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 4)

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

Author

Topic: What makes older projectors better than newer ones?

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 06-05-2003 07:49 PM

Alright Per, let me try and recall why I did not like the DP70.

Way too big. There is just no need for it to be this large.
Way too heavy. Granted this is just an installation complaint, but a projector should not weigh more than a semi.
Cannot hold 6000' (24 inch) reels on takeup. The unit only accomodates 22 inch reels, which is no good for me.
The analog sound is godawful lousy! Of course this doesn't much matter anymore with the BACP reverse scan reader for the DP70, but back then it was a huge issue. Look at a pink noise loop on a scope. It's just plain terrible.
I am not a fan of the self-destruct handle. What a wonderful idea it is to provide each projector with a self-destruct handle, so if by accident this is touched during a movie, you will take out your shutter and who knows what else.
Cannot use short throw lenses in the DP70. The picture hits the side of the projector.
Cannot open the door during a show unless you are using long throw lenses. The door will interfere with the projected image.
Must have HUGE port windows for all but long throws. Since the motors stick out the front end more than Divine's gut, the aperture is ridiculously far away from the port window resulting in a large blowup on the glass.
Does it really need to hold 5 gallons of oil to do the job? (Ok I'm exaggerating here, but you know what I mean.)
The takeup rotation cannot be reversed for emulsion out orientation.
There is no good place to mount a failsafe. No projector should be without a failsafe. One must be rigged.
Under no circumstances may you stop the projector with the exciter lit. You will melt the film from the exciter's heat! Granted this again is taken care of by BACP, but this is an inexcusable fault in the design.

I'm sure there are more, but that's all I can think of right now. Anyway, now you have an idea of why I did not like the unit. As far as reliability, sure it's very reliable, but the reliability doesn't outweigh the bad points in my opinion...that's why I sold it to someone who would appreciate it and got something that I am happy with. In the end, everyone was happy. [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 06-05-2003 10:53 PM

* Cannot hold 6000' (24 inch) reels on takeup. The unit only accomodates 22 inch reels, which is no good for me.

It does but not with the magazines on

* The analog sound is godawful lousy! Of course this doesn't much matter anymore with the BACP reverse scan reader for the DP70, but back then it was a huge issue. Look at a pink noise loop on a scope. It's just plain terrible.

If you install the Todd AO "film " slit replacement for the little brass slit you can see 16k

* I am not a fan of the self-destruct handle. What a wonderful idea it is to provide each projector with a self-destruct handle, so if by accident this is touched during a movie, you will take out your shutter and who knows what else.

There's a trip switch that if there and wired up, shuts the projector down when you try to do that.

* Cannot use short throw lenses in the DP70. The picture hits the side of the projector.

My Schneider anamorphic on the front of a Schneider 85mm sticks out even with the front of the projector. My 55mm for flat has no problems

* Must have HUGE port windows for all but long throws. Since the motors stick out the front end more than Divine's gut, the aperture is ridiculously far away from the port window resulting in a large blowup on the glass.

Mine measures 11"H X 18"W

* Does it really need to hold 5 gallons of oil to do the job? (Ok I'm exaggerating here, but you know what I mean.)

Just a little less than 2qts depending on the tilt

* There is no good place to mount a failsafe. No projector should be without a failsafe. One must be rigged.

I think CE offered one that mounted where the bottom fire trap is

* Under no circumstances may you stop the projector with the exciter lit. You will melt the film from the exciter's heat! Granted this again is taken care of by BACP, but this is an inexcusable fault in the design.

There was a tech bulletin in the mid 60s that described an "at idle" circuit that cut the exciter light output when the motors were not on.

I thought we already went through this on Jeff Joseph's BB?

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 06-05-2003 11:05 PM

Aha, maybe that's where I made that list. Anyway, Per specifically asked why I did not like the DP70 so I told him. Now take away all of the recent upgrades that were not available when I had mine and factor those in. At the time with what was available, it did not do a satisfactory job just based upon the analog sound alone. Then of course there were the other issues.

So tell me HOW are you able to fit 24 inch reels on the takeup? Mine did not have magazines on it and it simply would not fit. Have you actually done this, or are you just assuming they will fit?

I don't see what good the trip switch would do. By the time it killed the motor, the damage would be done.

I didn't know about the exciter bulletin. I had considered rigging something like that, but by the time I found out about the blistering I had already decided that the machine was not acceptable for my purposes, so it wasn't something I pursued.

I wouldn't call 55mm a short throw lens. Put something shorter in there and watch what happens. [Eek!]

Wasn't it you who once said that the best projector is whatever each person ownes? There are different needs for every situation and no two people will always agree. I just did not like the DP70 and it was not suitable for what I needed it to do. So? Big deal. I got something I do like. You guys have something you like. That's all that matters.

| IP: Logged

Jon Miller
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 973
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 06-05-2003 11:30 PM

How much shorter, Brad?

A Simplex E-7, as great a vintage machine as it is, won't play fair with a short-focal-length lens in short-throw installations unless the front lens carrier (C-416-C) and tie rod (R-300-C) are removed to avoid vignetting, as is what I had to do for my home rig in order to accommodate a 50mm lens for flat. I clamped the carrier to the anamorphic adaptor, but it is a small PITA to mount the adaptor, carrier and all, on the projector owing to the tight clearance of the bottom bore on the carrier which mates with the pivot rod.

Also, in my situation, the lens sits so far back that I cannot remove the film trap door for cleaning unless I remove the lens. Without the front carrier, extension tubes and stop collars are out of the question.

To change the subject slightly (but remain on the original topic), one of the things I do like most about the E-7 is the framing light. Pushing the lever forward while seating the film in the trap is a motion that only takes a small amount of time to get used to, but the full illumination of the aperture and the ease in threading in-frame even with dark leaders is definitely worth it.

| IP: Logged

Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 06-06-2003 12:17 AM

****So tell me HOW are you able to fit 24 inch reels on the takeup? Mine did not have magazines on it and it simply would not fit. Have you actually done this, or are you just assuming they will fit?

First flip that little spindle lever that holds the reel on then.....just kidding....
I ran downstairs and measured it. Actually a 26" almost fits. I have one of those and could almost get it on. I thought it was a 24 I was going to take a picture for you

****I don't see what good the trip switch would do. By the time it killed the motor, the damage would be done.

The moment you pull out on the lever (before you start to swing it open) everything shuts off. Actually you can't even get the lever to the point of being able to swing it open when it happens. Probably that would alert the person doing it that they had done something stupid. I guess the makers figured a professional (that's what they were when the DPs were being made) wouldn't do such a thing.

I think every machine must have it's downside. I bet a person could find something wrong with every projector. Things are always getting better and sometimes things get out into the field before mistakes are caught. Oblidee Oblidah

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-06-2003 01:08 AM

Indeed it is all but impossible to open the cooling plate while its running....unless the governer on the shutter shaft sticks for some reason. This has never been a problem on any of the 30 plus DP-70's running in this neck of the woods.

Here is a fair comparison.......

JJ....3 ounces of oil, no filtration......... DP-70 2 quarts of oil typically....triple filtration plus 2 magnets to catch ferrous partilcies.

For every verticle shaft in a DP-70 you go through a JJ will go through at least 10.

For every intermittent you wear out in a DP-70 you will need 6 in the JJ.

The DP-70 has far more efficient water cooling than the JJ.

The DP-70 has an orthogonal gear design that is less wear prone than the JJ. Except for two fibre/steel gears in the train its all Cast iron/Steel for better wear resistance.

The DP70 has lower wow and flutter than the JJ in either mag or optical, I have measured both myself.

These are but a few... The weight of the DP-70 is an overall advantage for projecting film done right!

MArk

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 06-06-2003 02:03 AM

See? Every time I mention that I am not a fan of the DP70, all of the hard core DP70 guys act as if I've personally insulted them! [Wink]

Still, in the pros vs. the cons, the DP70 is just not for me. Let me try and put this into perspective. Just try and convince Steve Guttag that platters are better than changeover. It's the same thing with me and the DP70. It's just not going to happen no matter what you type. I've played with one and I just don't care for it just like Steve has ran a platter and doesn't like it. It's a dead end. So long as you guys love them, that's all that matters. Personally, I just assume I never have to run or service one again, but that's just me. I just don't like the design. I also don't particularly care for Simplexes. (The only Simplex that intrigues me is the Apogee, but I haven't had a chance to get up close and personal with one yet.) So big deal, I'll just use something else. I don't see how my preference for projectors really affects any happy DP70 owner, but I can tell you I'm not the sole person on this planet with these opinions.

Greg, I swear the unit had would not handle a 24 inch reel. Do we have anyone around here who may be able to verify if there was two different sizes of bases in regards to accomodating takeup reels?

Mark, where are you getting these numbers? For example, I know JJs that have ran for 15-20 years without having to change the vertical shaft. If a JJ would use 10 times the vertical shafts, 10x15=150 years...and the DP70 hasn't been around that long! I'm not saying the Century is a better designed machine, but those numbers seem inflated. Since the DP70 was introduced in the early 60's (I think), by your calculation and assuming that it has taken 40 years for a DP70 to have an intermittent go out or a vertical shaft wear to the point of replacement, no Century intermittent could run for more than 7 years tops and no vertical shaft could last for more than 4 years! That is simply not the case.

| IP: Logged

Chris Wootten
Film Handler

Posts: 50
From: Moonlit Cinema, RAAF Tindal, N.T. Australia
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 06-06-2003 07:50 AM

Hi to all, I am in the military this way and the machines bought to entertain the troops... Bauer U3, U4,and Cinemecannica Vic 8 projectors are still performing well for us. We dont screen as much as the main stream cinemas but what we lack in quantity, we make up for in quality. I agree with prior quotes that the quality of old is not there in machinery of today. The mighty dollar is the driver today, not value for money.

