Nitrate v Safety

[lantau]

It depends. 1000m of Nitrate film, strongly heated, with more next to it, in a confined space with hundreds of people inside is quite different from handling a 1,6m roll in a darkroom.

That is why nitrate-base for still film got legally banned.

By the way, the projection cabinet in the nitrate-base days, at least here, was already a fire-shielding one.
And nevertheless projecting nitrate-film was banned.

And yes, basically one can argue on each safety-regulation.

In the 90s as a student I had a friend, who was manager of the local cinema. I was often visiting there behind the scene and occasionally helped carrying those 5000ft (IIRC) reels to the projectors.

Anyway, once he took me to another older cinema. They still had a lot of the old equipment there, including a projector with the old electric arc lamp, using a carbon anode that had to be continuously adjusted for the length loss through burn. Manually of course. It also had a read head for 'magnetic sound'. Prints with magnetic sound hadn't been made for a long time then. Too expensive, but higher fidelity than the optical version. So my friend was hoping to 'inherit' that beast from the boss.

So about burning rolls of film. There was an old solid wooden storage cabinet. Each film roll (probably 1000ft?) would go into its own slot with lid. The wood was probably treated and the whole thing made sure that a fire wouldn't ignite any rolls in storage. So you'd never have 1000m of film in one place. While I mentioned the modern 5000ft rell back then they didn't glue (can't be bothered to find the right term, right now) together the individual rolls but used two projectors to run them sequentially and fade over. And if the operator didn't pay attention the screen would go white!

The projected film was running through a kind of fire trap (probably two metal plates sandwiching the film, or similar). So if the film were to be ignited by the heat of the lamp, because of an accidental stoppage, the combustion would stop right there. Just cut the burned section, glue the ends together and continue.

 

[AgX]

I know about that trap and above I hinted at means to keep a fire inside the booth, but nevertheless nitrate-base film got prohibited.
And at least here in Germany projecting such film would even be a crime, covered by two different laws.

 

[lantau]

I know about that trap and above I hinted at means to keep a fire inside the booth, but nevertheless nitrate-base film got prohibited.
And at least here in Germany projecting such film would even be a crime, covered by two different laws.

No argument there. I just pointed out how they managed to survive prior to 1957 and that they were (hopefully) careful not to to have too much ordnance out in the open at any one time. That cinema was deep in the Allgäu btw.

 

[Arklatexian]

In the 90s as a student I had a friend, who was manager of the local cinema. I was often visiting there behind the scene and occasionally helped carrying those 5000ft (IIRC) reels to the projectors.

Anyway, once he took me to another older cinema. They still had a lot of the old equipment there, including a projector with the old electric arc lamp, using a carbon anode that had to be continuously adjusted for the length loss through burn. Manually of course. It also had a read head for 'magnetic sound'. Prints with magnetic sound hadn't been made for a long time then. Too expensive, but higher fidelity than the optical version. So my friend was hoping to 'inherit' that beast from the boss.

So about burning rolls of film. There was an old solid wooden storage cabinet. Each film roll (probably 1000ft?) would go into its own slot with lid. The wood was probably treated and the whole thing made sure that a fire wouldn't ignite any rolls in storage. So you'd never have 1000m of film in one place. While I mentioned the modern 5000ft rell back then they didn't glue (can't be bothered to find the right term, right now) together the individual rolls but used two projectors to run them sequentially and fade over. And if the operator didn't pay attention the screen would go white!

The projected film was running through a kind of fire trap (probably two metal plates sandwiching the film, or similar). So if the film were to be ignited by the heat of the lamp, because of an accidental stoppage, the combustion would stop right there. Just cut the burned section, glue the ends together and continue.

I think the term you were looking for to "glue" movie/cine film together is "splice" done to your home movies with a splicer and an acetone base fluid. In projection booths, they probably used an electric splicer that melted the ends into each other. I am told that two projectors are still being used in most theaters tho the "change-over" is probably automated. When I was much younger we would watch for the signals that told the projectionists that it was almost time to make a change-over. That is why the projection rooms had several windows, some for the projectors to project through and some for the projectionists to look through for change-overs and focusing........Regards!

 

[AgX]

How is the legal situation in the rest of the world?

 

[Doc W]

Nitrate prints can be very beautiful, for a number of reasons, 99% of them having to do with lab processes no longer in effect.

The base itself, as a general rule, can be more brilliant and clear than acetate due to the light-piping characteristics of nitrate base; acetate being more diffuse. However, I find that polyester base tends to have a similar "clear" look, so that argument is subjective at best.

