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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Anyone ever seen a XeTron Loop-Matic? (Page 5)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6

Author Topic: Anyone ever seen a XeTron Loop-Matic? Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 10-26-2004 03:42 AM                        still waiting for the video...  |  IP: Logged Kenneth Wuepper Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1026 From: Saginaw, MI, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 10-26-2004 07:01 AM                     The operating platter mechanism is shown for a brief time in the PBS documentary, "The Monster That Ate Hollywood". If you have access to that VHS tape you can still frame through the section that shows a continuous loop platter in operation from the top with the brain paying out the film. I can't find my copy of that program right now but that is where you can see it. KEN  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-26-2004 11:12 PM                     That thing shoulda been in the part in Silent Movie that takes place in the booth!! It would bring out the neurotic side of anyone with in 10 feet of it. Mark  |  IP: Logged Fred Schoenfeld Film Handler Posts: 49 From: PORTSMOUTH, VA Registered: Aug 2004 posted 10-28-2004 05:57 PM                        Just a note from the 'source'... the loop-matic is not currently in operation. I only use it for running times over 165 minutes. It is very gentle on prints; we ran TITANIC for 21 weeks and all three of THE LORD OF THE RINGS (10 to 12 weeks each) and all looked new when I shipped them out. But, as they say, 'here is the rub'... [1]: buildup time is about two hours and the same to tear down. [2]: Once loaded on the 'loop', it is impossible to add or delete trailers without removing the entire print. [3}: Servicing the unit without specialized training would be next to impossible. I do all the servicing myself and I was lucky enough to have had the chief engineer from the factory come over from Europe in 1976 and train me on the operation and servicing of the system. Also XETRON was asking about $14,000 for it back in the late 70's!! I remember paying about $10,000 as I was the Beta test site. I would invite any and all to visit us here in Portsmouth, VA and I will be glad to show you the unit in person. Also, if in fact there is one anywhere not in service, I would be very interested in purchasing it for spare parts for my unit. A small finder fee will be yours if I find a unit available and it can be had for a reasonable amount with your assistance!  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 10-28-2004 06:06 PM                     Vernon - can you send me the raw footage tapes? We can cut it down from here and get it online. There are a lot of people who are dying to see this monster in action.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-30-2004 10:22 AM                     quote: Stave Kraus The projector was a Century modified with special sprockets, pads, gate and trap. Actually they were both Simplex X-L's that were customized by LaVezzi for the designer of the exhibitions and not for the museum directly. I remember going to LaVezzi at the old location in Elmhurst to get what ever parts they had left for these conversions. One was for Sears("The Circus") and the other was for John Deere or International Harvester("The Farm". quote: Steve Kraus In my opinion the image quality was poor and they would have been better off converting to normal 35mm albeit with a vertical Scope orientation (slightly masked at the sides). It was done with 16mm to side step having to hire union projectionists at the museum. Actually this is a museum run by the city of Chicago so side stepping the union is surprising but thats what I was told by several different people at the muesum. Running 16mm educational film is not covered by any IATSE union contract so far as I know. Perhaps some union members on this site can elaborate on this aspect of IATSE. The quality was indeed awful. Both setups used a Christie console of 3kw in size attempting to blast through that small but tall 16mm aperature and the image rotating prism was a coke bottle in and of itself. I made many calls on that equipment, several on the Space Shuttle exhibit which was a 35mm Christie and installed by Boston Light And Sound, and many on the Bell Telephone Exhibit which was multi-media 16mm film/slides using many kodak projectors that were equipped with ORC 1000's. This is where I really learned to repair those 1000's quickly! Then they installed the General Motors exhibit which was finally a real 35mm exhibit run from a custom loop cabinet... that was a disaster from day one because of static build up (Estar film) in the loop cabinet. I told them to get rid of the plastic processing rollers used in the cabinet and switch them out to metal and then the static problem disappeared for the most part. They sure coulda used Film Guard back them! I would imagine everything there today is video.... Mark  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 10-30-2004 11:22 AM                    X-L's? Hmmm. The Museum of Science and Industry is not run by the City of Chicago. I never heard about the union angle. If that's true then I guess they presumed the union's interest would not be peaked by the sound system which was 35mm (mag). The penta-prism (if that's what it was) was, of course, only on the farm exhibit which was presenting a conventional widescreen image using the vertical triple-frame 16mm format while the circus show was vertically oriented (filmed in 65mm vertical). The frame size is not all that tiny. It would have been about 210 sq.mm. A 35mm 1.85 frame is about 237 sq.mm. But I agree it was a dumb format.