#1 The brain needs a swinging arm/latch of some sort for outward bulge center drops. On a Christie, you can drop in trailers with an inward bulge, or an outward bulge and it is happy. Other platters do not handle outward bulge drops very well. Kinoton could make a latch on their brain (where the film enters) similar to the latch that Christie is now putting on their center rings to cover the top of the slit. For 99% of the time the latch could be swung and left out of the way. For those times where an outward center drop is needed (as in adding more film to the inside of the roll than there is really room for), after threading through the slit, the latch could be swung around to block the opening which would prevent the film from flopping out. This would cost probably a whopping buck or two to the cost.

#2 I fail to understand why designers cannot put two threaded holes in the side of the tree for a film cleaner bracket like Christie does. Again, we're talking maybe another buck to the manufacturing cost. This is definitely needed, for not everyone likes having the cleaners mounted on the projectors.

#3 Roller positioning. This one goes hand in hand with #2. I know Michael likes the current threading, but I do not. Most platters use the standard out of the brain, over a roller down the tree, under a roller and back up to the top of the tree threading pattern. Kinoton does not, and this besides making threading a bit *different*, does not provide for a place to mount a film cleaner on the tree (near waist level of course, not like Big Sky's poor location). I see no reason why Kinoton cannot follow the typical threading path of a conventional platter. This would also eliminate the running of the film over the keeper rollers, of which most projectionists have pre-drilled into their brains that "if the film touches the keeper, you have misthreaded" mentality. Finally, the enter and exit rollers of the platter simply MUST have a swivel bracket of some sort. I very much hate the idea that I have to aim the entire platter system at the projector because Kinoton did not put an adjustable roller at the top and bottom of the tree. While this is being incorporated into the design, it would allow Kinoton to rid themselves of the foolish "the film must return to the platter at this exact height from the floor" nonsense. This should cost hardly anything to implement, if anything at all and at that point Kinoton would probably be the best platter on the market. Until that time, Christie is the clear winner, for these faults cannot be overlooked.

I'll be sticking with the Strong/Potts units as they have BY FAR given me the best results of all platters in the field. The Kinoton is an exception to that but is not nearly economically feasible in the normal world.

As far as overall noise level in a booth goes the Strong/Potts platter is but a small part of it. The smallish whirr it makes when properly timmed as the micro turns on is very minimal. If you want to really complain to Pat tell him to get rid of the whinning fans they use in their rectifiers. The noise they make is alot more bothersome to all operators I work with!!

Gee where is Steve G.? Should we start a thread on reels for him so we can get him to magically appear??

In conclusion It would appear to me that several people here do not know how to properly time, or set the variac on a Strong Potts to be able to get the best performance out of them.
MArk @ GTS

I have personally done this with SPECO and Cinemeccanica platters, both of which are extremely forgiving with outward bulges. I never had a problem with this technique with these platters! However, this is not possible with a Kinoton due to the acute angle of the exit roller from the payout unit (either design). I know that with a Christie, you can even payout a second print which is lying on top of another print without problems. Likewise, this is something you can't do with Kinoton. Maybe with a modification you might be able to get away with it, but certainly not straight from the factory.

John Wilson found a way to attach our Kelmar cleaners to the platter tree, however. We tapped holes on the post just beside the roller leading out from the top plate. I'll ask him to post some pictures here.

Also, one of our platters is not lined up directly with the projector. We used a few extra rollers to get around this. We'll get some pictures together of this as well.

On the 'outward bulge' issue, well...we have to plan around this a bit. If we look at our trailer list and see that there is going to be more going in than coming out, we take up the film onto a larger centre ring or use foam padding to increase the diameter first. Of course, if we forget to do this, we are snookered. We have to then drop in half this session and the rest next session, or something like that.

A couple of places I've worked have not enjoyed the outward bulge method whenever I've done it. Personally, I've never had a problem with it and think it's a great 'get out of jail' card if ever there was one, and the film itself doesn't seem to mind at all.

One guy (who shall remain nameless) didn't want me to do it because he was paranoid that something would go wrong. Of course, it never did. Another time, I was doing relief work at another place and the tech dropped by (who shall remain nameless). He saw the outward bulge and said that anyone who cared about film would never do anything like that to it. Well, they were brand new trailers and when they hit the screen they didn't have a single mark on them...as opposed to the trailers that had been running there for a while already. Hmmm!

Also, the slight "Whhhhrrrrrrrrrr" emitted from the newer cross-hatched belts you can buy from the local Kirby Vacuum Sweeper shop for the older CFS/Potts platters is cool. Don't use the Hoover belts. I have had bad luck with those. They must have been made from recycled rubber.

If you REALLY want to hear a noisy platter, just listen to that old air-drive Simplex platter. Ear protectors are needed around that thing!!!!!! It goes "WOOOOOooooooooo" and the compressor sounds like an old MG set with worn brushes and square bearings filled with Poly-Grip denture paste.

I had the mis-fortune of servicing one of those, I think it was in West Bend, Wisconsin. That was the only one I ever seen. It reminded me of a Ford commercial....Ford has a better idea. (turn on the light bulb) but unfortunately, when Simplex turned on the light bulb, it immediately burned out.

How many of you have seen or worked on those machines?

------------------
--Sean McKinnon
Manager
Loews Cineplex Entertainment
Liberty Tree Mall 20
Danvers, Mass
<A HREF="http://www.enjoytheshow.com" TARGET=_blank>www.enjoytheshow.com</A>

First of all, I have never used a Christie platter, so I cannont compare the Christie to the Strong. I have no doubt that these are exceptional platters, I just have no first-hand experience.

But I can defend Strong. I think it is necessary to have rollers around the brain. The only brain I have ever seen that doesn't is the supposedly brainwrap-free Big Sky. Well, they are not wrap free. In the two months my theater has been open, we have had at least 3 wraps that I can think of. Does the brain have rollers to protect the film? No. Does the film get damaged? Sure does. So having those rollers is a must.

As far as the double threading pattern, I have never seen a properly trained operator screw that one up. Of course everyone makes mistakes the first week, but that's why you have someone check your work before you start the show.

Why does everyone see the need to mount a cleaner on the platter? I have no problem with putting it on the projector. Most platters don't have holes for mounting a cleaner, but they are not too hard to modify.

I don't ever recall the platters running too loud. The noise from the projector by far overpowers any noise the platter makes.

Yes, I suppose it would be a little more convenient if the top of the payout arm were open so you could just drop film in, but it is hardly worth making a big deal about.

I love the MUT. I much prefer the horizontal design to the vertical, but that's just me. I do agree that you shouldn't have to apply back tension while breaking down, but this feature is hardly unique to Strong. Every platter I've come across requires you to disengage the motor to break down. Same thing with the "fins" underneat the platter. Actually, Big Sky doesn't have those fins, but they're the only ones I've seen...

quote:

---

Why does everyone see the need to mount a cleaner on the platter? I have no problem with putting it on the projector. Most platters don't have holes for mounting a cleaner, but they are not too hard to modify.

---

Please take the time to read Brad's posts, and that will answer your question. He said very clearly "why" that is the preferred method.

Also, are Brad and I the only ones who would rather drop the film into a Strong brain payout head from the top rather than wrestle it through? It would make threading easier and quicker, and possible with only one hand. Well I guess you could do the current brain with only one hand, but what a pain in the anus. And in order for the film to come flying up and out of the payout arm, it would first have to come flying up and out of the 3-angled-rollers thingy and I have never seen that happen. If it is coming out of the top of the payout head first, then that probably means your print is in the process of being tossed. The brain in these platters is my biggest beef. My second biggest would be the takeup variac which no matter how it is set takes off like a bat out of hell when you give it a tug to take up your film. Then the teeny rollers putting too much stress on the film. Why wouldn't bigger rollers be preferred? Please answer that Mark.

Sean McKinnon, please show me where I have exaggerated and am not being truthful. Thanks.

Sean, I don't know about the rest of everyone here, but I am not exaggerating. Also, I would rate the AW2 as crap. (When people say "Christie platter", you can take it for granted that they are speaking of the AW3, as I know of no one who consideres the AW1 or AW2 to be anything but junk these days.) I feel it is you who is not being fair for comparison's sake, as you have not worked with an AW3. Remember, most people are pleased with whatever the first set of equipment they use is...until they move on to something better and then realize the difference. Even at that, there will always be a certain amount of *loyalty* so to say toward what we learned on. (And no I did not learn on a Christie.)

Ken, if you need those rollers around the brain, there is something going wrong! The film should never ever wrap. Also, when you work at a theater that has constant power outages, you will see just how important being able to easily un-thread the brain really is. It also saves time in threading. Maybe it's only a few seconds, but in a large multiplex that gives more time to be paying attention to the presentation and not fiddling around with poorly thought out roller placement. This is a very simple design modification for a manufacturer to change. It's not asking a lot and couldn't possibly anger the people who have not complained, for the only difference in the design would be having the bracket on the bottom side of the rollers, but it would please the people who do complain.

Mark, fact is fact and I certainly will not dispute your findings in the post right above this one. I'm sure there are plenty of other techs who would say similar things that you have just reported. However, I am also speaking from fact. Most of the platters I have serviced are AW3s and only a few of them are Strongs. Those Christies run magnificently day in and day out. The Strongs are always giving grief and damaging film. If by your logic I am not getting excellent reliability from the Strongs because I am not setting them up properly, then by that same logic you are not getting excellent reliability from the Christies because you are not setting those up properly. Next time we are together around equipment, let's trade setup tips and see how each other's experiences continue. I for one would love to be able to see a microswitch platter run reliable comparatively speaking to an AW3.

Christie can get by with their plastic pegs, just by the way it is designed. But many other pay-out heads need those rollers to keep the film away from parts that could scratch the film in event of pay-out "hunting."

As a passing thought....we had some bashing here on all popular brands of platters, but we forgot one. Remember the old Eprad platter? This thing will surely add fuel to the fire.

Anyone who purchased one of those would just probably worship any other brand. With the Eprad, they also provided you with the shaft.

The shaft came in a form of a long rod that went right from the bottom to the top,and the shaft was driven by a common motor. The shaft was included in the price tag.

It was impossible to switch film around from one screen to another.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

But Richard, if the projectionists were trained properly then there would be no tweeking of the controls going on...or they would be done properly. There goes the "train people better" argument.

I think Gordon actually has tamper proof labels he puts on equipment to see if anyone has tampered with it. An interesting idea.

 |  IP: Logged