my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Best/worst projector (Page 11)

This topic comprises 19 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  ...  17  18  19

Author Topic: Best/worst projector Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-13-2004 07:52 PM                     quote: until they can get to that level, we just have to deal with it, Unfortunately the top brass at Strong doesn't have the mentality to get it to that level Don. But I sure do hope they can at least weed out existing problems so that those buying it don't get screwed too badly. Hopefully Strong is covering dealers technical expenses on any repairs that are done by other than their people. In the old days Simplex used to wring out all the new stuff at Radio City Music Hall!! Those guys were the best in the buisness back then, but I'd bet there wasn't much to weed out! I agree about the Christie.... but its a whole lot more bang for the buck since it costs quite a bit less. The fit and finish on a Christie is also miles ahead of the Strong stuff. We just installed 8 new Christie Cine-X 35's last week for a customer. Check them out.... you will find these way ahead of the 35GP which is soon to be discontinued. Totally different belt drive and that nasty double sided belt is gone. Mark  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 12-13-2004 08:13 PM                  quote: Mark Gulbrandsen Unfortunately the top brass at Strong doesn't have the mentality to get it to that level Don. That is right on target for the last seveal years. THEY ***REALLY*** need to clean house and get some new talent/blood!  |  IP: Logged Matt Manalis Film Handler Posts: 27 From: Yamba, NSW, Australia Registered: Apr 2004 posted 12-13-2004 08:22 PM                        i havn't read all the posts on this topic but has anyone mentioned a C & W model 8 or P8???? they were a australian built projector.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 12-14-2004 12:44 AM                     Oooooo! That's pretty trickey for the CINE-X35 machines...getting rid of the lower constant feed sprocket/pulldown knob assembly and having the middle constant speed sprocket to do two jobs at once (like an old Kalart Victor 16mm machine..) - one side of the sprocket pulling the film from the trap to the soundhead, and the other side of the sprocket pulling the film from the soundhead to the transport assembly(ies). Only thing is to get used to the reverse directions that the two constant speed sprockets (anti-clockwise) are going compared to the intermittent sprocket (clockwise), being that the dbl sided belt has been omitted, thus the belt travel having to go in one direction for both belts. Especially, the upper constant speed sprocket in a reverse direction that with all of the other standard projectors, where we've been lacing up that upper constant sprocket clockwise forever. Only projector that uses the anti-clockwise upper sprocket that I've seen is the AutoLoad FilmoSound Bell&Howell 16mm projectors. That would dispense of that dbl tooth outer belt of the P35GPS units. And glad that they are using a lot better and stronger alloy belt sprockets for the belt drives - to save early changes and early belt wear (and breakage..as a bunch of have gone through, esp with the shutter belts busting and burning a hole through the single bladed shuters...) thx-Monte [ 12-14-2004, 05:23 AM: Message edited by: Monte L Fullmer ]  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-14-2004 07:27 AM                     Actually they use both sides of the 2nd constant feed sprocket just as in a Motiograph sound head. The drive bellts are now round tooth timming belts for near zero flutter in the sound reproducer. This allowed them to go back and use the SRD basement reader and they are now getting error rates of 1's and 2's.... or if you live in Texas readings of 0 . Both constant feed belts are the same so you only have to stock two kinds of belts. Feed and shutter. We installed all ourd with Panastereo CSP 1200's and DTS XD-10s. Mark  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 12-14-2004 02:19 PM                     With the round tooth belts, it be like the newer Strong variety-quieter running, more durablilty and stronger? - thx Monte  |  IP: Logged Jean-Michel Grin Expert Film Handler Posts: 222 From: Geneva & Lausanne, Switzerland Registered: Jul 2002 posted 12-14-2004 04:42 PM                        Hi guys ! For me the best projectors are for the Old Europe Cinemeccanica (hi Antonio !) V5 with curved gate. The must is Kinoton prjectors, but I never had the oportunity to work on it. Simplex and Century are for me good projectors, Realy easy to understand how they work. Christie projectors sems to me really difficult to set up whit their multiples belts: Syncronising the shutter wit a belt transmission sems to me a bit difficult, but i could be wrong. Te worst projector a ever see in our theaters are the Monee projector: A lot of picture shaking, impossible to improve the focus on the screen, a spare part never fit in to replace a wear part.. and so and so... But it's work for small theater... Season Greeting, and apoligyse for my weak English !  