8mm Forum: OSI'S challenge ....

This is topic OSI'S challenge .... in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=009017

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on March 07, 2014, 12:21 PM:

Hey everybody, I offered this challenge on the other film forum, and I also offer it here, this is it, (this is largely cut and pasted from my original message) ...

I understand that ****, It probably does limit my sales a little. (referring to the truth that my sales are limited due to these film arriving "cored" in the first place), I think that in the future, if I allow this fellow to send me anymore films, they MUST be on reels in the first place as, quite frankly, It's kind of a hassle in the first place to deals with these cores.

*** does bring up a grand point, therefore, I offer this challenge ...

I have always assumed that for a film to be cored, it is simply not on a reel, but is wound firmly and secured safely with some form of tape ...

Others, (***, *******, for instance), assert that for film to be "cored", it must have some form of "hub" in the middle, be it plastic, metal ect.

Therefore ...

I offer a challenge ...

I have just spent the better part of an hour attempting to find on the internet, ANYTHING that would serve as evidence to either argument, concerning what constitutes a "cored" film.

If anyone can prove, whether from old dusty books (photo please) or from any other source, that for a film to be cored, it must have some central hub on it ....

Then I, upon my word, will publicly apologize to Micheal O Reagan, plus all, on both forums, that I was wrong and will, as of that time, also remove any reference to the term "core" on any further ebay auctions.

I don't think I'm wrong, but I am also not the sum of all knowledge and besides, I LOVE to factually learn anything new about film, so I and all of you benefit as well! ...

Therefore, to the books men! To the internet, men! To any source that is credible, reliable, ect. [Big Grin]

and I happily offer that challenge on here as well. Hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong and I don't have a problem with that, but I would like to be proven wrong before I alter the way I sell, (for, for all we all know, I might well be right!).

Please note: what will accepted as evidence will be actual authoritative proof, whether internet, books ect, and not just "personal opinion", as I could do that as well, but quite frankly, my opinion doesn't hold anymore water than yours, and visa versa.

All the best, folks!

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on March 07, 2014, 01:46 PM:

Osi,

You may be right in terms of lexical semantics, however I don't believe eBay will support this line of reasoning when the buyer escalates the case to eBay Customer Support. I think for the most part people are merely trying to insure that your buyer knows exactly what he or she is bidding on and at the same time protecting you from having to deal with a dissatisfied customer.
Waiting to change your auction's description until you're presented with empirical evidence seems ill advised.

Doug

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 07, 2014, 01:47 PM:

quote:
If anyone can prove, whether from old dusty books (photo please) or from any other source, that for a film to be cored, it must have some central hub on it ....

Oh, for goodness sake! [Confused]

Look, it doesn't really matter one way or the other whether this can be proved or not.
In the film collecting world, the general acceptance is that "Film is cored" means that the print is on cores.
The chances are that your prints will be bought by someone from said film collecting world.
Therefore, I don't understand why you would state "Film is cored" in an auction if there is even the slightest chance that you might mislead a prospective buyer.

None of this makes any sense, Osi.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on March 07, 2014, 02:39 PM:

This whole subject has become as if a dentist pulled a tooth, wedged it back in and then pulled it again!

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on March 07, 2014, 02:49 PM:

Osi
Have a look at this. Go down to "Motion Picture Technology" and then further down to the fourth paragraph which starts... A "Split Reel".......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reel

Posted by Patrick McGrath (Member # 1210) on March 07, 2014, 04:08 PM:

I don't really want to get involved here but the most basic meaning of a core is as follows:

"A central and often foundational part usually distinct from the enveloping part by a difference in nature."

And in my limited experience, films are said to be either "on reels" or "on cores", therefore a cored film is assumed to be actually on a core.
So technically, while Osi's films are wound similar to cored films, the lack of the foundational part ie: the core, means that the films are indeed not cored, just wound without a reel.

In the end, it would be up to the pickiness of the buyer as to whether or not this is an issue. As far as terminology, it seems to me that although Osi is incorrect technically, for all intents and purposes his technique seems to result in the same effect as coring.

I would be interested to know that if when using Osi's method, how stable is the wind without the foundation?
Is it more likely to collapse in on itself and wreak havoc?
Or once you have achieved the platter shape, does it remain whole no matter the lack of a core?

Posted by Mal Brake (Member # 14) on March 07, 2014, 05:10 PM:

http://youtu.be/wItyu46Hw2Q Have a look at this (to the end)

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 07, 2014, 06:18 PM:

I don't understand why people here prefer to be in hot debate. I started a new topic that is still in line with this very subject and yet it is not getting any response, at least until now.

