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 17)

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

Author

Topic: Best/worst projector

Jacek Dejnarowicz
Film Handler

Posts: 12
From: Mrzezyno, Zach, Poland
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 04-04-2005 03:00 PM

Ap51 looks exactly the same as AP61, including color. I think only difference is automation. AP 51 are extremly manual.

Nice to see KN17 again. My father worked with the KN in mobile cinema, than he got a pair of TK35. He claims that TK was much better than KN. TK was my first projector I threaded. I have these TKs and they still work well. [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 04-04-2005 05:57 PM

The KN-17 is not the only TK-35 clone. In the early 1990s, I saw a machine at the Photokina fair at Cologne that looked much more TK35 than the KN17, it was made by a company from India (not Monee).

When I asked about the construction, they told me that they just had made up the compact design, that every detail had been invented by their company just two years ago... [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Sam D. Chavez
Film God

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

posted 04-05-2005 12:33 AM

Great pictures!

Matrix in Turkey makes a reader kit for the Iskra based on a BACP reader with custom made reader lens holder and LED brackets.

BACP will be showing some hardware kits at Cine Expo Amsterdam to allow fitting for a number of European projectors.

| IP: Logged

Jacek Dejnarowicz
Film Handler

Posts: 12
From: Mrzezyno, Zach, Poland
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 04-05-2005 01:38 AM

The two readers which I've already had are probably based on BACP. They are made and installed by a polish tech company. But I had been seeking some self montage kit for three months before I bought them. I even thought about adapting complete analog and digital reader from Vic 5.

| IP: Logged

Sam D. Chavez
Film God

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

posted 04-05-2005 08:34 PM

I did suppy readers to Kinekspert in Poland. Perhaps this is the company you refer to.

| IP: Logged

Jacek Dejnarowicz
Film Handler

Posts: 12
From: Mrzezyno, Zach, Poland
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 04-06-2005 03:23 PM

Yes Kinekspert. And below is their work. One pic is with old sound scan and two with new red led reverse made by Kinekspert.

[ 04-06-2005, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: Jacek Dejnarowicz ]

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 04-06-2005 05:29 PM

..just a comment:

It's interesting with all of these pictures from these Ernemann and Dresden machines (which I've heard can run circles around any US built machine), and their respective clones, is that of the payout reel direction is of the clockwise direction. (obviously, because of the upper constant speed sprocket's placement and pad roller assembly being behind the trap and gate assembly, instead of being in front of the trap and gate assembly, thus creating that forward upper loop...), which makes one wonder if this was the beginning standard of the front "A" wind of the reel for the machine usage in Europe, where we here over in the states went to the "B", or the "S" wind from the upper reel.

Also, it's also interesting to see of the usage of reels in the majority of theatres is still used instead of seeing operations using platter or big reel transports.

-thx Monte

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-06-2005 08:27 PM

quote: Monte L Fullmer
is that of the payout reel direction is of the clockwise direction.

Monte,
This is because the Germans are much smarter and they know that when you use that wind you have almost no focus drift over an entire reel [thumbsup]

. Over here we have/had union operators that were paid to supposedly "keep" it in focus. Seems to me one operator on this thread uses that wind in every day practice... or at least he used to.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 04-06-2005 10:34 PM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
This is because the Germans are much smarter and they know that when you use that wind you have almost no focus drift over an entire reel

Hi again Marko: Then a simple question: where did we "goof" up in using the "S" wind whereas the Germans proved that this clockwise wind was better in the focus department?

Yet true, I've seen operators at the old Chief in Pocatello, ID use the clockwise wind in their "XL" setup-even at the Alameda Triplex in that same town when they had 6k changeover machines. They configured the Golde rewinder to rewind anti-clockwise. I never knew why they were doing this form of reel direction-reminded me of running 8/16mm which uses the "A" clockwise wind when I saw this first time.

Yet, I noticed that the Zeiss TK35's and the KN-17 clone also had the reel feed in the same direction-clockwise as well.

Now, the only thing that I can think of is when we take a reel out of the can, the natural curl of the film is curling anti-clockwise. I always thought that is how the roll came from the printer, thus this is the way the film travels in the machine.

Now, this may seem a bit contradictive, but since the majority of us wind our film on the platter deck EMULSION OUT, wouldn't this be a bit of what we're trying to dispose of in the first place-focus drift, even though with emulsion out is less contact with the rollers to the emulsion? Wouldn't the emulsion in be more of the way-the way of a clockwise wind on a reel on payout, or doe it matter? Have to ask that one.

Sorry, this is one area that I'm sorta vague on. Maybe John P., or others can answer some of these topics in a better light, or links from Kodak, or other sources.

thx-Monte

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

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

posted 04-07-2005 04:28 AM

I believe that Edision started the S wind

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 04-07-2005 11:21 AM

Again, SMPTE Recommended Practice RP39 recommends emulsion-in winding be maintained for 35mm release prints on TRIACETATE base, based on the work of Kodak's Paul Preo and Eric Yavitz:

http://www.film-tech.com/warehouse/wareview.php?id=1027&category=2

Modern prints on polyester print stock use slightly thinner base, and their humidity curl characteristics are different than triacetate prints. Some find the emulsion-in orientation is still beneficial to maintain better focus stability, but others find print performance is better emulsion-out (especially for platter transport characteristics). The "core-set" on a large diameter platter hub is negligible, whereas it is a significant factor when using small hub reels or cores.

| IP: Logged

Robert Throop
Master Film Handler

Posts: 412
From: Vernon, NY USA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-07-2005 11:24 AM

I think that the emulsion in orientation in Europe was a result of tradition and at least originally had nothing to do with focus stability.
When the SMPTE came out with the emulsion in recommendation in the late sixties about half the theatres in my local's jurisdiction (local 337, Utica, NY) converted. The other half did not. If you were a relief man you had to pay attention.
Bob

| IP: Logged

Jacek Dejnarowicz
Film Handler

Posts: 12
From: Mrzezyno, Zach, Poland
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 04-07-2005 01:23 PM

Oh no, not every projectionist in Poland uses direction shown in my picture. Some people prefer "S" wind from the upper reel but it is less popular in my country. Personaly, I prefer clockwise direction so do my projectionsts, and it's easier if everybody uses the same direction in your theater.
Newly opened theaters are mostly equipped with platters. Last year I worked in small 4plex and there were Kinoton projectors with platters.

| IP: Logged

Brent Allen Sadler
Film Handler

Posts: 6
From: New Eagle, PA/United States
Registered: Jan 2005

posted 04-08-2005 03:32 PM

I see that everyone is complaining about the Cinemeccanica models. I too have 4 Cinemeccanica Victoria 4 models and I feel that although they are reliable, the are very poor machines when it comes to picture steadiness. A little history now: the Cinemeccanica projectors were never intended to be used for movie theatres (with the exception of newer models). They were manufactured originally to be used for naval defence presentations. After the company realized that they had built a dependable machine, they decided to open up their projector line to the movie theatres. Believe me, they are still laughing at us for even still having the machine, particularly the V4s and the V5s, and now are charging premium prices for their parts. No, these machines no longer put on an acceptable presentation but are cheaper than buying new machines. These things are simply outdated.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-08-2005 07:00 PM

quote: Brent Allen Sadler
I see that everyone is complaining about the Cinemeccanica models. I too have 4 Cinemeccanica Victoria 4 models and I feel that although they are reliable, the are very poor machines when it comes to picture steadiness. A little history now: the Cinemeccanica projectors were never intended to be used for movie theatres (with the exception of newer models). They were manufactured originally to be used for naval defence presentations. After the company realized that they had built a dependable machine, they decided to open up their projector line to the movie theatres. Believe me, they are still laughing at us for even still having the machine, particularly the V4s and the V5s, and now are charging premium prices for their parts. No, these machines no longer put on an acceptable presentation but are cheaper than buying new machines. These things are simply outdated.

Boy, thats some wierd posting! I would have to say that the Vic 4 was a p.o.c. when it was new. They always leaked and the small gate is a joke.... also somewhat hard on older Acetate film. The Vic 5 is touch and go but is for the most part acceptable overall. The new curved gate is a p.o.c. though. Both machines have a longevity they defies their on screen picture quality which is normally pretty bad. They didn't garner the name "Shakamecanicca" for no reason at all.

What navy are you taking about.... must be the Italian Navy. The U.S. Navy would never allow such junk in for duty.

Mark

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 19 pages: 1 2 3 ... 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.