more important to ship a print with a smooth wind than with a particular orientation. A projector's takeup will generally produce a superior wind better suited for shipping compared to most theater's rewind tables. Plus if the theater is following the proper practice of lowering tension (takeup > rewinding > feeding) this means the print will have a tighter wind for shipping.

So now you now have an opposing viewpoint instead of just Steve's to figure out what you want to do. Good luck.

[Frank Raia]

Brad, That was a great read. I find it very interesting how two great minds have polar opinions. Point taken on the platter emulsion out. My throw is only 18 feet, no problem for flat but my scope is never all in focus. I think what I am going to do is 50% in, 50% out and see if I notice any difference.

One thing that I have noticed, and would like your opinion, is on one print that I have. It was not stored correctly by the previous holder. 8 reels were emulsion out and 2 reels were emulsion in. The 8 reels were like pulling scotch tape the other 2 reels were fine. This was on poly film. Any thoughts?

[Steve Guttag]

To add to your confusion, I did a fair amount of experimentation and drew my own conclusions running a commercial theatre with a large, deeply curved screen (Cinerama)...the Uptown in Washington DC. For comparison, our Scope lens was 50mm and did have machined Century lens adapter to get the image out. Our 70mm format lens was 62mm. Our lamps ranged from 4000W to 6000W (depended on who was paying and what light levels they demanded and what format we were running). For our run of Vertigo, for example, was all 6KW in 70mm.

Mind you, I've run the other end of the spectrum too in screening rooms. I've never, personally, seen a time where emulsion-in wasn't as good or better. My experience is in the middle-atlantic region...so we do get a swing in humidity. On Christie platters, one had to be careful running 70mm as the rollers in the center feed can squish the 70mm film out, depending on the curl of the film and the RH of the season. Running emulsion-in/out could be dictated by the print.

But yes, Brand and my finding are equal and opposite on how to run reels. Unless you have your own collection, I don't think the opportunity will really come up to do your own experimentation except on a 70mm release and running on reels and to track it over a month or two to see how it shifts. Something like an Oppenheimer.

[Matt McBride]

Frank, if your flat prints focus fine but your scope prints are never all in focus, your scope lens may not be set correctly. There are two components to focusing a scope lens: The actual focusing, that is the distance the lens is from the film, and the astigmatism. The astigmatism is done on the lens barrel. There is a document on the FT warehouse tips section: see the attached link.

For your print that wasn't stored properly, those 8 reels probably have suffered from blocking damage. This happens when the print is stored extremely tightly wound and/or in high humidity environment. You mentioned this was a polyester based film and polyester film is far more sensitive to humidity the acetate prints are. Effectively what happens is the emulsion swells, because the higher humidity level, and "glues" itself to the other side of the base in the wrap. When you go to unwind that roll of film, you are literally pulling the emulsion off of the base because is now stuck to the base of the next wrap of film. There are different levels of severity, some to the point you'll rip apart the film trying to unwind it. Any damage that occurs from trying to unwind the film is permanent.

[Frank Raia]

Matt, thank you for replying. The scope lenses that I have go down to 30 and 50 feet on the front collar. I am getting the best as I can focus going as far as I can down past the 30. My throw is only 18 feet.

What you said about the poly film is what I was thinking. The weird thing is that the 2 reels emulsion in didn't have the problem. Coincidence?

[Brad Miller]

What Matt wrote is accurate on the print. Whoever last wound the print you bought clearly had the emulsion out reels wound tighter (assuming they were all stored together for a period of time). We can usually save blocked prints at the lab, but that is ONLY if the film has not been rewound. So at this point whatever damage you did during unwinding is permanent. That's why if you ever go to unwind a reel and there is ANY sort of sticking moreso than a single frame or two from adhesive tape, you need to stop immediately.

What Matt wrote on the lens is also accurate. It would be helpful if you posted a photo of your scope lens, but if your throw is 18 feet that will limit you to the anamorphic you can use.

[Frank Raia]

Tokiwa said IMG_20250719_203127.jpg IMG_20250719_203054.jpg IMG_20250719_202916.jpg

[Ryan Gallagher]

We can usually save blocked prints at the lab, but that is ONLY if the film has not been rewound. So at this point whatever damage you did during unwinding is permanent. That's why if you ever go to unwind a reel and there is ANY sort of sticking moreso than a single frame or two from adhesive tape, you need to stop immediately.

That was gonna be my follow up question. Can labs/archives recover those adhered/blocked reels. I was imagining something like a month in a dehumidifying environment to suck all the mosture back out, but I expect it is far more complex and hands on than that.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Case in point Ryan's theater is a very long throw, small screen venue. It's just not going make any difference in his setup. He will never be able to see it.

For sure. 118ft throw. 41'x17' flat screen. I am getting better with the binos though, but can't see what is not there. ;-)

[Steve Guttag]

That anamorphic lens may be the source of your problem. There is ISCO, B&L, and Schneider...and then there is the rest. And even in the Schneider lens line up, there are absolute duds on their full-size anamorphics, particularly any made in the 1980s and into the '90s. By the time they brought out their "WA" versions, Schneiders were okay.

However, for you, I'd recommend seeking out and finding Schneider compact ananamorphics (either the original or the "ES" version...they are the same except at the very end of the lens). They were quite good, particularly for 4-element anamorphics and deal with short EF lenses as well as shorter projection distances very well. You'd want either an ISCO or Schneider prime lens behind it, possibly, close coupled but likely not since you are able to use a full-size anamorphic of paper weight quality.