|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Kalee Sound Head Conversion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Purdy
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 139
From: Seattle, WA
Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted 03-30-2000 10:29 AM
I am afraid that the problem remains that there are none of these machines in this corner of the country---particularly one which I could have in my shop for a couple of months. I appreciate Stefan's offer of the sound head, but that is a long way to ship it and I really need the whole machine. Part of the dificulty is that Dolby is highly protective of the use of their components, particularly the digital ones. I, therefore, have to be able to justify making some of these things by being able to confirm proper performance. I can hear the laughter now from all of those who are using "approved" projectors which don't really do it. The fact remains, however, that those machines are, or were once, capable of demonstrating good results when properly aligned and maintained. We were visited at ShoWest time by the man from Australia who encouraged and tested the Kalee version. As a part of his tour he went to Omaha, and was disturbed by what he saw when watching 5 Star sound head being assembled. Being the sort who can be a bit pushy but with a disarming smile, he managed to take a head which was showing 5's and 6's, and before their very eyes tweak it down to what he reports to me was an error rate of 1.8. All it took was care. Another quick story, our Tech Service guy, Don Olson, was asked to check out a theatre in Las Vegas while we were there for ShoWest. In the house where they had refunded the night before but were back on the screen with absolutely horrible sound---even in analog, he took one look, reached down with his little finger nail and flicked the pile of old punched out splicing tape perforations from the surface of the sound drum and, Voila!, good stable SRD at an acceptable error rate. ------------------
Bill Purdy
Comonent Engineering
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 03-30-2000 05:27 PM
I have mixed feelings about the U2. It's mag reproduction is wanting...The guide roller arm is so long that it can't adequately control the film over the head and, as such, wanders (laterally). They do project a nice steady image though. The lens and gate moving in unison for threading is a nice touch to ensure perfect focus every time you thread. I also like the fact that the 35 and 70mm sprockets are separate since they will wear out at different times, depending on which format you are playing most.I have a snicking suspicion that the new FP-75E by Kinoton will top my 35/70mm machine list once I get a chance to play with one. The DP-70 and DP-75 are already #1 and #2 for me. The JJ vs the PR-3570 is a toss-up for good and bad points... both are a kludge of sorts, both work well to some degree. Steve ------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stefan Scholz
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 223
From: Schoenberg, Germany
Registered: Sep 1999
|
posted 03-31-2000 02:20 PM
There are certainly more favourite projectors, soundheads that would be great to convert. Keeping in mind, that it takes a lot of time and fiddling to get a conversion kit ready, which offeres reproductive, commercial grade results and ease of installation even for not totally perfect engineers, you do require at least a certain quantity of units, as the kits shall be sold "reasonable".
In my country projectors like U2 and Norelcos, together with many other "dinosaurs" are withdrawn from the market at a rather rapid rate, leaving not many for a basis of conversions.
I might be one in three theatre operators to still operate U 2 projectors within 600 miles.
Gordon, sime years ago, I have disliked theese very much, but since I have seen them at a friend's home setup I was fascinated. So I acquired 5 machines within the past 2 years, and started rebuilding to new condition. This helped me understanding quite a lot of the mechanical construction, and suddenly I liked it. It requires far more operator skills and maintenance than my Norelco AA's, but I was able to get outstanding results.
Personally I have liked the design of the KALLEE projectors very much, but technically I learned to hate them. It is nice on display, nothing more. My Kalles were silently as a machine gun, with small reel capacity, non working carbon feed and a terrible retro-scan soundhead from BAF. At least wow and flutter was studio grade, freq. response definitively not.
So everyone might have a favorite of the past, but in modern commercial environment we should go for something of today. With spares readily available, soundheads that need no conversion, etc.
I will go and find a way for the Dolby SR-D, not having to use the CAT 699 from 1993. And I will keep you informed, if I was able to make a conversion kit that meets the above requirements.
The boy that does projection in my theatre rarely uses the U2's, he goes for the Kinotone FP 30D, "due to ease of operation".