Even in 'Osi Coring Video' I raised this matter and offered a help to Osi in getting those cores, and Osi answers in different way about how many 200' reels he has to use it for GWTW print. Michael has also revisited this forum and prefer to join in this possibility to become another hot debate rather than to answer my question in that threads.

So I took these two photos from my abandoned thread:

My only question now in related to 'Osi's challenge', if I put this in the centre of film, can it is called as a core?

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on March 07, 2014, 07:14 PM:

Can you attach a split reel to it?

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 07, 2014, 07:32 PM:

Bill, my question is if that small plastic thingy placed in the middle of film which is not spooled on a reel, can we call it as a core? I am not asking the method.

Perhaps can I get opinion from other members?

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on March 07, 2014, 07:42 PM:

If a split reel can be attached to it than yes it is a core. If not and you need a home made device to use it then I would be careful calling it a core. I would think the majority of film collectors would consider a core something to be used with a split reel.

I can see the new header at the top of the forum:

No Politics, Religion or Cores

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 07, 2014, 07:55 PM:

So if you are on a (genuine) La-Z-Boy you call it "sitting" and when it is on (a look like) La-Z- Boy you will be careful calling it "sitting".

Ok that's fine with me... [Big Grin]

May I get opinion from other members, can that small plastic thingy be called 'core' no matter how we use the method to spool film on it.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on March 07, 2014, 08:00 PM:

Can someone explain why films are put on cores at all?

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on March 07, 2014, 08:04 PM:

No, chair's a chair.

And a core with a film on it needs a split reel to safely transfer to a reel. What you are showing needs the use of a home made device if it can't be attached to a split reel.

This is really not a hard concept, is it?

Posted by Brad Kimball (Member # 5) on March 07, 2014, 09:12 PM:

I'm with you, Paul... I, too, have always wondered why a film wouldn't be wound onto a reel if you're going to the trouble of winding it onto a core from which it would have to carefully be untaped and re-wound (is there such a word?) back onto a reel anyway in order to project it. Doesn't a cored film take up just as much space as a reeled film? So, what's the benefit derived from coring? Oy Vay!

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 07, 2014, 10:24 PM:

Winbert

In my view my answer to your question would be "yes" we used to get 35mm trailers mounted on cardboard cores, that you would stick your finger into when fast winding them off, and onto the plastic cores that fit onto the 35mm split reel.

Paul.
As far as 35mm is concerned, having the film arrive and dispatch on cores is a lot cheaper and easier to post due to the saving in size and weight. You simply attach your split reel as shown below and wind the film onto larger reels and later onto a platter....reverse to brake down the print

However, although that's standard cinema practice in 35mm for good reason.... that does not apply to Super8.

This is a film I did a couple of weeks ago....once I attach the split reel to each reel then its just a case of winding and joining onto the 6000ft.

On the left is the film, on its core fitted to a 35mm split reel.

Graham.

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 07, 2014, 10:25 PM:

Brad, this is a matter to cut the shipping cost. This especially applies for 16mm and 35mm where the weight of a reel is very significant while reels are abundant in the country of destinantion. Most films in the day of celluloid theatre were shipped through the extra express forwarder in order to chase with the scheduled screening time. And this kind of shipping is very expensive.

Bill, I am in Indonesia so it is a day time now. I am awake. You are in the northern hemisphere, so better to take a sleep... [Big Grin]

Graham, you are in the southern hemisphere like me, so you are awake. You replied just exactly like what I wrote here. Just a minute different. Your explanation is much reliable because you used to be a professional projectionist. Thanks for giving the answer about the term of 'core'.

While those in northern hemispheres are sleep, can I get the opinion from other members live in the northern hemisphere right tomorrow morning please....

Cheers,

Posted by Gerald Santana (Member # 2362) on March 07, 2014, 11:18 PM:

Hi Folks,

I've been following these threads a little and the best I can do is offer information I found through the Kodak website. The logic here really is that a film core in cinematography, is a tangible object although film--in a way, does have it's own invisible "core".

CORES AND SPOOLS

KODAK Motion Picture Films are available on several types of cores and spools, each appropriate to the design of the equipment used to expose the ﬁlm.

A plastic core is typically used with all 35 mm ﬁlms in lengths over 100ft (30 m) and with all 16mm ﬁlms in lengths over 200ft 61 m).

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/US_plugins_acrobat _en_motion_newsletters_filmEss_11_Film_Specs.pdf

More information here on page 27 of the Film Preservation site:

http://www.filmpreservation.org/userfiles/image/PDFs/fpg_3.pdf

So, the wording on the auction here really should be something like: "the film is wound tightly without a spool, the new buyer will need one for projecting the print."

Or, instead if "cored", simply state the film is "coiled".

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 07, 2014, 11:58 PM:

Thanks Winbert

I took this photo this evening which I think "sums" it up.

On the left of the photo, the trailer came with a cardboard "core"....from the film company.

On the right.....it came without one..."no core" and if I was to pass it on to someone else, I would tell them that this trailer comes "without a core".

For 35mm its not a problem, but to sell a Super8 film like that...it is.

Posted by Dino Everette (Member # 1378) on March 08, 2014, 01:35 AM:

Here is the definition of the word "core" from the International Federation of Film Archives which was formed in 1938 and is a world organization that sets best practices for handling, storing, projecting film..

CORE
A cylinder used as a centre for winding film, usually plastic, originally wood

The term "core" being used to describe a physical piece of something at the center with film wrapped around it began literally with the original film in the 1890's. In the early days film was wrapped on wooden cores about 1 inch - 1 1/2 inch in diameter from the raw stock to the film placed in the camera and then on the original projectors. A small cylindrical post would be slid through the wooden core to hold it in place on the projector and it would run through the machine and into a basket on the floor.

I believe ALL 35mm motion picture film used in cameras have been on cores since the beginning and still to this day...Reels have only been used for projection, and when the film stock got smaller, Kodak introduced small reels (and cartridges) so that it was easier for the consumer to handle the film in conjunction with cameras.

Paul in addition to the shipping cost concerns, films are put on cores for the following reasons... Most lab machines are so precisely designed that having the film on reels would be detrimental and possibly damage the machine, or cause the film to wrap up loosely, so basically anything coming straight from a film lab (unless it is 8mm) will be on a plastic core...Also since the 1920's the best practice for storing film long term in any sort of horizontal fashion has been on cores...I have attached a small image of an excerpt from a 1921 issue of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers (now SMPTE) that describes this practice.....

You will probably never find an actual definition for the term, because obviously the term "cored" is not a "technical" term, but a slang term only. It has, however grown out of essentially 100 years worth of professional and technical discussions about the handling of film that is wrapped around little wooden, metal and plastic cores.

Even the general definition of the word core stands for a physical "something" at the center of something else.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 08, 2014, 01:54 AM:

Dino

Thanks for that...that was an interesting read.

Well Osi...now you know what a "core" is....time to change your GWTW add...don't you think? [Wink]

Graham.

Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on March 08, 2014, 02:27 AM:

Seems a bit daft putting super 8 films on cores at home as its such a small gauge to store. Labs I can understand but at home?
Super 8 cores were mainly used in the lab when new prints were made folks. [Smile]

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on March 08, 2014, 02:43 AM:

There must be a couple of different types of cores too. Winbert's picture looks like one that would fit on a super 8 machine. The ones I have from the optical sound films have a larger hole about 1" with just one slot like Mal's youtube link.

Another question what tape do you use to go round the film?

Looks like someone is buying films on spools and then selling them on cores! and selling the spools too.

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 08, 2014, 02:47 AM:

quote:
It has, however grown out of essentially 100 years worth of professional and technical discussions about the handling of film that is wrapped around little wooden, metal and plastic cores.

Thanks Dino for the explanation. From something you wrote above, coring fim (to wrap film on a core) has nothing to do with the method, whether using a split reel or fingers like Graham told above, right? The most essential is that film is wrapped around little wooden, metal and plastic cores.

David thanks for the confirmation.

quote:

Looks like someone is buying films on spools and then selling them on cores! and selling the spools too.

I think it could become a norm in the near future knowing that 1200' reels are become scare now. In fact just two months ago someone in Belgium was selling a feature of a not-known film which was spooled on 2 * Elmo metal reels. Film was sold for $30 only while the price for an Elmo 1200' metal reel is already between $30-$50.

But it will depend on how big is the demand of super 8mm film collecting in the future.

Ok can i get next comment from other members please.

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on March 08, 2014, 03:37 AM:

As a 35mm projectionist (retired) at one time we used to have old films for showing on a Sunday only, this was an attempt by British cinemas to avoid Entertainments Tax.

