JesseCrooks at 03:45, 9 June 2026

2026-06-09T03:45:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:45, 8 June 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	"It's important to note that this recommended practice was issued at a time when cellulose acetate was the reigning film base for release prints, which has very different physical characteristics to polyester release prints, which is the standard today. Since the same experiments that led to RP 39-1970 have not yet been conducted on polyester release prints, the recommended practice is arguably outdated in terms of establishing a universal standard, although remains just as applicable to acetate release prints."		"It's important to note that this recommended practice was issued at a time when cellulose acetate was the reigning film base for release prints, which has very different physical characteristics to polyester release prints, which is the standard today. Since the same experiments that led to RP 39-1970 have not yet been conducted on polyester release prints, the recommended practice is arguably outdated in terms of establishing a universal standard, although remains just as applicable to acetate release prints."

	I'm guessing this statement is entirely based on Brad Miller's propaganda. On the SMPTE wind study posted on Film-Tech, which is where most folks get it from, he prefaced it with a statement claiming it doesn't apply to polyester, specifically, "This paper reflects work done on, and is applicable only to, acetate film base only. It does not apply to modern polyester film." First off, the majority of film in circulation is acetate, so the point holds. Second, he didn't provide any empirical evidence that it's any different with polyester... Heads-out, emulsion-out only remains the dominate method in the US because of tradition, not due to any rational argument.		I'm guessing this statement is entirely based on Brad Miller's propaganda. On the SMPTE wind study posted on Film-Tech, which is where most folks without a SMPTE membership get it from, he prefaced it with a statement claiming it doesn't apply to polyester, specifically, "This paper reflects work done on, and is applicable only to, acetate film base only. It does not apply to modern polyester film." First off, the majority of film in circulation is acetate, so the point holds. Second, he didn't provide any empirical evidence that it's any different with polyester... Heads-out, emulsion-out only remains the dominate method in the US because of tradition, not due to any rational argument.


			I also think the following is incorrect:

			"This is due to the innate properties of acetate film base, which is prone to "plastic flow" (the tendency for the shape of plastics to "flow" and shift as force is applied against it over time) and "core set" (when the resting shape of a film's base molds itself to its wound orientation when stored on a core or reel). This means that, instead of reversing wind orientations in the instant of projection (causing unpredictable strain to the print undergoing plastic flow and core set), keeping a film's orientation as unchanged as possible in storage and during projection results in greater mechanical stability for the print, and since almost all take-up mechanisms are designed for clockwise (thus, emulsion-in) take-up, it follows that feed reels should be wound emulsion in just as well. It's also worth noting that the study showed how the adverse effects of even one wind in the opposite orientation can take weeks to reverse themselves for acetate prints."

			Base curl, which I believe is the generally accepted term for what is referred to here as "core set," is WORSE with polyester.

JesseCrooks: Created page with ""It's important to note that this recommended practice was issued at a time when cellulose acetate was the reigning film base for release prints, which has very different physical characteristics to polyester release prints, which is the standard today. Since the same experiments that led to RP 39-1970 have not yet been conducted on polyester release prints, the recommended practice is arguably outdated in terms of establishing a universal standard, although remains just..."

2026-06-09T03:32:01Z

Created page with ""It's important to note that this recommended practice was issued at a time when cellulose acetate was the reigning film base for release prints, which has very different physical characteristics to polyester release prints, which is the standard today. Since the same experiments that led to RP 39-1970 have not yet been conducted on polyester release prints, the recommended practice is arguably outdated in terms of establishing a universal standard, although remains just..."

New page

"It's important to note that this recommended practice was issued at a time when cellulose acetate was the reigning film base for release prints, which has very different physical characteristics to polyester release prints, which is the standard today. Since the same experiments that led to RP 39-1970 have not yet been conducted on polyester release prints, the recommended practice is arguably outdated in terms of establishing a universal standard, although remains just as applicable to acetate release prints."

I'm guessing this statement is entirely based on Brad Miller's propaganda. On the SMPTE wind study posted on Film-Tech, which is where most folks get it from, he prefaced it with a statement claiming it doesn't apply to polyester, specifically, "This paper reflects work done on, and is applicable only to, acetate film base only. It does not apply to modern polyester film." First off, the majority of film in circulation is acetate, so the point holds. Second, he didn't provide any empirical evidence that it's any different with polyester... Heads-out, emulsion-out only remains the dominate method in the US because of tradition, not due to any rational argument.

User talk:JesseCrooks - Revision history

JesseCrooks at 03:45, 9 June 2026