Another version I never saw before! Ours had one timing belt that did everything (upper and lower sprockets, intermittent, out to the motor.) Then there was another toothed belt to drive the take-up spindle- no rod.

I would love to see a 35/70mm Vic9! If you ever get pictures, let us know!

I worked at a place with a V18, which was a V8 with two huge reels directly behind the projector. The reels got in the way (where a lamp would go), so there was a 90 deg. mirror to bounce the light. I really like Cinemeccanica's but even I had to admit it looked bogus.

Really? I e-mailed Richard Fowler who sells Cinemeccancia in Florida (here in the US) and he implied that the 'orginal' turret is no longer made. The 'new' turret requires that the penthouse be removed, and the upper pad roller assembly be machined to clear it (although it depends on exactly when the projector was made.)

The orginal turret was a 3-lens, with a 'swing-away' anamorphic adapter bracket. I'm guessing the 'new' design does away with the 'swing-away,' which means the over-all diameter of the new turret is larger (to clear the wider image of anamorphic.)

 |  IP: Logged

I am actually repairing a simplex xl right now. A brain wrap striped a gear up to death. But the good thing is that it is the one that is SUPPOSED to tear apart. But damn its a bear to get to.

ANYHOO, stay away from cinnemacrapica.

Dave

I agree that a Cinemeccanica V8 is not the steadyist projector when it comes to jitter/weave. But it has other advantages. I feel that the basic design of a V8 makes it easy to clean and thread, but harder to service. (I think the JJ's are the oppsite; easy to service- harder to clean.) The 3 V8's I've worked with have been very reliable, so even though servicing is tougher, it happens rarely. I'm glad for the ease of use/service tradeoff. I don't mind spending an extra few hours servicing something that saves me time during everyday use.

Examples are: The upper reel spindle is lower, and the lower spindle is higher, which is nice when you are making changeovers all day. (The upper spindle on a Century JJ is way up there. You are pretty worn out hefting 20min 70mm or an hour of 35mm reels up there.) The threading area on a V8 is pretty open, and the lens mount can be moved forward with out loosing the focus, so there's lots of room for cleaning. I feel it's fairly crowded in a JJ, especially around the intermittent. The V8 reel magazine is a better design; the round sides are part of the door, which open up with the door, as opposed to the JJ where the side stays and you don't have finger room to get the film through. I really like the 35/70mm spindle "dual-lock" with spacer design. On the JJ, you have to unscrew 3 screws and replace the 35mm spindle with a 70mm one. The V8 has a "Cinefocus" (with it's own air filter) built right in; it was an option (with no filter) on the JJ. I like the V8's "column" design, where the projector head is supported directly underneath. On a JJ (like most American projectors) the head hangs off of the front of the pedestal, which means it can vibrate a little. V8 apertures plates were designed with two openings, so they rarely have to be removed and the format can be changed quickly.

The V8 was designed from the start with automatic lens turrets, remote focus and framing, microswitches in the zipper solenoid and fire shutter, loop trip device and safety shutdown features. Of course, you can get this for a JJ, but it's all, after-the-fact "machining may be required" 3-party stuff.

The V8 had mag preamps located as close to the head as possible for minimum noise (too bad their electronics sucked!) I firmly believe every projector should have an oil-bath type lubrication system; on a JJ you have to get in there every few weeks and manually apply grease. I like the big sprockets for lower shaft speeds, and the one less sprocket (for the soundhead) idea.

I like the idea where the gate is designed where the emulsion side of the film stays in the same plane. On a JJ the flexible bands are on the emulsion side, which means different thickness of film will be in a slightly different focal plane. Other little things: the magnetic oil filter and level, both on the operating side where you can view it easily, the nice box to store which ever gate/trap and extra apertures you are not using, the non-removable intermittent pad rollers (we've have several JJ intermittent sprockets ruined because operators did not insert the intermittent pad roller all the way back in after cleaning.)

I know that some of the things I mentioned are minor, but when you're working all day, it makes it nicer. Also, I know we really don't use reels too much anymore, but I feel it's more fair to compare the best of each company's projector for the time they were designed (late 50's early 60's.)

Now, to be fair, let me tell what things I like about a JJ over a V8:

The V8 gate should be curved. I don't know why it stayed straight for so long. I like the dual shutter on the JJ better than the V8's conical shutter. Adjusting a stereo solar cell or a mag head on a V8 can cause you to loose your temper. I like the heat filter mount on a JJ.

Lastly, I do feel that a JJ "handles" 70mm better than a V8. I really don't have an exact reason why I think this. It's just a weird gut feeling. I mean, both have never damaged film or anything, but somehow I think that 70mm "enjoys" going through a JJ; but it's "just a job" going through a V8.

I would've preferred Centurys of course, but I closed that theatre really appreciating those machines. I don't believe a new V-8 could measure-up, though.

 |  IP: Logged

Yes, we noticed this too, after a year or so! I was assured by a rep that since the magnet is at a right angle to the film, the film passes by so quickly, and sound on the film is recorded very "hot" that it has no effect.

"The conical shutter is more light efficient than the twin blade shuitter in the JJ"

 |  IP: Logged

The XL's weave can normally be traced to the lateral guide roller. Some of them suffer from warpage after heat treatment. Other than that, I'd take an XL's picture over a Century. The shutter design as is the gear train far superior to the Century. I can show you many XLs that are 30+ years old that are on their original gears and intermittents. I don't know of ANY Centurys that have been running for any length of time that have all of their original gears (except the feed sprocket gears). In general the driving gear on the Century is larger than the driven gear and is fibre, as such it has an unfavorable ratio and has to work (and wear) and depends on the operator to constantly keep the gear lubricated. Sooner or later, the intermittent drive gear is going to wear it's slot or the key will start to wear and then slop will develop. The whole design is flawed in that the vertical shaft must contact three non-adjustable points (main drive, two constant feeds) where as the Simplex you are only working with two points at a time. Sure, the Century is very easy to fix but you are going to need to fix it.

That being said, the Century definately does have a pleasing look (I prefer the Simplex look but hat is opinion). I feel that the JJ has a better 35mm look than the SA/DA too.

And to the person that complained about the height of the upper magazine as compared to the Cinemeccanica, I haven't had any difficulty with either 35 or 70mm film. I am 6 feet tall. I would think that people would have a greater problem with the DP-70; it seems to me that it's upper spindle is a tad higher. The proper reel size for any 70mm machine is only 22" in diameter and the JJ magazine fits this with plenty of finger room. Century always with with the fixed "can". Simplex went with the "split" can for the 35/70 like the DP-70. I can appreciate someone's desire for the movable can method though.

Steve

Yes, I didn't explain myself very well there... I did mean when running 35mm on the JJ. Of course, being lazy, we tried to put the largest 35mm reel in the magazines as we could to avoid c/o's. We had those reels made from thick wire, which allowed you to get your fingers in easier.

I'm sure John Pytlak will chime in on the actual SMPTE number but it is generally considered best to keep the hub to flange ratio to 3:1 or less on solid reels (the reels of the time of the mighty DP-70). As such the largest flange on the 8 inch hub would be 24" and wouldn't allow 6000' (or a third full reel. Best to keep it down to 4500 feet. In fact one can run an 8 x 22 all day long without problems. The 8 x 22 is also nice for having two reels plus previews.

Steve