I think a large degree of nostalgia plays into this perception of nitrate being a superior base, but it probably has more to do with the fact that the film elements tend to have been directly printed off the original negative, thus avoiding a generational loss that was inherent in the later processes of making a protection dupe neg from which to make general release prints.

Also, they were fabricated by laboratories that had custom developing formulas, honed through out their life which are lost to current labs. Special developers, compounded and tweaked by master photochemists were never publicly discussed for a good reason; they were trade secrets!

I time/grade original era Hollywood films on a routine basis and compare them to copyright prints made at the time of original release and can say with confidence, that our prints are as good or better than mainstream releases of the 30's through the 60's.

I just did two new show prints of "Gold Diggers of 1933" from the original negative and, except for the damage that has crept in over the years from repeated printing, I would say they at least as good as the prints released in 1933.

Kino, I find your response really interesting. The first real job I had as an adult was working in the National Archives in Canada and at one point, I was only handling nitrate film. I didn't know anything about the legend of nitrate (other than how dangerous it could be), but I did notice a real difference in the actual prints as I ran them through a viewing machine (I think it was a Steenbeck). I don't know if nitrate prints are any better than modern prints, but the nitrate did seem to have a kind of glow to it, particularly in films which had a lot of contrast and particularly bright areas.

 

[Kino]

Kino, I find your response really interesting. The first real job I had as an adult was working in the National Archives in Canada and at one point, I was only handling nitrate film. I didn't know anything about the legend of nitrate (other than how dangerous it could be), but I did notice a real difference in the actual prints as I ran them through a viewing machine (I think it was a Steenbeck). I don't know if nitrate prints are any better than modern prints, but the nitrate did seem to have a kind of glow to it, particularly in films which had a lot of contrast and particularly bright areas.

Doc,
It's very hard to generalize about 50 years of film, so I do not doubt your observations.
I have seen *some* incredible nitrate prints we could never match and some of that might have to do with the base thickness or a special tint/tone that affected the base, but I can only speculate. All the reasons why films look the way they do over 100+ years will probably never be totally understood before they disappear.

Thanks,
Frank

 

[Doc W]

Doc,
It's very hard to generalize about 50 years of film, so I do not doubt your observations.
I have seen *some* incredible nitrate prints we could never match and some of that might have to do with the base thickness or a special tint/tone that affected the base, but I can only speculate. All the reasons why films look the way they do over 100+ years will probably never be totally understood before they disappear.

Thanks,
Frank

Frank, I agree. I think that my observations raise more questions than provide answers. It would make an interesting study for some aspiring graduate student in Film Studies.

 

[ic-racer]

Today, at about 6:30 AM I heard a report on NPR about how a movie theater showed a classic movie, "Casablanca", in nitrate and was received admirably because the old film base, somehow, enhances the tonal characteristics of the film.

Like the glow it gives when burning?

 

[ic-racer]

Today, at about 6:30 AM I heard a report on NPR about how a movie theater showed a classic movie, "Casablanca", in nitrate and was received admirably because the old film base, somehow, enhances the tonal characteristics of the film.

Like the glow it gives when burning?

 

[ic-racer]

Today, at about 6:30 AM I heard a report on NPR about how a movie theater showed a classic movie, "Casablanca", in nitrate and was received admirably because the old film base, somehow, enhances the tonal characteristics of the film.

Like the glow it gives when burning?

 

[lantau]

I think the term you were looking for to "glue" movie/cine film together is "splice" done to your home movies with a splicer and an acetone base fluid. In projection booths, they probably used an electric splicer that melted the ends into each other. I am told that two projectors are still being used in most theaters tho the "change-over" is probably automated. When I was much younger we would watch for the signals that told the projectionists that it was almost time to make a change-over. That is why the projection rooms had several windows, some for the projectors to project through and some for the projectionists to look through for change-overs and focusing........Regards!

Ahh, thanks for the hint. I should have remembered that. After all I had heard that before.

In my friends cinema the splicing was done with a clear adhesive tape. At least it was one made for specifically that purpose. The ends were clipped and then placed end on end onto a block with a 35mm track and a lid. The adhesive tape applied and the lid closed. Then once more on the other side of the film. This memory isn't really that fresh, so don't hold me to the fine details, please.

 

[AgX]

The classic mean of splicing is solvent cementing.

With the PET-based films that does not work, thus adhesive tape was used that also yielded the benefit of being reversal.

A alternative is welding PET-based film.

 

[ic-racer]

Electric splicer heated the film so the solvent dried faster after it was applied.