|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Water cooled gate
|
John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 12-29-2000 06:36 AM
Pat, Randy, John...All the comments are "right on". Kodak's "Enhanced Theatrical Experience" (ETE) team has been doing some great work in quantifying the factors that degrade projection performance, and has shown some of the work publicly (e.g., last year's ITEA Seminar, this year's SMPTE Conference). Earlier Kodak research by Dr. Fred Kolb and Paul Preo, and work by Willie Borberg, Glenn Berggren, and others have been published in the SMPTE Journal. The name of the game is getting as much light as possible on the screen, while keeping the film frame cool and stationary. As Pat notes, effective heat filters, gate design, and directed air flow are useful in doing this. Although water cooled gates are primarily for operator comfort, the cooler rails and trap may reduce sticking of the film to hot surfaces, improving steadiness and reducing buckle. Pat is also very correct in noting the effect of lens design, especially choice of f-stop, in compensating for the film flutter that does occur. IMHO, filling screens up to 20 x 48 feet with great 35mm film images is made easy by today's lamphouse, projector, lens and screen technology. Bigger images than this need more care to "do film right". AFAIC, any screen over 25 feet high deserves the quality only 70mm prints can provide. For more information: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/february97/pytlak.shtml (Scope 1.5X) http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/fall97/pytlak.shtml (heat damage) http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/spring98/pointers.shtml (screen luminance) http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/december98/pppp.shtml (70mm part 1) http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/march99/pytlak.shtml (70mm part 2) ------------------ John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging Eastman Kodak Company Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419 Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243 E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stefan Scholz
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 223
From: Schoenberg, Germany
Registered: Sep 1999
|
posted 12-29-2000 09:47 AM
I do not believe in water cooling. It does not keep the film cool. Originally water cooling was used with hi power, hi intensity arc lamps. 185 A @ 65 V is around 12 kW+ in power consumption, which has to be radiated to somewhere. You needed water cooling to keep the projector oil cool and prevent loss of lubrication, and of course burnt fingers when threading. At that time mirrors were metallic or glass with metallic coating.Coldlight mirrors were firstly introduced around 1958. The film was always cooled with forced air blown onto the film from both sides of the gate via nozzles. This helped to keep the film cool, and stay in focus. Bauer projectors always used this type of cooling, and it was extremely effective. I put little pieces of Nitrate into the gate, the silent type from about 1910, catching fire at 120 C. Lamp with silver coated mirror running at 65 Amp, shutter not running, safetyshutter defeated. Without blower, the film caught fire immediately, the moment the hand dowser was opened. With forced air cooling, the picture stayed in focus for nearly 45 minutes. It never caught fire. With a 1000 Watt Xenon on Victoria 5 nickel mirror lamp, your fingers are severely burnt, when they are held into the gate while the projector is running. Film is easily burnt - at 1 kW. My Kinotone FP 30D with coldlight mirrors and interference (coldlight) glass filters (running at 5 kW) never burnt my fingers. The light stays cool. The water cooling option is installed, but not used. I would recommend water cooling for non coldlight applications only. Heat has to be trapped @ the source. Also it must be kept in mind, water does not absorb energy radiated on the film, the visible light contens absorbed on the film will still heat up and buckle with hi power lamps.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chris Erwin
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 195
From: Olive Hill,KY
Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted 12-29-2000 01:27 PM
So, I gather that the combination of the two (air blower-for focus, and water cooled gates-for comfort and help reduce temps.)would yield the best possible results, given a high wattage application. (that of around 4k) This providing a good heat filter in the lamphouse.How much could I expect to pay for both? (my orginal post for water cooled said $300) An extra $100? Should I really go with both? How about such a filter for the blower? Mark stated that the unit would fill with crud due to lack of filter. In a drive-in, I would be a little more concerned with this issue, than in a hardtop. To John P: Has Kodak's Screencheck certified an outdoor screen? (I know there would be a whole new set of rules in regaurds to such) Would that be something to consider? We ozoners want a good projected image for our customers too. --Chris
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 12-29-2000 02:06 PM
Kodak's ScreenCheck has not been asked to certify a drive-in. Certainly a few of the criteria would need to be modified (e.g., the need for screen masking, digital sound capability, etc.).BTW, at the drive-in I worked at, we pulled 120 amperes using 11mm rotating positive HI carbons to light a 42 x 100 foot screen. Really appreciated those Century projectors having water cooled gates! The Ashcraft lamphouses had dichroic coated glass reflectors (Bal-Cor made by Bausch and Lomb?) to reduce the heat on the film. We never measured screen luminance, but my "calibrated eyeballs" estimate that we probably got about 4 footlamberts on a freshly painted screen. (Another area the ScreenCheck spec of 16 footlamberts would need to be modified). ------------------ John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging Eastman Kodak Company Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419 Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243 E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted 12-30-2000 12:04 AM
Only a few more comments for Chris .... See if you can get a picture of the blower for the Simplex, and see if a filter could be mounted. If you have a few bucks, get some optical glass for the port window- that way you can have the blower without worring about bugs.I used several different kinds of water tanks/pumps that were supplied for our Simplexs. One was a blue plastic tank with a submersible pump. The other was a steel tank with a motor on the outside (on top) and a shaft down to a brass impeller below. The blue plastic tank design sealed completely (the lid was locked down by a round steel ring.) This prevented water from evaporating. However, we went through *many* submersible pumps- they'd only last about a year; then die. The steel tank (it's painted the same as the projector) does not have a sealed top. Also, there is a hole on the side to prevent overfilling it. Water evaporates out of it, so you have to keep filling it every month or so. You probably know this, but don't forget to only use distilled water and add some kind of anti-freeze in case it gets too cold. The best tank/pump ever was the Ashcraft.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 12-30-2000 12:26 PM
I now use straight distilled water. Cost/year is cheap...easily replinished and can be dumped down the drain. I don't recommend antifreeze as it is a hazard for dumping and always seems to sludge up the lines...Don't use tap water or mineral water because they too will clog up the lines.The best way though is filtered city water...always cold. Steve ------------------ "Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Chase
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1068
From: Margate, FL, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 12-30-2000 04:23 PM
"The best way though is filtered city water...always cold."Heh. Never been to South Florida, eh? Somedays I can p... colder than the water here. We had Noreclos with water cooled gates at one theatre. We replaced the metal cans with plastic trash barrels when those rusted out, and when the circulator motor got noisy we junked the water cooling. "If you can't wear welders gloves while threading, you aren't a _real_ projectionist..."
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 12-30-2000 04:28 PM
>>"Heh. Never been to South Florida, eh?"<<Yeah but do you Florida types clean the "chads" out of your splicers? Steve ------------------ "Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
| IP: Logged
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 12-30-2000 09:57 PM
I've always had good luck using plain "city water" in the cooling drums. The number one thing is to get the clorine out. I just fill up a big (clean) trash barrel with water and let it sit out for a couple of weeks. When you can't detect any clorine smell / taste, let it go for a while longer. (How 'bout using a swimming pool test kit?)As far as antifreeze. Use the minimum amount. Actually, antifreeze isn't so much for the "antifreeze" qualities but more of a preservative. Keeps the water from getting scummy. (as quicly) I've been using 1 gallon of antifreeze to 5 gallons of water. You could probably get away with 6 gallons or more. Just enough to make the water green. That's all. As to dosposal. It's okay to flush antifreeze down the toilet. (Unless there's a local law against it.) Most sewage treatment plants can handle it in limited quantities. Read the back of the bottle. It says that's what you should do if you can't take it in to be recycled.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
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.
|