Chris [beer]

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-06-2003 09:13 AM

Brad,
The DP-70 has been in use since 1955. LaVezzi rates a Century intermittent be it an SA, or JJ at 5 years, same for most others they manufacture, Christie, Simplex, etc.....after this time period they are no longer at the manufactured tolerances. I was quoted this time period by Al LaVezzi years ago. Verticle shaft replacements are from my own experience and hearing from others over the years. Vert. shaft failure in Centurys is quite common, usually due to a bearing failure and it seizing to the shaft or galling it. Thats why LaVezzi came out with a hardened stainless steel vert. shaft for them.

You don't run your car with 3 ounces of oil in it?????
The JJ is still my second favorte machine though.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 06-06-2003 09:48 AM

By the sound of it, the one you had might not have had all the protective devices on it. Besides the switch, there's also a little jigger on the shutter shaft that won't allow you to open the gate until it is stopped and in the correct position. Maybe if you saw one that was all there and in original working order, your opinion would be different. If I ever get a 24" reel, I'll take a picture for you.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 06-06-2003 02:23 PM

I run my car with the manufacturer's recommended amount of oil. I do the same with my projectors. [Big Grin]

Greg, I agree I'm really starting to think there was something missing or something different about my old DP70. If I ever make it up your way, I'd love to check out yours. Mark, do you know if anything from my old one was missing (or added)?

| IP: Logged

Larry Shaw
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 238
From: Boston, MA, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 06-06-2003 02:50 PM

Brad,

I won't get in to a point-by-point pissing match, but I feel strongly about one issue. I mightily disagree with language like "...inexcusable fault in the design". Given the requirements the designer was presented with in 1953, I can't find any substantiative design flaws in the DP-70. And certain modern requirements -such as a better SH - we have addressed with upgrades. We see DP-70's with (apparently) all their original gearcase parts after 50 years, and many DP-70's are still installed in the most demanding venues (e.g. AMPAS). They may or may not meet all of today's needs for everyone, but IMHO flawed of design they're not.

Will,

My opinion is saying CNC improves machining quality is like saying automation improves film presentation.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 06-06-2003 03:17 PM

Sorry Larry, but I stand by my comments. Burning the film IS an inexcusable fault in the design regardless of what decade in history you are referencing. Besides, today is not 1953. I can appreciate the accomplishments from 50 years ago, but I am interested in right now, not the days from half a century ago, hence my comments. I don't see why that would bother you anyway. It's not as if you were one of the designers or that it somehow reflects poorly on Kinoton's current line of products. Would you consider a projector that scratched film acceptable if the machine was 80 years old? Of course not. The word "inexcusable" when referring to damaged film is right on the money.

| IP: Logged

Larry Shaw
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 238
From: Boston, MA, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 06-06-2003 03:54 PM

Brad,

RE: "Burning the film IS an inexcusable fault in the design regardless of what decade in history you are referencing."
*The original sound systems Philips created to be part of the system switched exciter lamps in such a way that the exciter wasn't lit unless the machine was projecting. When it was discovered that other manufacturers' systems were leaving the exciters powered up the wiring change was developed to prevent the bulbs from going on unless the motor was on.

Wise-ass question: Is it inexcuseable to design a projector that can be started with a pad roller open? It will cause way more damage than a blister in the leader's soundtrack.

RE: "I don't see why that would bother you anyway. It's not as if you were one of the designers..."
*It's the same reason I feel bad when I hear of a skilled, careful projectionist getting blamed for a bad presentation when the fault lay with the (for example) print. Someone was doing their job well, with great professionalism, and to the best standards available. Then, despite their best efforts, they are blamed for something beyond their control. I've been there. It sucks. I hate to see it happen to anybody.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 06-06-2003 04:49 PM

Wise-ass answer: The difference is that the operator cannot change the way the machine was designed, but he CAN make sure the pad rollers are closed before he starts the film. You are comparing operator error to design error.

Here's the big issue Larry. If you would re-read the thread you would see that my beef with the exciter/burn damage was noted before the explanation about the auto-switching to a lower current. My DP70 did not do this and I think I've made it clear enough of that. The result, my DP70 would burn film if the projector was stopped. My comment was made based upon that. However the "inexcusable" comment remains that any design that causes film damage IS inexcusable. However, put the BACP reader into the machine and I'll bet the whole thing is a moot point (lousy sound, burned film, etc). Unfortunately that was not available at the time I owned one.

Anyway I am getting really tired of these petty pissing matches with DP70 owners. Name one piece of equipment in the world that everyone on the planet mutually agrees is the best. It can't be done! The same goes for the DP70. Geez guys, lighten up and remember, if the DP70 was so wonderful and flawlessly designed, it would still be in production and one of the only machines people would see in theaters. Not so. Greg put it best several posts earlier:

quote:
I think every machine must have it's downside. I bet a person could find something wrong with every projector. Things are always getting better and sometimes things get out into the field before mistakes are caught. Oblidee Oblidah

It is also personal preference which is everyone's right. Mine just doesn't happen to be the DP70. (Per, I hope you enjoyed my complaint list on the projector. See what unnecessary shit this has dredged up? It always does.)

Nowadays we have the PK60. With that in mind, scroll back to the top of this page to my complaint list of the DP70. Is there anything on my list that the PK60 doesn't fix? I don't think so. See? Progress! [thumbsup]

| 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.