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-30-2004 11:56 AM                     quote: Steve Kraus The frame size is not all that tiny. It would have been about 210 sq.mm. A 35mm 1.85 frame is about 237 sq.mm. Not so dumb as it probably saved the museum about 3/4 million in labor and associated expenses over the 15+ year life of both exhibits. A bit more than 50% of the light from the lamphouse was wasted but had they been smart a beam spreader turned 90 degrees could have been inserted to at least slightly squeeze the light in the horizontal direction with a tad less wasted light. The farm exhibit was also in scope format and may very well have been shot in 65mm around the same time. another interesting tidbit is that there was a guy at the museum that repaired the endless loop mechanisms but was afraid to work on the projectors. This was evedenced when he decided to disassemble the Isco lens fomr the space shuttle exhibit to clean it... after that episode they usually called me in for that as well. Both exhibits were done by the same company at the same time for the museum. Who does run the museum, some private entity? I always was under the impression that all those large museums were operated by the city..... Dono if I have any check stubs from that far back but I thought I was paid by the city on those jobs. Mark  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 10-30-2004 05:26 PM                    Bah. What savings? It's still based on a 35mm head & lamp etc. Remember the 35mm fullcoat soundtrack ran over a very simple set of rollers through the dubber, not even a "real" roller cabinet. The same could have been done for a 35mm picture (the 16mm prints were handled by a device resembling a giant 8-track cartridge atop the projector) at minimal cost and they would have saved the cost of very expensive Triple-16mm custom parts. Prints would have cost more but they'd probably last longer without having to rub over themselves. I believe the major museums are each run by independent foundations. They do mention getting some support from the Chicago Park District but they don't run them. (The Park District is also an entity separate from the city itself but so close politically it might as well be the same.)  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-30-2004 07:02 PM                     quote: Steve Kraus Bah. What savings? Dah, by not having to pay union scale wages for over 15 years. Remember they were alot higher back then than they are now, at least in Chicago. I estimated they saved about 3/4 million dollars by not paying an "operator(s)" salary, retirement and all the other tidbits that go along with an IATSE contract over the 15 year life of the exhibits. Hey, it wasn't my decision it was theirs to go 16mm and I agree it was dumb, but you can't deny the money saved. As for the converted 35mm machines... not such a bad idea as they could convert to 35mm at any time if they wished to..... and the projectors ran the 16mm format reliably for many years till the teeth wore off the sprockets, literally! I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing started out as a 35mm system and was downgraded to 16 after they found out how much the labor tab would have been. These exhibits were both funded by Sears and IH/JOhn Deere and only received a fixed amount of money per year for upkeep. Mark  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 10-30-2004 09:34 PM                    Not a bad estimate (if in fact 35mm would have really required an operator). I just played with some numbers starting with the single screen rate of a few years ago, factored in 4.5% vacation, 16% benefit & retirement fund, SSA & Med., guestimating workman's comp, plus FUTA & SUTA at their respective caps, times their operating hours and 15 years and got $738,300. So 3/4 Mil is probably right. But if they'd used a Loop-Matic they could put it behind glass and it would be an exhibit you saw on the way in. (Just to keep on topic. LOL)  |  IP: Logged System Notices Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi Posts: 215 Registered: Apr 2004 posted 08-13-2011 04:35 PM                 It has been 2477 days since the last post.  |  IP: Logged Tony Bandiera Jr Film God Posts: 3067 From: Moreland Idaho Registered: Apr 2004 posted 08-13-2011 04:35 PM                     Bumping this back up since there is a Loopmatic for sale in the warehouse .. (I don't have it, see the Equipment For Sale forum)  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-13-2011 06:36 PM                     Brad, this is the only way your screening room can possibly be complete.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 08-13-2011 06:43 PM                     I know. I still just want to see this contraption work. I still don't see how it functions without at least damaging a small section of film at the "reverse".  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6

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.