As plastic cores over time have a habit of cracking and falling apart often the 2000' lengths would arrive with a tightly rounded piece of newspaper in its centre. Most cinemas kept a few cores for use, but rarely would send them away with a film.

Unless there is a centre of some sort the film will travel into an "egg" shape and could become quite lose and be difficult to handle when it arrives at a cinema.

If such a film was received we had some wooden cores which were turned down from standard size so that they would slide easily into the film which at a previous cinema had been initially wound onto a plastic core which had been removed before packing for transit.

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on March 08, 2014, 06:16 AM:

I need a rest after talking with you Winbert!

I'm glad everyone is explaining what a core is....

Bill [Smile]

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on March 08, 2014, 08:06 AM:

Two ELMO spools were sold last year, if I recall correctly the final price was well over £50. One of the best made.

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 08, 2014, 10:35 AM:

From what I can get here I would assume that a core can be anything as long as it is "a physical "something" at the center of something else" (Dino E.)

Maurice L. says that in his years as a projectionist he found "often the 2000' lengths would arrive with a tightly rounded piece of newspaper in its centre."

David O. says "Winbert's picture looks like one that would fit on a super 8 machine"

While Graham R. agrees that a thing on my two photos can be categorized as a "core".

Now, I would like to tell you all that the thing on my two photos above were actually taken from a 50' reel that I have cut using an industrial scissor. If you don't have that kind of scissor, just use your bare hands. Believe me, since the reel it self has already had a core, although you use your bare hands, it will still give a round shape. Try your self and you will see what I am saying.

With everything said above, I would like to suggest to our friend Osi here, that since you have created an amazing home device to spool film using Technicolor cartridge, now give a try to insert my core and spool the film.

If the centre of your Technicolor is too big for this core, then the only way is to follow my method using one (or two) turntable, by inserting R8mm adapter in the middle of the core.

If one turntable is used therefore the other spool is on projector arm as you have shown on your video. If 2 turntables are used, then you can place side by side like has been shown in my video.

With this you will have films on cores as it is suggested by many friends here.

Buyer will not ask whether you wrap film using a split reel or not. Because that is not important.

My 2 cents.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 08, 2014, 12:01 PM:

Cant resist it [Big Grin]

....oh! I am the one on the far left [Wink]

Posted by John Yapp (Member # 2873) on March 08, 2014, 12:12 PM:

core Blimey!

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on March 08, 2014, 12:33 PM:

Hey Winbert!!!!

I would LOVE to get some cores from you!!!!! Sorry I missed that before!!!! [Smile]

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 08, 2014, 12:53 PM:

Quote from Osi at the start of this topic.

"Hey, if I'm wrong and I don't have a problem with that, but I would like to be proven wrong before I alter the way I sell"

Well Osi...after everything that has been said on this topic....COMMENTS PLEASE? to your above statement.

Graham.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on March 08, 2014, 01:06 PM:

Well, at the end of this whole saga, I think Osi's modus operandi should be pretty clear to all.

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on March 08, 2014, 01:12 PM:

Even using Winbert's long winded explanation the buyer would still need a home made device to put the film on reels. 'Film is cored' infers needing a split reel to remove from the core. Winbert's home made cores need a home made device to use.

Go ahead Winbert...I'm anxious to hear how wrong am.

Bill [Smile]

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on March 08, 2014, 04:37 PM:

Whereas I can appreciate Dino's explanation of the usefullness of cores for 35mm film, the whole concept of selling 8mm film on cores is ridiculous. I know I would never buy any 8mm film unless it was on reels.

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on March 08, 2014, 04:42 PM:

A film taped with masking tape is sure to give trouble if that tape isn't removed extremely soon. Securing a plattered or pancaked film across the film edge in that manner is risky, in my opinion, asking for trouble when the purchaser has residue smear all over the print.

By the way, I chose my terms carefully and accurately. If there's nothing in the center, it's not cored. Proven. If you use the remains of a reel, it's not cored either, then it's just "hubbed" I guess. If you can use a split reel with it, then it's cored.

Let's move on.

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 08, 2014, 06:13 PM:

quote:
I would LOVE to get some cores from you!!!!!

Send me a PM, Osi.

Alternatively, Vidar on the other forum offers you a real (professional...so this exist) super 8mm core not a home made one like mine.

quote:
the buyer would still need a home made device to put the film on reels.

