Welcome to Sprocket School! This project is maintained by volunteer editors. Learn more about how this works.

User talk:JesseCrooks

From Sprocket School
Revision as of 20:32, 8 June 2026 by JesseCrooks (talk | contribs) (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that led to RP 39-1970 have not yet been conducted on polyester release prints, the recommended practice is arguably outdated in terms of establishing a universal standard, although remains just...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"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that led to RP 39-1970 have not yet been conducted on polyester release prints, the recommended practice is arguably outdated in terms of establishing a universal standard, although remains just as applicable to acetate release prints."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.