Banner
Home Forums Movie Theaters The Booth Is a platter more likely to damage films?
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
  • Page:
  • 1

TOPIC: Is a platter more likely to damage films?

Is a platter more likely to damage films? 19 Jul 2001 10:06 #20960

  • Mike
  • Mike's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 4961
  • Thank you received: 37
  • Karma: 15
Some classics distribs will not allow their films to be run through platters. Is that because of the platter or the projectionist? Don't good projectionists take good care of film in any method? Do you think to the distrib that a twin reel to reel indicates a more trained or professional staff? (I do not feel that way for the record.
) So why "do" they dislike platters?

Mike Hurley
www.bigscreenbiz.com
Michael Hurley
Impresario
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: Is a platter more likely to damage films? 19 Jul 2001 13:45 #20961

  • muviebuf
  • muviebuf's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 686
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 0
A two projector reel system requires that someone be present in the booth for much if not all of the time. If something does go wrong or damage to the print does occur, things can be corrected quickly and without damage to a whole print.

As a second run (reel to reel) operator I am absolutely disgusted by 75% of the current prints that I receive. Not only is there signicant print damage but it is usually all the way through the print at the same spot on the film caused by a platter. The number of platter booths which have trained and competent projection staffs are a distinct minority.

I applaud any classic distributor who will not let its prints be shown on a platter! system.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: Is a platter more likely to damage films? 19 Jul 2001 14:12 #20962

  • All Movies
  • All Movies's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Junior Boarder
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: 0
I was also thinking that maybe because you have to cut and tape the print together (splicing), they wouldn't want it to be shown on a platter because you hjave to cut the print!?

Sorta make sense?

I prefer platters. At a 30 screen theatre, you can't have 30 projectionists.

Peter Kessleman
MovieGo'R
Peter Kessleman
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: Is a platter more likely to damage films? 19 Jul 2001 14:26 #20963

  • Mike
  • Mike's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 4961
  • Thank you received: 37
  • Karma: 15
I forgot the heads and tail splicing. That's definietly a concern for the distribs. We had to beg for a copy of Casablanca from WB Classics and they were mostly and only concerned about PLATTERS VS. TWIN.

Mike Hurley
www.bigscreenbiz.com
Michael Hurley
Impresario
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: Is a platter more likely to damage films? 19 Jul 2001 15:32 #20964

  • John Pytlak
  • John Pytlak's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 891
  • Karma: 0
Either changeover and platter systems can be used to show a print hundreds of time without damage.
But chances are greater that a changeover house will have a skilled projectionist. Likewise, few projectionists take care not to lose frames when cutting off leaders and splicing them back on, even though that's the proper way to do it. So after a few platter bookings, the lost frames add up to a significant loss of continuity at the reel changes. The distributors' preference for changeover houses is probably based on a few bad experiences with platter houses.

John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
EI Worldwide Technical Services
Research Labs, Building 69
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Telephone: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Website: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Customer Technical Services
Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Telephone: +1 585-477-5325 Fax: +1 585-722-7243
E-Mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Website: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: Is a platter more likely to damage films? 19 Jul 2001 15:33 #20965

  • John Pytlak
  • John Pytlak's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 891
  • Karma: 0
Either changeover and platter systems can be used to show a print hundreds of time without damage.
But chances are greater that a changeover house will have a skilled projectionist. Likewise, few projectionists take care not to lose frames when cutting off leaders and splicing them back on, even though that's the proper way to do it. So after a few platter bookings, the lost frames add up to a significant loss of continuity at the reel changes. The distributors' preference for changeover houses is probably based on a few bad experiences with platter houses.

John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
EI Worldwide Technical Services
Research Labs, Building 69
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Telephone: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Website: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Customer Technical Services
Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Telephone: +1 585-477-5325 Fax: +1 585-722-7243
E-Mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Website: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: Is a platter more likely to damage films? 19 Jul 2001 22:05 #20966

The issue of spliceing the heads and tails and the possible loss of footage is the major concerns. But even on reels some distributors will not permit the use of any automationbut require totally supervised manual operation. This is reasonable considering that it is often the sole print being exhibitied
The administrator has disabled public write access.
  • Page:
  • 1
Time to create page: 0.279 seconds
attraction attraction
attraction
attraction
attraction
attraction