Bill, I have once bought film on core and the description had said so. It is my responsibility to find the way how to put the film back to the reel. Buyer may find that by googling (or yahooing... [Wink]

) and he/she will find Osi's or my method on youtube. Nothing complex here, right? except you are a fan of long winding debates.

quote:
'Film is cored' infers needing a split reel to remove from the core

Do I have to write again "Documents are xeroxed" .... needs a Fuji-Xerox machine? LoL....

This is also a good example "I am zippering"... [Wink]

Further read: web page.

Now this is more a serious explanation. According to the USPO (Patent Body), Split Reel was invented in 1967 by Freedman Myron L with reg #US3432113 A.

On the other hand, according to the history of using "core" in transporting film, as Dino E. wrote previously, it is known:

quote:
The term "core" being used to describe a physical piece of something at the center with film wrapped around it began literally with the original film in the 1890's.

.

So because at that time split reel was not invented yet, do you want to say that those films were not on core?

I'm also anxious to hear how wrong am.

cheers, [Smile]

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 09, 2014, 04:02 AM:

The explanation that "Dino" wrote is "spot" on..

Quote

"Even the general definition of the word core stands for a physical "something" at the center of something else."

That's it in a nutshell. Incidentally folks, GWTW was sold by Derann as "Part one mounted on 4/600ft reels", "Part two mounted on 4/600ft reels".

Graham.

Posted by Dino Everette (Member # 1378) on March 09, 2014, 05:02 AM:

Paul To the best of my knowledge I think the the only super 8 films that have been sold on cores are ones that essentially came from labs and never went anywhere else, they are almost certainly going to be optical features. They have filtered into the collector's market over the years...The films that Osi has I believe have had their reels removed by whatever collector he got them from..

Oh and Winbert (just to make sure this never ends and we can continue discussing this for years to come [Smile]

), while I don't want to complicate things for you I do believe that in the world of film, the size and dimensions of cores were standardized at some point in the 1970's by SMPTE, so that all of the plastic cores whether they be for 35mm, 16mm or even super 8 all have exactly the same sized center opening so that they will fit on the same lab machines and printers...I think that is the point they were trying to explain, that while your home made core does constitute a "core" by definition it is not what is normally referred to as a "film core" because it does not follow the normal film core dimensions which (outside of lab and archival equipment) only fit on split reels..

I will look at work to see if I have the SMPTE documents that outline this...

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 09, 2014, 06:25 AM:

quote:
" because it does not follow the normal film core dimensions which (outside of lab and archival equipment) only fit on split reels..

Dino, Graham's picture shows a core made of cardboard.

What I cannot understand is when we are discussing 'film core', Bill insists to relate it with a split reel. Where in fact, split reel was invented in 1967, while your article says that coring film has been done long time before. How people did it, I don't know, but must be using a different method. So coring film is not related with a split reel.

Cheers,

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on March 09, 2014, 06:34 AM:

Cores or not already partly mentioned is more the tape and type applied, and how much and where.

I`ve had cored 16mm with loads of very sticky leave behind tape all over it leaving loads of gunk on the film sides etc a few times.

Its a lot better if a core or more film oversized on a small reel to say pop a small piece of tape just on the film end. Then put that in a clear bag etc then add the tape all over and around etc to hold the film.

It can be a going on with 16mm trying to sort a very tapey one without a nasty film dissaster but 8mm I would`nt like to try it at all.

Best Mark.

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on March 09, 2014, 06:35 AM:

Here are details of film cores:-
http://www.nfsa.gov.au/preservation/handbook/preparation-long-term-storage/cores/

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on March 09, 2014, 07:08 AM:

Thank you Dino. [Smile]

Winbert, no, I'm not a fan of long winded debates and for the record I'm certainly not a fan of yours either.

Bill

[ March 10, 2014, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: Bill Phelps ]

Posted by Martin Jones (Member # 1163) on March 09, 2014, 10:07 AM:

[Wink]

SIOB!

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on March 09, 2014, 12:30 PM:

Well after following this lengthy discussion on three forums, and trying to understand what a film core is, I found out this morning that I do in fact have some film on cores in my own collection! [Roll Eyes]

They are three 35mm trailers which I got from the local Regal Cinema a couple of years ago for my film class. Each film mounted on a thin plastic cylinder, the inside diameter of the cylinder measures about 25mm and the wall thickness is about 3mm. The inside diameter also has a thin axial rib feature which I assume is for 'keying' the plastic cylinder to a spool arm. So I assume that what I have is the true definition of a film core. Based on this my definition of a film core would be: A thin rigid cylindrical sleeve used to support rolls of motion picture film and containing a feature on its internal diameter for keying to a spool arm
I would also suggest that a core is only viable if it can stably support the film by itself, that is without any auxiliary attachments in the way of radial ribbing or taping. Clearly 35mm is wide enough to permit stable winding of large footage onto cores. Definately not the case with 8mm which is an unstable equilibrium situation if ever I saw one.
And now I can appreciate where Mike O'Regan was coming from in relation to the tightness of the wind - even the 35mm film is only stable on the core if the wind is really tight.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 09, 2014, 05:26 PM:

Posted by Dino Everette (Member # 1378) on March 09, 2014, 10:55 PM:

Ay yay yay..

