Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: What makes older projectors better than newer ones?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » What makes older projectors better than newer ones? (Page 2)

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

Author

Topic: What makes older projectors better than newer ones?

Ken Lackner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1907
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Registered: Sep 2001

posted 01-15-2002 10:43 PM

Welcome to Film Tech, Bob. You've been registered 2 months and your first post was a reply to my question. Now don't I feel special.

Richard, if I had the money, I'd love one of those projectors. I'll get back with you on that in several years.

------------------
This one time, at Projection Camp, I stuck a xenon bulb....

| IP: Logged

John Eickhof
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 588
From: Wendell, ID USA
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 01-15-2002 10:49 PM

HI BOB! Nice to see you are doing good! Sad to hear about Gil, another fine machinist / projectionist is gone! Mark, I will attest to the E-7s! I used to service 12 pairs the ran 'rock-and-roll' (forward & reverse) at Fox Studios in LA! The ran great, even backwards! As far as I know, they are still in use today! I have had no adverse experience with straight gates and poly film! With the exception of the Balco Pro-35, but they shake and shimmy with any type of film! My favorite...the pair of XLs I have serialed #123 & 145
(the 22nd and 44th made!) They run as steady as a rock, and so quiet (even with poly) that they sound like a good running Super! Next favorite on my list is the Brenkert, they probably had the finest made film trap of any american machine! Even more gentle than an E-7!
In fact I think the only thing that would make a Brenkert any better would have been 24 or 32 tooth feed sprockets!! Anyway, just my 2 cents worth!

------------------
John Eickhof President, Chief Slave
Northwest Theatre Equipment Co., Inc.
P.O.Box 258
Wendell, ID. 83355-0258
208-536-5489
email: jeickhof@nteequip.com

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-15-2002 10:58 PM

It would be a toss up between the cast Iron Century "C", and the X-L. The cast iron Brenkerts would be a close third. Not much else out there is worth talking about here. I'm assuming that you are strictly talking about U.S. made 35mm machines in this thread.

Now my reasons......

Century "C" cast iron, pre 1941 I believe. This is now well aged cast iron that is harder than a diamond. Ever try to cut the front out for a Kelmar Turret? Good luck! Tried a jig saw, sawzall, and a verticle mill. I went through no less than 20 saw blades and end mills of various types trying to cut the stuff. This is what happens when cast iron becomes Titanium...... I finally had them torched out by a welder that promised a clean cut. He did a great job. That was about 10 years ago and I might be just finishing up the first one tonight after loading in my 900th saw blade on my 60th sawzall. Andy Margolin of Kelmar systems also claims that this main frame is the strongest and most rigid of all U.S. projectors ever made. I concurCommander, it would easily survive a neuclear blast!

Simplex X-L:

The only thing that keeps these alive is the fact that its an oil bath(the original brochure said oil vapor). The venerable Simplex is like the Eveready Bunny, it keeps on going and going and going as long as you feed it some oil now and then. Many variations of this machine have occured, some really good, and some really bad. Lately, overall, they are alot better with many small hidden improvements that most here don't even know have been built into it. Get one, take it apart, and be amazed!

Cast Iron brenkerts:
The darn thing weighs almost 140 lbs! Even with bad motor mounts on the RCA 9030's that usually drove them they were dead steady. Over complicated gearing in all the Brenkerts, but they had to find a way around other companys patents. They run a long time but the cone shaped shutter gearing was its downfall. Later 1980's replacement gears were even worse and unless you can find an original Brenkert replacement for this gear it usually spells the end of the line for the head. The BX-60 did not suffer this gearing arrangement! The lens mounts were also way too deep for any short focal length lenses, necessitating a special Kollmorgen lens with built in Magnacon that generally produced a relatively muddy image.
John,
I just replaced an original E-7 install in central Utah. Oddly it was an oblique head too. It has been running in the theatre since a remodel in 1947!! Of course those gears on the shaft had probably been replaced at least 900 times! Its mate is on display in the lobby.
There is alsoa VERY LOW SN consecutive set of X-L's in the Gateway Theatre in Chicago. I think they were below SN 110! There are a pair of Super Cinex's on them that are still used.

"My 3 cents worth"
Mark @ GTS
I wasn't allowed to have a xenon lamp at .....

| IP: Logged

Paul G. Thompson
The Weenie Man

Posts: 4718
From: Mount Vernon WA USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 01-15-2002 11:43 PM

Ken, I am partial to the old Simplex E-7. If you have one laying around somewhere, it is worth rebuilding. The second best liked Simplex is the old Super Simplex. A bitch to work on sometimes, but it is a good old machine. Third, I like the older XL's. The newer ones just seem like they are built too "cheap."

Bob, if you can get your paws on a Vertical Shaft E-7, you have yourself a REAL machine! I had an opportunity to buy two of those for 50 bucks a pop, but I declined. I must have had my head inside my body when I made that decision.

| IP: Logged

Don Sneed
Master Film Handler

Posts: 451
From: Texas City, TX, USA
Registered: Aug 2001

posted 01-16-2002 01:03 AM

I have a 1937 Super Simplex head in my shop, one on these days I will replace the bad imtermittent in it, I want to know is why they call them Simplex, there is nothing simple on that machine !! I use that head at a twin theatre a few years ago before the movement locked up, a bit noisy but it ran for a year before I replace it with a Century "C"...the Super was damn good machine, hard to keep clean though !!

| IP: Logged

Phil Housh
Film Handler

Posts: 24
From: Boise, Idaho, USA
Registered: May 2003

posted 05-31-2003 05:17 PM

Anyone out there care for BX100's? [Roll Eyes]

| IP: Logged

Michael West
Film Handler

Posts: 67
From: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 05-31-2003 07:45 PM

older is better! my favorite is the century c with the simplex xl a close second (its that rubber damper roller that pushes against the sound drum that makes it a second for me) the newer simplexes feel to cinemeccanica like. of course the older projectors are nice but in the end is the availability of parts although i don't think the xls would be to bad for that. also the older projectors are probably not really meant to run platters although the xl with its "oil bath" may be an exception. the century doesn't do this.

| IP: Logged

Michael Cunningham
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 186
From: Anchorage, AK
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 05-31-2003 09:19 PM

I have not had the opportunity to work with that many older machines (Simplex XL's [I think] , Ballantyne Pro 35's and Century ?JJ's? from the 70's is about it). I did get to play with a Norelco AAII (the Todd AO version) for about a year. Just loved that machine. Rock steady, built like a tank, extremely hard to kill. Anyone have thoughts on these?

- Mike

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-31-2003 10:56 PM

I just went through ten(of almost 30) DP-70's of varying age and have to say that the lack of wear on these 50 year old machines really amazes me to no end. All movements were torn down for a through cleaning, mainly to remove 30 year old oil deposits that had dried up. All the cam pins and slots in the star wheels literally looked like new. Also, no real wear to the gear train in any of them to speak of. Four have been put back into service this past week, with another 4 over the next two weeks. LIke the other DP-70's out here I suspect that future service calls will be minimal. In spite of the new breed of projector(s) that have replaced the DP-70 its sad that there's nothing else out there that compares to them any longer in terms of reliability or build quality.

For those that have not seen one, below is a photo of the insides of one of the intermittents after cleaning the parts in the ultrasonic cleaner. Note that the radius of the star is conical...the cam is ground to match. Radius clearance is adjusted by moving the cam closer or away from the star wheel which is in a fixed position laterally. The cam pin is also ecentrically mounted for absolute dead straight entry into the slot! I'd love to see a present day american projector manufacturer attempt a feat like this! No way they'd ever do it.

BTW: The just entire lens mount assy. on the DP-70 weighs in at almost the same weight as an entire Super Simplex head......

Mark @ CLACO

| IP: Logged

Jack Ondracek
Film God

Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002

posted 06-01-2003 01:07 AM

quote:
Anyone out there care for BX100's?

I've had them at my drive-in. They worked as well as any other Brenkert I had. I liked the picture window they called a front door.

The only problem I'm aware of is that the 100 doesn't turn as easily as other Brenkert models, which puts a lot of stress on the sound head & drive motor. Mine were sitting on top of Simplex soundheads, and they got pretty warm.

| IP: Logged

Dick Prather
Master Film Handler

Posts: 259
From: Portland, OR, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 06-01-2003 03:39 AM

Ken,
I do think the XL is the best Simplex projector. From about serial number 3000 to 7500 which were made in the 50's. As a rebuilder you get to notice the differences after you have done a bunch. I do agree that the metal technology was not as good as today but today's machines DO NOT FEEL as good as the older ones did. I feel the quality is not as it use to be. I am sure it has to do with getting the product out quicker.

