Projectable? Where do you draw the line?

[Ryan Gallagher]

Still being relatively "new" to film projection. Where do you draw the line on projectable versus putting to much further stress on both a print and possibly projectors? In the same vein, for an audience prepped to experience a rough print, how many stoppages are too many before you consider showing the digital backup?

In the context of original used and abused release prints that is, not speaking about archive objects. Our coming print I feel gets really close to that line.

Picture quality, fade, and number of visible base/emulsion scratches will always be a subjective threshold.

I'm talking about run-ability issues such as shrinkage, brittleness, or a print showing a history of stressed and pulled sprockets with a bagillion attempts to reinforce them with splice tape.

It is a 95 Acetate release print of "Strange Days" from Criterion. Two reels are not original to this print (lack Sony soundtrack) and no doubt are donors to complete it again, and R8 is a sight to see, Over 200 edge/perf repairs or reinforcements, I probably added another 50 in my inspection, but that was only to the worst offenders. In places it had .5% shrinkage, but not everywhere I checked, probably just near the heads and tails. I'm aware that 1% is a definite no-go unless you are using special sprockets.

I elected to screen test the worst offender (R8) after my DCP last night, as well as one that had the most hodge-podged repaired HEAD/leader. R8 made it with only one place before the title cards where I had to stop to reset the optical tension and lower loop... but having run it once now I have to give it another go on the inspection bench, find that spot and look for new ones, don't trust it one bit!

Chicago Film Society last showed it in May... and no doubt it's ability to run at all is likely due to their prior heroic efforts in shoring it up, but those R8 perfs are not long for this world, it needs huge sections of actual perf-tape applied, which is like unobtanium it seems. Like others have said, I'm a projectionist, not a magician (aka Restoration Archivist).

Thankfully it is SRD and was tracking surprisingly well for it's condition. At least we got that going for us. I'll be running it with minimum gate tension to avoid further pulling, image stability be damned.

The main problem it now has is that prior reinforcements of perfs were not done to both sides a bunch of the time... so anywhere they fixed one side the other side is starting to pull now. I balanced all the ones I did, and re-balanced a TON of theirs, but I certainly did not have time to tackle all of them, only hit the ones that were really starting to show evidence.

Edit: If it was a polyester print with the same kinds of perf problems, I probably would not even consider running it, knowing it's strong enough to really trash the projector if it doesn't break instead.

[Randy Stankey]

I, once, ran a print of "Phantom of the Opera" (1925) that was so bad it almost crumbled in your hands as you were trying to handle it. It was the only print we could get and it also smelled so bad that it stunk up the booth.

I had to run it four times. Once for my test screening. Again for the orchestra conductor to take notes from. A third time for the orchestra rehearsal and, finally for the audience. I stood next to the projector, the whole time, for every run, with my hand by the controls, ready to take action at any second.

I Film-Guarded the hell out of that print. Once at the bench as I was inspecting. Again as I spooled it onto the platter. (I had a bracket to fit on the MUT/platter.) By this time, the print was sopping wet with Film-Guard. I let the film sit overnight before I did my test screening with, yet another coating of FG with the cleaner on the projector. The print sat overnight, again, before the conductor's screening. This time, I used clean pads with just a light coating of FG. Finally, again, for the go-show with the same pads. That first set of pads was totally crusty before I changed them.

It was, truly, a white-knuckle show! I don't know how the hell it even made it through one run, let alone, four! It was on an old Simplex PR-1003 with a straight gate and a Potts-Alpha platter. All I can say is that I'm glad I won't have to do anything like that again!

When it comes to deciding on whether to run a print or not, I go by the axiom, "The audience will give you one mulligan."

If you think that you can make it through the show with one stoppage or film break, you can probably go ahead. If you don't, go to Plan-B.

As to scratches, fading or crummy soundtracks, that's for you to decide on your test screening. That's why we do them. Use your own judgement and decide based on what you think the audience will accept. If they know that it's an old print, they might be more tolerant but don't try to pass off a bad print just for the sake of "The show must go on."

Also, don't forget that film pile-ups can damage your machines! In this day and age, replacement parts are as rare as hen's teeth.

If you have any fears that equipment might be damaged, forget the film and go to your backup.

[Ryan Gallagher]

I wish I had permission to film-guard a bunch of these release prints. But I gotta get my cleaners serviced and usable again before I can even ask.

This will definitely be a don't leave the projectors kind of night, but no where near as stressful as your experience. Considering R8 mostly made it, and it was my biggest worry... i'm going for it, provided it doesn't look abysmal upon re-inspection. This one is presented by a local film club that is all about the 35mm trash... so I expect their audience is too, and our programmer has been prompted to set the audience up for the potential ride. Just gotta protect the projectors, the rest will be what it is.