There's nothing to add to this statement.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan Scholz
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 223
From: Schoenberg, Germany
Registered: Sep 1999
|
posted 04-01-2000 03:48 PM
Marc,
spares are one point. Some could still be obtained from Kinotone, but at prices noone likes. Mainly you'll need ball bearings for the soundheads, which could be obtained as a standard DIN / ISO item at about $2, but I would recommend to use measured pairs with no tangential and lateral play. Thhey go at about $ 200 a piece, and it's 8 you'll need. Pick your choice in our digital sound age.
Sprockets use a standardized teeth form, which anybody who could mill sprockets can make. It is just the centrebore thats different for different types of projectors.
The same applies to guide rollers, they can still be obtained, but anybody with a lathe can do them.
Another source is to look out for all projectors you can get, and keep them for spares. After all my projectors were free, and even taking into account they ran continuously for nearly 40 years, I did not require more spares than some rollers and the mentioned ball-bearings. And of course slitlaser-modules to get rid of those horrible EMO slit lenses with the weird exciter lamp.
There are Italien and other companies that make sprockets at reasonable cost (about $ 30 per sprocket). As the structure is CAD machinery, the quality has become quite good. I have learnt from an Indian guy, that they have people making Bauer spares (and even Bauer B11 projector copies), as this was a very common and beloved brand. I do not know about the quality.
The classic Bauer projectors, before U3, were of extreme ruggid quality within the gearbox. With regular oil changes (SAE 30, no additives or detergants) they could reach 150+ years in daily operation, according to a factory engineer. I doubt that figure, but I have not found any projector so far to fail with gearbox problems.
As far as I know, that applied to many classic projectors of the past, even though we had some maltese cross failiures with Norelco AA's, where wings broke off, as they seemed to use a small cross made of tempered steel, instead of the large (2") tool grade stell cross of the Bauer, Zeiss and Italien projectors.
I have owned a pair of Kalle 21's, that came from the Streit's theatre in Hamburg, where they were installed in 1956. The theatre was owned by Rank theatres, a part of the Rank organization, as Kallee was. They were replaced in early 1963 with Kallee 60 equipment, which is actually imported Vic 8 from Milan. I do not know the exact reason for withdrawl, as this theatre never ran 70 mm, before 1992, when a DP 75 was installed for the screening of LOA re-release. Theese projectors were also withdrawn from operation in scandinavien contries, and replaced with AGAs or Bauers.
The Kalles looked precisely built. I loved them at first sight, when I got a de-luxe color brochure when I was a teen-ager. So I needed to own them, which came true some years later.
But after all it was massive, bulky gear, we carried home. We set them in operation, and by far it was the loudest running projector we had encountered. Picture steadiness was better on other equipment I knew, format change was complicated, simelar to pre WW2 equipment.
One projector - BAF 83 soundhead combination was then rebuilt on a special pedestal to be accomodated in a friend's condo for private collector's purposes. It was run with a 500 W xenon, until (during a night out at the movies - a Stallone action thing with lots of fire) his appartment burnt out, and the flames broiled and cooked the projector head.
Later on we heard from the neighbour woman downstairs: "I always knew, when you were screening film, it was like an electric power plant was running above the ceiling."
I still keep the other one in my collection, as it is nice to look at. My feeling was simply, it looked better than it performed.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ben Wales
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 602
From: Southampton. England
Registered: Jul 99
|
posted 04-03-2000 04:40 PM
I have been most interested to read the various comments on the Kalee projectors and later 70mm Projectors, I afraid that I must disagree with Mark Gulbrandsen comments on the Westrex 5000, I too own one and found no problem projecting 35mm, I found the picture steady than some of the newer projectors I have worked on in recent years!.
As for 70mm there were known picture focus on the 5000, but I have not experienced this myself so far.
There are in fact, still several Westrex 5000's installations in cinemas in the UK, one in London has five Screens.
As for the Kalee, yes they were well built for their time, but they did have their own faults, like compound gears problems, and mostly leaking oil, however you tried to stop it!. to say they sound like a "sewing machine", must be a seen to be belived!, most I seen are noisy as a concrete mixer and has anyone had the pleasure and tried to move a Kalee 21 base?. The most liked of the Kalee's is the 11, and may be the Kalee 21 on a 83 soundhead, the worse must be the Kalee 37.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic