I mostly agree with Leo, but I would point out that:
1. Nitrate should never be on a platter (I actually saw this happen once).
2. Older dye-transfer prints may have curling/shrinking issues that
may make platter use very problematic.
At 10:37 AM 1/11/2006, you wrote:
>Paul Spehr writes:
> > Archives who lend 35mm prints should --- no MUST --- check to find out if
> > the borrower has platters and intends to use them. If this is the case the
> > film(s) should not be loaned to them.
>This is oversimplying the issue, and perpetuating a damaging myth
>which says that just as long as a theatre doesn't use platters,
>there's nothing to worry about. I've seen just as much print damage
>caused by bad film handling in a two-projector booth as with a one
>projector plus long play (be that a platter or tower)
>arrangement. Hardware doesn't damage prints; people do.
> > When (and if) it is reassembled some
> > frames of picture will be lost.
>That doesn't have to be the case. Unless you're making an
>ultrasonic join (in which case you will lose a frame from each end
>when undoing it), it's perfectly possible to make a print up on a
>platter and take it down again with out losing any footage. I've
>done it hundreds of times. The practice of leaving an 'ID frame' on
>the end of a leader is done by projectionists who are lazy and/or
>haven't been taught how to make up a print properly, but it is not
>necessary and professionals don't do it.
> > Projectionists who have been trained to
> > work in theaters using platters will NOT know how to handle films on reels
> > and, in all probability will not have the proper equipment to handle films
> > on reels (or on cores either, for that matter).
>Again, that is the case with some such projectionists and some
>theatres, but not all.
> > The inevitable result is damage. Might be minor, but there will be damage.
>Wrong - a possible result is damage. Damage is not inevitable.
> > All archves lending 35mm should have this as a basic requirement.
>I disagree. Archives hold viewing copies in order for them to be
>seen, and IMHO each viewing request should be considered on a
>case-by-case basis. You could have a multiplex being offered for a
>one-off festival screening with a skilled and competent
>projectionist operating a scrupulously maintained platter
>installation; you could equally have a changeover installation in a
>run-down high street fleapit with a filthy booth, bent and
>sharp-edged running spools, projectors with oil leaks... you name
>it. I could give you examples of both within 20 miles of where I'm sitting.
>The platter question was discussed in a panel at AMIA 2003, and from
>the Q & A afterwards it was clear to me that many archivists have a
>Pavlov's dogs style 'platters = BAD, changeovers = GOOD' mentality,
>whereby just as long as their prints aren't being run on platters,
>they don't care what happens to them. As someone who spent ten
>years earning my living in the projection booth in venues ranging
>from the National Film Theatre to a UCI multiplex, I can confidently
>say that the real world isn't that simple.