|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: The Logic of Threading a Projector Top to Bottom
|
Paul G. Thompson
The Weenie Man
Posts: 4718
From: Mount Vernon WA USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 01-20-2003 11:08 PM
I can see where it would be easy (after much practice) (and observance of Brad doing it) with the Christie, but it sure looks like a real pain in the rear end to attempt that in a Simplex (any model), PRO-35, Century or a Brenkert. (Or anything with a Simplex SH10**, RCA MI-****, Motiograph, or the Weber SynchroFilm sound head with the magazines installed on the projectors.)
How about the threading of an old Western Electric 211A sound head with a Super Simplex or a Simplex Regular parked on top of it? The 211A didn't even have a sprocket. The output of the Super intermitant went down a film funnel, around the scanner in the sound head, back up into the projector, around the holdback sprocket, right back down through the sound head's fire trap rollers to the take-up reel.
Maybe that's why all us old farts threaded "frame first", then the upper feed, holdback, scanner, Constant speed, and then the lower holdback in the sound head.
What do you think?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sean McKinnon
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1712
From: Peabody Massachusetts
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 01-21-2003 12:55 AM
Steve Geiger is my NCS Tech. He is a great guy and he really knows his shit. He is also not afraid to take suggestions/ideas from others like some techs can be. Ive been trying to get Steve to participate on here.
Barry,
If you would take the time to read the document titled "Improving Your On Screen Presentation" in the "Tips" section you will not that it explains what the proper loop size should be and that most people make them too large thus causing "Standing Scratches".
quote:
First, make SMALL loops. Whoever came up with the “two finger” loop rule obviously never came to the realization that his two fingers put together is not the same size as everyone else’s two fingers. Polyester stock, unlike triacetate, possesses a “base curl.” By this I mean if one was to lay a strip of film with the emulsion side down against a flat surface, only the edges would make contact with the surface as the center of the film would curl upward, towards the base side. This fault alone is why films today run rougher, louder and more erratic than triacetate did. Making small loops, particularly the lower loop, will drastically help and put an end to “standing” scratches.
Also it would be very difficult for the gate of a Simplex Millenium to open in the manner which you describe because it is locked into place with a pin, also the physics of it dont make sense if the upper loop was to small it would push down on the gate not out, I am confused because I have never ever seen this happen???
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barry Martin
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 203
From: Newington, CT USA
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 01-21-2003 03:56 PM
quote:
Barry, are you disengaging the platter's takeup motor or something? Once you put the film into the upper constant feed sprocket there is just not enough film in the platter's accumulator to be able to thread the rest of the projector. Perhaps you could reword.
Sorry Brad, I thought I had been really specific but just realized the gap in my explanation. I actually had to sit here and meditate for a second and go back in time (in thought) and actually thread a projector. It's been a while since I've had to do it and I'm afraid I'm losing it. Anyways, my previous post holds true except that after creating a loop around the projector I would set my frame and lock down the intermittent sprocket first, then the film gate, then the upper sprocket and the SDDS (where applicable). I would then use the "slack" that was on the platter tree to thread between the intermittent and bottom sprockets, the sound head, and the failsafe. Really I was just using the platter tree to thread the bottom half of the projector and it was always enough and the leader never touched the ground. So I'm guessing there are no benefits other than those listed in this thread? I do apologize for not checking the tips section but as is I've limited my wife and I to one hour on the computer per day to avoid internet dependency. ![[Wink]](wink.gif) Seeing as how I have 2 email addresses to check, a message board to administer and two to post to, by the time I get here I'm almost out of time.
Joe said:
quote:
doing things in a far less efficient manner.
This is part of the question I had, why is it less efficient and is it so in all instances. I threaded platter and projector on average between 60-90 seconds. (The 60 was when I was just trying to see how fast I could do it if I had to using a old trailer and without an SDDS head to thread as well) I just want to know if top-bottom is a less efficient method in ALL instances according to some or in instances using certain equipment and setups.
Sean,
Thanks for taking the time to research that quote and I do completely agree with it. I was actually taught the "two-finger" loop size. However, I realized that the trainer was a five foot tall woman and me being a six foot rather portly man my fingers were twice as wide as hers, she also realized this and I came up with the solution after I was told how fast film is supposed to move through a projector. So I cut a "training" leader out with 24 frams in clear and the rest in black and practiced for a day threading that up before threading my movies making sure the clear was at the sound reader and in front of the lens, thus ensuring the proper sync. Once I had my loop size memorized (little larger than one of my "trigger" finger) I always threaded that way.
As for the gate-popping, perhaps I chose a poor term as this indicates the gate opening completely and the film coming loose. What I meant was the gate being "snapped" momentarily and the film jumping sprockets thus making the loop even smaller (or in some instances MUCH larger) and often causing damage as well as visible gittering on the screen.
I also used the same method of checking my threading after it was done, by advancing the fly wheel. Also, since we used a lot of leader, after starting the motor I would observe and listen to the film traveling through the projector, even re-checking the framing. I would suggest that you be careful not to mistake criticism intended for mutual growth and learning for ridicule. Those that nit-pick over something like loop sizes could be responding to what they have seen as a result of too small of a loop.
Tony said:
quote:
the projector sounds different and louder.
I am compelled to comment that I think a projectionist gone blind could still work. In all honesty I have seen more mistakes go un-noticed by simply looking than all the ones I've picked up while training or checking my work by touch and sound. Sure, you would need an usher to wait in the auditorium to help you correct focus or identify a foreign object appearing on screen, but otherwise I am pretty sure I could have run my booth blind-folded. On a bet I threaded up blind-folded once, it just took a while. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
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.
|
Home
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic