Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Best/worst projector

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Best/worst projector (Page 14)

This topic comprises 19 pages: 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Author

Topic: Best/worst projector

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 12-21-2004 03:11 PM

It would make sense if there was a greatly reduced first cost for a belt machine vs. a shaft & gear oil bath unit. Is there?

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-21-2004 07:33 PM

Yes, around 2K per machine less. We went this route because another customer has the shop jemmed with 12 DP-70 being redone. More than 12 at a time in our shop would be a bit much. Kets see this was a 10 plex and the math is easy so it saven them ALOT of money that we stuck into other more important areas.

Sam, Yes the dashopts are crap and expensive to replace but most barely function when they are brand new anyway so should we say they really don't even have one .... They may not even be needed on the new machines anyway.

quote: Gordon McLeod
And I agree with steve (this is a red letter day) on the issue of the poor lubicration system on century gears

Gord, What lubrication system?

quote: John Hawkinson
You know, "just replace the belt yearly," seems like a lot to ask when there are other projectors that will just keep trucking with only lubrication-based maintenance.

J Hawk,
There are few projectors that will keep on trucking reliably with out annual belt replacement. There are so few direct drive machines that you can just about count em on one hand, mainly Kinoton. I don't condider the SH-1000 to be a direct drive unit because there is an intermediate gear between the projector and sound repro. and those gears do fail and I condsider this some what of a weak link, I've seen four myself this year. So lets assume that the majority of the worlds multiplex installations have at least one or two belts per screen! I can't point my finger at any specific machine that I would label as a belt eater but even new belts can and will break unexpectedly but very rarely. The use of Kevlar reinforced belts pretty much guarantees that'll never happen but they are not available in all types and kinds of belts. No matter what its smart policy to install new belts every year in any important venue. It sure is cheap insurance. Total cost on a set of P35 belts is less than 25.00! Thats a pretty insignificent cost per screen per year. The differemce in savings of 2K on a projector will allow you to replace belts for 80 years before you're equal with the price of the Apogee.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Sam D. Chavez
Film God

Posts: 2153
From: Martinez, CA USA
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 12-21-2004 08:19 PM

Gordon,

I remember during my first visits in the early '80's to Famous Playes, at the Canadian technicians affection for the V8, and later the V5, when both were the worst performing projectors, sound wise.

It just goes to show you, nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-21-2004 09:26 PM

The only beef witht them was the optical slit and excitor something reverse scan readers corrected
as for mag the soft loop in the penthouse minimised print wear

| IP: Logged

Sam D. Chavez
Film God

Posts: 2153
From: Martinez, CA USA
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 12-22-2004 05:57 PM

I never had much experience running 70mm on Vic. projectors so never had to dig into the penthouse. The design was very simialr to the RCA 35mm penthouse complete with slip clutch on the flywheel.

As to the optical, that lens was the absolute worst and of course Christie chose it to put into their soundhead.

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-22-2004 08:47 PM

Yes sam but with BACP readers they work very well and with the cinemecanica basement reader they consistently have excellent error rates

| IP: Logged

Sam D. Chavez
Film God

Posts: 2153
From: Martinez, CA USA
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 12-23-2004 12:19 AM

Gordon,

Stop already, this is not an ad! The funny thing is, the flutter readings on the V8 were among the best ever logged. Problem is, the flutter bridge totally ignored the fact that the film was sometimes darting back and forth in the sound drum steering the Dolby matrix card all over the place.

Some clever techs machined the outer bell for a tighter fit on the 35mm film and this problem went away.

The reverse scan readers, whatever brand, were the best thing to ever happen as this projector, as they made the sound go from some of the worst to one of the best in one easy step.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-26-2004 12:12 PM

quote: Sam D. Chavez
Stop already, this is not an ad! The funny thing is, the flutter readings on the V8 were among the best ever logged. Problem is, the flutter bridge totally ignored the fact that the film was sometimes darting back and forth in the sound drum steering the Dolby matrix card all over the place.

Some clever techs machined the outer bell for a tighter fit on the 35mm film and this problem went away.

The reverse scan readers, whatever brand, were the best thing to ever happen as this projector, as they made the sound go from some of the worst to one of the best in one easy step.

Sam,
If I had a product as good as yours I wouldn't be shy about plugging it now and then!

The Machines do have very low flutter as Sam says but the end bells were a problem. Cinemecanica eventually came out with a tighter sound drum for improved running of the tracks. I've installed a few of these over the years and they work well. Although the Italian machines are not my favorite because of the extremely high parts prices they do have my respect because they literally run for decades with little to no breakdown at all. I recently replaced the main contactor on a 35 year old Vic 8 and this was the first major breakdown this machine ever suffered.

While the SRD rates may be low on those machines that thin edge of support the bell gives that side of the track always scared me a bit.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002

posted 12-27-2004 10:25 AM

quote:
I'd have to go for the Kinoton FP30. They just keep going and going. Ours here are over 10 years old and don't look like stopping any time soon.

If they are only 10 years old I should certainly hope they won't be stopping any time soon!

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 01-04-2005 03:03 AM

Yo..all MPMO "brothers!"

Need a little help here:

WAS getting ready to do a seal kit for a Mil2000 machine, and this is what I found when I took the locknut off of the end of the belt sprocket:

Looks like when those "Delbert Dumbbutts" at STRONG assembled this Mil2000 machine, they got crazy with the speedwrench and really torqued down the nut, which distorted this washer that is in front of the teflon washer. With this distortion, the washer hole has flanged itself behind the threads of the drive shaft, making it impossible to remove this sprocket.

Any clues outside of drilling around the shaft to enlarge the washer hole so I can remove this sprocket and do the seal replacement?

STRONG does it again-... [Roll Eyes]

-thx Monte

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 01-04-2005 06:40 AM

Gee with a seal that good, you'd think the thing wouldn't leak! [Smile]

Gear and/or bearing puller could do the trick. Probably a bearing puller since it should be able to scoot behind the pulley.

I would keep things that create filings to a minimum in that area.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-04-2005 08:03 AM

Just be careful not to distort the pulley and generally a small bit of pulling will easily release them. The seals on all those machines are about at the right time for replacement so you should do them all. They only cost a few dollars but you need a small arbor press to install them properly. Also that distorted washer is normal because it pulls the teflon washer in against the end of the pulley and shaft to create a seal at that point. Can't remember ever seeing a washer that wasn't cupped like that.

What about that picture... still an old one.....just in disguise.....

Mark @ CLACO

| IP: Logged

Phil Blake
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 558
From: esperance western australia
Registered: Nov 2003

posted 01-04-2005 10:11 AM

i have heard lot about the aussie C & W I have yet to see one,
can someone post a pic please .

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 01-04-2005 12:54 PM

Thx, Marko. I'll give that one a whirl on the puller concept.

I sent Brad a new pict to replace this one, since this old one got up without my request, for I knew of the rules of recent picts to be used in the forum.

thx - Monte

| IP: Logged

Christian Volpi
Master Film Handler

Posts: 349
From: Arlington, NE
Registered: Apr 2004

posted 01-18-2005 09:41 AM

Fellow Film-Techer Richard Hamilton is here servicing my Apogee's. Most of the kinks have been worked out of them and we even found out why all of our prints were getting scratched and got the part replaced and we haven't scratched a print since. I'm really starting to like these machines. Do I like them better then my greasy old Century's? Not yet, but I'm getting there. If they could only start making the tension bands out of velvet (like the Ernamens) I would be a happy camper. Otherwise these machines are great.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 19 pages: 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.