Bill - Not sure if that was some sort of dig at me or not? If it was I'm even more puzzled, but hopefully it was just a "let's end this never ending back and forth"...

Winbert I think the important thing with Graham's cardboard cores is the fact that the center opening matches the standard so that it will fit on all split reels and lab equipment. The outer dimensions are not standardized, there are 2 inch , 3inch, 4 and 5 inch cores but that center hole is the same across the board (even on super 8)

As for the earlier cores I mentioned, if you check the technical literature you will see that there are as many discussions about standardizing the size and dimensions of cores as there are about the use of them..Every camera manufacturer back in the early days had there own size and type of core, which was ultimately standardized to avoid the problems of dealing with a cored film that couldn't be used by multiple people on multiple types of equipment.

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 09, 2014, 11:28 PM:

Dino, thanks for adding some info.

I don't have any interest in this core things, until it becomes such a hot debate now. Now I know many things but still am puzzled with these flooding info which contradict one to the other.

Previously Gerard Santana provides a link from Kodak that gives good info about this core issue.

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/US_plugins_acrobat _en_motion_newsletters_filmEss_11_Film_Specs.pdf

As you said the diameter of the core may be different but the center opening is the same, i.e 1" (25.4mm). I accept that for today's standard.

But having just a random search through Ebay, I found at least two listings that the core has different size:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Air-Force-One-1 997-Movie-Theater-Trailer-2-30-35MM-Harrison-Ford-1-/301110305841?pt=US_Film&hash=item461b92a431

It says:

quote:
The film is mounted on a 1 3/16" core.

The online conversions shows 1 3/16" = 30.162 5 mm

http://www.ebay.com/itm/THE-DEVILS-OWN-35mm-film- trailer-BRAD-PITT-HARRISON-FORD-/200955966540?pt=US_Film&hash=item2ec9e8b44c

It says

quote:
This is not on a regular 35mm core, it looks smaller, ...

No one made complaints to those listings, btw. For me that is fine, as long as the descriptions clearly say that they are not using the standardized lab core.

Forgive my ignorance, but as a layman, I would think that although the "lab core" is (now) standardized on 1" diameter but there are several different "film cores", aren't they?.

If so, I would say "lab core" is what shown at Kodak's website. But there is also "film core" which the diameter can be various. That includes Graham's film core which is made of cardboard, where I don't know what the size is.

As the time before the split reel was invented in 1967, I would imagine to put film on core, people used flatbed platters, placed side by side, just like the Steenback machine. When they finished wrapping the film, they just upside-down the plater. I don't know, I am just guessing.

Anyway, I think it is the time to put this debate at rest as Osi's GWTW has been sold now anyway.

cheers,

Posted by Dino Everette (Member # 1378) on March 10, 2014, 12:44 AM:

I am now officially exhausted and know exactly what my wife says when she stated "Would you rather be right? or happy?"

...yes every core that has been used in the known universe is not exactly the same therefore Osi and anyone who wishes to refer to their films as being "cored" should continue to do so, regardless of what is or is not at the center. Everyone is correct...Virtually anything and everything is a cored film. AAAAH how did I get myself trapped in this spiderweb, simply because myself and some other wanted to help Osi with how he referred to films he was selling...I need a seriously long forum break.

[Frown]

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on March 10, 2014, 08:16 AM:

Dino, I was thanking you for making my point about the cores better than I was and I was telling Winbert that I do not care for his long rantings and I don't like him anymore. Unfortunately I was addressing 2 people in the same sentence.

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on March 10, 2014, 08:41 AM:

It's hard out there for a topic. The poor, tired thread deserves a little rest. Perhaps we can hang a sign on the door.

Doug

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 10, 2014, 07:40 PM:

Doug...just use the available "instant gremlins"...

...

cheers,

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on March 10, 2014, 07:49 PM:

And they also look like cores!

Doug

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2