I have a pair within this range in my booth with modified flat traps and C/S sprockets and mag heads. They run fine with all types of film.

I do think the E-7 is a slightly steadier machine and have spent many hours on them. In Portland we did not have any vertical shaft versions. In all the years I ran them I replaced only 1 oblique gear. G-287 if memory serves. I finally installed a vertical set into a collectors house and had to replace the shutter drive gears in those. The key was to put a couple of drops of oil on the gear directly to keep it moist. The one-shot oiling system did not oil every oiling point on an E-7. I liked them a lot and if I hadn't worked so hard to get these XL's I would be running E-7's. Around here the operators either hated or loved them. I also ran Standards and Supers in booths and had no problems with either.

There are other good projectors but you wished an openion on Simplex so I will leave it at that.

| IP: Logged

Per Hauberg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 883
From: Malling, Denmark
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 06-01-2003 05:50 AM

Mark:

Watch Your mouth. The Admin. will put You into a museum together with with worlds best projector !! [Big Grin]

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-01-2003 08:55 AM

Per,
That would be ok with me [thumbsup]

, however I think that some day the Admin. will also learn to appreciate fine machinery. I kinda like to compare the DP-70 to the Hardinge HLV lathe...... http://www.hardinge.com/Pages/115_Manual.html
Note the guaranteed spec. spindle runout on the Hardinge.......
The lathe weighs more but they are both the standard of their classes in my book.

Dick,
I totally disagree with you on metal technology and the quality of the older X-L's vs. the later ones. Having machined off close to a hundred fronts of various age X-L's for installation of TU-2000 turrets in my own shop during rebuilds I can absolutley say that the older 50's machines had VERY porus alumnium main castings as compared to the later General Precision castings. There was no difference in regards this as related to serial numbers either. Metal casting technology has advanced greatly since WW-2 and GPL obviously used a different and better foundry for production of main castings, or the old foundry installed new casting technologies. Also the older 50's castings have VERY thin, inconsistent, front walls to them while the later castings are much much beefier there and in other spots. Weigh a 50's vs. a GPL casting some time, you'll see what I mean.

I had one 50's casting whos front wall was less than .125" thick!! GPL increased the front wall to around .250". The GPL castings are also no where near as porus as were the originals, the amount of porosity has a very definate relation to the strength of a casting. The best castings I've seen are the ones being made today, they are even beefier, and much much stronger than the old stuff. The main problems I am seeing today with new, or with rebuilding the old machines is the crap bearings being used in them, and a steadily declining quality in the stars and cams comming from LaVezzi. Also Strongs toying around with different gates and such has left a bad taste in peoples mouths, and has caused too many problems and much confusion. Indeed, the old intermittents, gears, shafts and other parts were far superior to what is being made by todays automatic CNC machines and that is why they ran better.

At any rate, older leaky Simplex's can be made pretty much seep proof by todays modern powdercoating methods.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 06-01-2003 01:16 PM

Something tells me Per really, really, really likes the DP70, because every time this machine is brought up there is a little remark made. Be happy about it Per! Yes it is a good machine, but I feel there are better alternatives that are smaller than a refrigerator and weigh less than a 747 that can do an equal or better job. It's just an opinion. Besides, this way there is one less person on the planet rushing out to snatch them up away from you. [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1687
From: Port Gamble, WA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-01-2003 01:48 PM

One thing that has changed from the "old days" to now is the manufacturing techniques. Today everything is computer run and as such, there is less personal attention paid to each part. Many times a person who is not even a machinist is making parts, because all they have to do is put a hunk-o-metal in the machine and push a button. The demands of being competitive in the market place have made it mandatory to use this type of production method. Although parts can be more accurate, the quality of the part is not necessarily better. Manufacturers in the US are having to compete with countries where the cost of living is real cheap compared to the US (thanks NAFTA). Add to that the fact that many companies (if not all of them) are run by bean counters instead of craftsmen and you've got the difference between then and now. One more thing, is that many so called "engineers" have the paper, but not the experience, and a lot of them don't have a clue as to why they do the things they do, they just do it because a book told them to. But then kids with an "engineer's degree", are a lot cheaper than guys that have been around forever and know all the tricks.
It's all about money

| 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

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.