I also wish I could have screen tested the whole thing, but this one fell in my lap late because turned out our scheduled projectionist was only flying back into town today and would have been attempting to inspect it day of (that obviously wasn't going to work). I got through the inspection in 2 days during my shifts, but no time to re-inspect this one if I was to run test the whole thing today. (Screening tonight of course).

It's definitely seeming like we need to push our inspections way forward for reasons like this... be less dedicated to projectionist schedule but instead base the projectionist schedule on who can get to the inspections first.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Correction: this print was sealed and signed by prior operator “Chicago FCS”. NOT in fact Chicago Film Society, different entity!

[Ryan Gallagher]

Happy to report that other than this print needing a bath, successful screening! Only one glaring vertical emulsion scratch exists in the crawl, colors were gorgeous. Just beat up and very dirty at heads and tails.

TLDR:

We stood by for every reel cause the inspection had me worried, but it was only needed on R8 as before. This time I was able to make it all the way through, it still probably would have jumped a few perfs on the lower drive and lost optical tension, but I decided to give that pad roller a fighting chance at staying in place by putting the weight of a finger on it's 70mm partner, ran the whole reel that way with a finger in the projector... didn't lose any more lower loop or optical tension other than the first perf jump before I thought to intervene, but felt a bunch of them try.

A lot of the prior pulled perfs on R8 were in a "recurring reel sized pattern". I would guess someone had a very out of round take-up reel, a very bent take-up spindle, a take-up slip clutch with a "sticky" spot, or some combination of all of them, combined with maybe too much take-up tension in the first place. I suppose running with a extra small core would also ratchet up all the tensions on take-up.

Here is what R8 looked like from the side (after my additional perf reinforcements too), it and one other "original" seemed fairly shrunken, cause SRD struggled to track in places on those two reels. Or it's just the pulled perfs themselves that were disrupting the SRD block.

IMG_6371.jpg

A little Century JJ projector diagnosis that doesn't help any: This played on projector with a previously fought with pad roller mechanism that has a oval'd out stop pin hole that is supposed to provide the pin contact for the hard stop pad roller adjustment screw, but the press-fit pin is no longer press fit and has a tendency to move on you (years of people slamming that pad roller closed), as such I can't use that stop screw to set pad roller spacing, I have to rely on rotating the whole mechanism and it's set screw. I believe the fact the detent in the two position mechanism has some slop and can be lifted (or rather "thrown") by travelling splices is why they added the hard stop pin for the final adjustment and for constant pressure from the spring mechanism. Normally most prints are not an issue, just heavy handed splices can sometimes be.

Probably need to just accept the inevitable and Lock-Tight that stop pin back in it's hole in the chassis to permit proper hard-stop adjustment. I think my only other option would be to upsize that pin and ream out a larger press fit hole? Maybe I could tap some threads in the existing hole and switch to bolt as the pin, or a threaded pin, instead of a press fit pin?

[Benjamin Ruder]

Correction: this print was sealed and signed by prior operator “Chicago FCS”. NOT in fact Chicago Film Society, different entity!

It was UChicago FSC, which is the University of Chicago Film Studies Center and was in this case fully inspected and run by me. I too had reservations about the print after a long gap in it's last visit to us and my fresh bench inspection showing additional wear and damages. An expected rough condition print that unfortunately is what we get from Criterion Pictures USA catalog. This screening was for a course, but for us and this instructor, the original release and materiality of the format are important. There was advanced notice sent to the instructor and the screening went better than expected. We run on Kinoton FP38E, so I can't compare to your setup. I don't generally do shrinkage tests on rentals. I also always have a physical disc backup when available. I don't necessarily want this print again, but could run it if requested (and passing inspections).

[Ryan Gallagher]

Hey Benjamin. Figured someone would recognize it! Hah. Now I know who “BR” is!

Same, better than expected on screen. There was definitely some missing footage at one of the heads, one changeover felt like we missed the ending sentences on a scene and jumped into the next, both of us in the booth were like “woah, I hope that is the correct reel”, it was but awkward changeover.

She sheer quantity of time involved in inspection makes me not want to see this one again either. We’ve had a couple Criterion Pictures sources this season and both have been pretty rough. Definitely need to get my bench cleaner usable, eons ago someone picked up two projector mount cleaners, but is has probably been decades since they were in use in this booth.

R8 probably has a few more plays in it until it lands in a booth that is pulling too hard on those sad perfs again.

[Leo Enticknap]

We run on Kinoton FP38E...

...which is one of the most tolerant, if not the most tolerant, projector mechanism for shrunk, brittle, edge damaged, perf damaged, and peppered with suspect splices prints ever made (both 35 and 16). I used one at the Egyptian: prints would run on it with no trouble (especially with the gate tension backed off to the bare minimum needed to prevent picture shake) that were almost guaranteed to derail on any mass production projector that was designed for new prints running in multiplexes.

IMHO and as a general rule of thumb, it is not safe to assume that a very rough print that ran on a Kinoton electronic intermittent projector without problems will also be trouble free through a more traditional projector mechanism.

[Steve Guttag]

I'd say, to a point. Kinoton uses 24-tooth sprockets and on the "E" intermittent, also 24-teeth. This distributes the load better than 16-tooth sprockets. The downsides of large sprockets come with film shrunk so badly that it will no longer fit on the sprocket, length wise. Kinoton had undersized sprocket rings to accommodate such film. For their short-lived film viewing table, they had a clever mechanism that would allow one to adjust the wrap on the intermittent to accommodate however shrunk it was.

A trick for Simplex XL/35s is to thread shrunk film over the first pad roller on the upper and lower sprockets.

[Jerry G. Axelsson]

Kinoton FP-30E/D can handle shrunk film up to 0,8%. Then it taps out. (The film starts climbing over the feeding sprockets, usually the lower one so you lose the intermittent loop gradually). We usually do tests from 0,6% to see how how the print goes through the machine. I have not done the same test on older FP-20:s in recent times. Perhaps they have a slight advantage. DP70 can run prints up to 1,0% shrinkage.

[Steve Guttag]

I'd think that the DP70 sort of gets away with it because it does not wrap the sprockets quite as much as the FP20/30. The Kinoton pad shoe gets at least 180-degree wrap on the feed sprockets. If you thread the rollers above/below with the "proper" wrap (looks like half of an infinity) on the original style, then you get closer to 270-degree wraps.

The DP70's worst case is 35mm on the upper sprocket but the pad roller does not force a 180-degree wrap. The holdback sprocket could be closer to 180-degree but the film can be allowed to ride up heading into the roller itself...so it sort of cheats it. Then again, the DP70 is MUCH more likely to get a "singing" holdback sprocket.

If you really want to see a machine freak out over shrunken film...have any of them try to run a shrunken 4-track magnetic print with CS perforations. The wrap of the intermittent sprocket is too much for it. There just isn't any slop there.

[Ryan Gallagher]

I'd think that the DP70 sort of gets away with it because it does not wrap the sprockets quite as much as the FP20/30. The Kinoton pad shoe gets at least 180-degree wrap on the feed sprockets. If you thread the rollers above/below with the "proper" wrap (looks like half of an infinity) on the original style, then you get closer to 270-degree wraps.

The DP70's worst case is 35mm on the upper sprocket but the pad roller does not force a 180-degree wrap. The holdback sprocket could be closer to 180-degree but the film can be allowed to ride up heading into the roller itself...so it sort of cheats it. Then again, the DP70 is MUCH more likely to get a "singing" holdback sprocket.

If you really want to see a machine freak out over shrunken film...have any of them try to run a shrunken 4-track magnetic print with CS perforations. The wrap of the intermittent sprocket is too much for it. There just isn't any slop there.

1% must have been something I read somewhere as an industry wide rule of thumb, obviously it depends on projector design and accommodations for shrinkage. Where would you say a Century JJ falls for both 35mm acetate and poly with the standard optical basement reader?

Where would it fall when more sprocket teeth are involved in 70mm mode. What about Mag 70mm with the penthouse involved?

I’ve definitely shown a couple 35mm prints that had a tendency to buzz on the drive sprockets in places. I think the lower will exhibit it first, slightly more of a wrap down there.

[Paul Finn]

The worst 35mm prints I ever had to try and show came from Criterion. And, this was over thirty years ago now! I even talked to them on the telephone, but no help. We stopped booking from them. It is so sad to see nothing has changed after all this time.

Paul Finn

[Leo Enticknap]

DP70 can run prints up to 1,0% shrinkage.

But are less tolerant than the electronic Kinotons of brittleness, bad splices, and perforation damage, in my experience.

From my Egyptian days, my memory is that Janus/Criterion prints were a mixed bag, ranging from almost new and very clean to completely worn out and borderline unplayable. I guess that they must have made zero or almost zero new prints since then (I left in 2017), with the result that their circulating stock has continued to deteriorate.

[Ryan Gallagher]

But are less tolerant than the electronic Kinotons of brittleness, bad splices, and perforation damage, in my experience.

From my Egyptian days, my memory is that Janus/Criterion prints were a mixed bag, ranging from almost new and very clean to completely worn out and borderline unplayable. I guess that they must have made zero or almost zero new prints since then (I left in 2017), with the result that their circulating stock has continued to deteriorate.

Ever had one of Criterion’s Rocky Horror?

Maybe that is their money maker and they’ve struck more prints over the years. Or maybe we are in for the most handled print in their collection in a few weeks.