posted 08-13-2014 09:45 PM                    

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

The sad thing about the telecine Eastman's is they can not be converted at all for regular screening use. They are only good for the film path parts and that's about it.

The Eastman 25 still rules as the king of 16mm projectors though

---

Not True Mark;My good friend Greg who also ran a 16mm Film Library converted a 1958 275 to Tungsten Use. He replaced the shutter with a 2 blade from a 25C along with the Ektanon 2"F/1.5 Lens,a DGS 1000Watt Lamp.The Intermittent Pulleys/Gilmer Belt from a Model 30/40.I've watched Films projected off of it at least a dozen Times;Image is a Rock Steady Picture just like my 30...

The 275 Cabintry is the same as the 25A,B,C and 250 Telecine. They Changed the Upper Reel Arm and added a Takeup Motor in the Lower Cabinet to handle 5000 Ft. Reels. That was the drawback of the 25/250 Series Projectors;Limited to 2000Ft Reels. The Projector Mech/Transport is pretty much the same in all the Models.The 30/40 Intermittent had a faster pulldown Ratio and could throw a little more light on the Screen than the 25.If you maintain these Projectors they will outlast you and maybe your Kids.I've had mine since 1968 and it has worked Flawlessly all these years(same intermittent)


Eastman Model 275 16mm Telecine

posted 08-14-2014 11:26 AM                    

quote: Gordon McLeod

---

Who was Hopkins and Woods in a old article they were listed as the manufacturer of the Carbon Arc Lamphouse used on them

---

Not sure about that Company; When you ordered a 25 arc Model
this is the Lamphouse you Got. It was made by Strong but had
Kodak Badges on it and a Kodak P.N. It's a Big Tank but I will keep it for Nostaglia Purposes. Kodak didn't sell that many Arc Systems back in the early 50's compared to Tungsten Models...


Eastman 25A Lamphouse built by Strong for Kodak

posted 08-15-2014 06:11 PM                    

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

The Model 30 is exactly the same as the Model 25 in every respect. All they did was modernize the cabinet. I would probably pass on any Eastman projector I ran across with timing belts in it.

---

That Statement There tells me you have never serviced a 30/40 or 285 Projector.They did more than just Cabintry Changes. The Intermittent was changed to a faster Pull down and the Kodak P.N is different than the 25 models.That was one of the improvements over a 25 to get more light on a Screen.The Gilmer(not Glimmer)Belt Pulley system has been on every 30/40 and 285 Mfgerd since Day one; not just my Projector...(still with the original belt from 1968)

If you were to pass on the Projector because of this Cogged Belt timing System than you should pass on any Automoble/Truck that incorporates SOHC/DOHC Valve Train; because they all use a similar type system and Timing stays Accurate longer than most people
own the Vehicle...

posted 08-18-2014 06:48 PM                    

quote:

---

Steve, I have actually installed a Model 30! It too had synchro mesh gears. It sounds more like they made a change somewhere during production to me, the synchro mesh gears would of course have been the more expensive route. A projector with no belts is always preferred. If yours has belts in it I'm sorry.

Mark

---

Mark;Why would you feel sorry for me running a Gilmer Belt controlled intermittent that turns 1440rpm.This replaced the antiquated Syncromesh Star Gears and just like this Chevy Nascar R07 Engine Below it uses a Modern Style Gilmer cogged Belt.These Engines turn just shy of 10,000rpm and go 500race miles with no timing issues. You don't need to feel sorry for me because my Projector along with every other Eastman 30/40 and 285 uses this Belt System. It was a tried and tested Revision improvement that Kodak Engineers knew was reliable and accurate...


Chevy Nascar RO7 Racing Engine w/ Gilmer Style cogged Timing Belt