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-14-2004 07:47 PM                     mark said"Had the Apogee be designed by the old Simplex Co. it would have never made it into normal service with all those "fixes" needed"Bull look at the E7 introduced in repeated different verions throughout the late 30's and 40's and the XL was on and off the market as well with fixes  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-15-2004 07:19 PM                     Donno Gord, There were several Oblique E-7's running in this area till about 4 years ago when I awapped them out for used X-L's at the customers request. We also have in good shape at least 4 oblique E-7's in the basement at work that ran till not too long ago. Yes, the E0-7 had a more fragile gear train but if you treated it as such you rarely had any problems. The X-L's first major change was at SN/149 or there abouts...in which they made several minor changes to the shutter compensator and went form a sand cast shutter housing to a die cast housing. Shutter housing, other than that Simplex didn't make many changes till later on when they were sold. Neither the X-L or the E-7 are favorites of mine though....... Speaking of problems lets discuss how many aspects Strong engineered for the X-L and then had to go back and fix..... Lets start with the TU-2000 and the motorcycle oil gauge..... neither ever worked worth a hoot.... then there were the original seal kits and so on and so forth. well, oil leaks are just part of the ownership of an X-L no matter when it was made... .... they might want to consult with Harley Davidson to find out how to make em leak proof... they know how. Mark  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-15-2004 07:59 PM                        Having never actually used a Christie projector or even seen one up close, I'm curious: what is the difference between the 35GP and the Cine-X 35? Which is better/more expensive? Do they still make that large format (8/70?) machine, too?  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-15-2004 09:25 PM                     quote: Scott Norwood I'm curious: what is the difference between the 35GP and the Cine-X 35? Which is better/more expensive? Do they still make that large format (8/70?) machine, too? The Cine-X 35 has no lower hold back sprocket. It makes use of both sides of the sprocket thats located just below the intermittent like a Motiograph sound reproducer does. Eliminating that lower holdback sprocket allowed them to utilize a very simple belt drive layout that eliminated that confounded double side belt. The double side belt was responsible for much of the flutter that was present in the P35GP's anlog sound and in not being able to use a basement SRD reader. The new projector now has very low flutter and affords excellent SRD tracking with very low error rates. There are still three belts but now only two different types present. The main two are round tooth metric type and the same shutter belt was retained. The Cine-X 35 would be the better choice if you want good analog or basement SRD playback. The 35GP will soon be discontinued anyway. The Cine-X 35 is quite a bit LESS EXPENSIVE than either the Millennium or Apogee especially when you get it in a Christie package combined with console or what ever. Our present install of a new 10 plex has the Cine-X 35's on Christie consoles. This probably saved the customer about 2K per projector over other makes. Both the 35GP and the Cine-X 35 are two of the very few projectors that work 100% right out of the box so to speak... They definitely have their act together at Christie..... They no longer make any of the electronic projectors. That was all shelved a few years back.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 12-16-2004 02:09 AM                     quote: Mark Gulbrandsen Speaking of problems lets discuss how many aspects Strong engineered for the X-L and then had to go back and fix..... Lets start with the TU-2000 and the motorcycle oil gauge..... neither ever worked worth a hoot We can also add why they place that oil fill on the early 1050's below the dowser selenoid assembly (I miss the old ZIPPER dowsers) just to make it a pain in the hoosegow to fill if one doesn't have an oilcan, and the drain petcock on the SIDE of the casting-in the area where one has to make a 3 ft drain trail to drain and capture the oil without making a mess all over the machinery. Just why they didn't leave that old oil fill/level/drain in front like the old black wrinkled "XL's" were in the first place? Okey, then they got a little more smart: took the drain and finally placed it in front of the casting, but still in the vicinity where one still have to make a drain trail to make the drain neat without making a mess, and FINALLY, with the Mil2000's, using the "O" ring conception around the intermittent assembly to seal the leaky thing, and put the oil fill on top of the back door. I'd go back to Christie any day of the week for their well built operations, for putting up with belts is nothing and is much cleaner-not so messy. Goto the Christie site www.christie-digital.com and check out the specs on the Cine X-35 machine. Quite interesting. -thx Monte  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 12-16-2004 05:12 PM                    Or go to http://www.christiedigital.com/  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-16-2004 05:38 PM                     I vote for Steve to replace Joe as moderator..... Mark  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 12-17-2004 04:00 AM                     Whoops. Got Strong's address style mixed up with Christie's. My goof there. thx-Monte  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 19 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  ...  17  18  19

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.