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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Mark that Frame Knob (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: Mark that Frame Knob Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 03-31-2003 03:24 PM                        The E projectors are quite quiet, they make a brrrr sound like a cat. The electronic sprocket also has a very soft ringing sound to it. It sounds like a bell ringing in the distance...OK, let us not get poetic here. I am not saying, an electronic sprocket is generally much better, and the only way to go. We don`t want to make it a religious issue here. But I think it is a good invention, especially because the frames are transported very quickly, and you have more light out of the aperture.  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 03-31-2003 04:02 PM                        Don't mechanical high-speed intermittents transport frames fast?  |  IP: Logged Richard Fowler Film God Posts: 2392 From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA Registered: Jun 2001 posted 03-31-2003 04:40 PM                     The basic mechanical to electronic cinema model is not a great increase in cost but we realize that price is an important issue for some. The pull down on the electronic is very fast, so fast that it is almost impossible to see it move to the next frame when you are advancing manually with the threading knob. The intermittent spocket is oversized with more teeth in contact with the film to minimize damage due to the rapid pull down with little chatter ( "purr" as Herr Schaffer has noted ). The Lenze frequency drive only powers the motor on the feed sprockets on the electronic models ( while in the D series it produces power for the intermittent / shutter assembly motor for the entire transport ). The drive motor on the electronic version has a shaft encoder attached which works with the sensors on the shutter and intermittent motor via the control boards to bring everything into syncronization. In the first few seconds of operation the image is slightly less steady until all components have talked to each other and the software proceeds to make corrections...but even at the start, the "unsteadyness" appears better than a typical mechanical projector. Richard Fowler Kinoton America Inc.  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 03-31-2003 05:26 PM                        Does anybody know what the actual dwell period is on the electronic intermittent? Just curious how it compares to a regular 4:1 intermittent at 1/32nd (0.03125) seconds and a high speed 5:1 intermittent at 1/30th (0.03333) seconds.  |  IP: Logged Carl King Expert Film Handler Posts: 199 From: Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada Registered: Mar 2000 posted 04-01-2003 01:03 PM                     setting the frame rack in the middle of it's travel range and then threading up properly would be a help.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 04-01-2003 02:56 PM                        quote: The intermittent spocket is oversized with more teeth in contact with the film Could it be said that the vertical up and down is minimised also because the sprocket is larger (was it 32 teeth?), and so the error caused by a slight unroundness (if such a word exists) is minimised too? Anyway, that error can further be corrected with the software. quote: The Lenze frequency drive only powers the motor on the feed sprockets on the electronic models You are right of course, I had overlooked that. We once had to change the Lenze quickly and didn`t have the parameters at hand to program it, so the advance button functionality was not available at first. Which reminds me that I wanted to add that those machines have a very clever advance button: if you push it, it will advance a few frames slowly, if you hold it down for a moment, it will forward the film at regular speed without striking the lamp. I like that. For the benefit of those members who have not seen it in action, I might add that the projector starts with the film transported continuously, then switches to intermittent movement once the projector is at speed and the various elements have been synchronised.  |  IP: Logged Will Kutler Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1506 From: Tucson, AZ, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 04-02-2003 06:20 PM                     I had a problem at the theatre were I worked. I would come in in the morning only to find that when I went to thread everything was out of frame on every machine. So, I scratched my head in puzzlement and reframed every machine and all would be good throughout the day. THen I would come back in the am and all would be out of wack again So, I started asking my fellow "projectionists" if anyone was messing with the framing knobs. One idiot did admit to realigning each machine every night because the knobs looked prettier in a particular position! The projectors were Christies, and as we all know, there is a mark on both the framing handle and on the projector frame. My experience is that these marks are for general alignment and are not always exact. So after talking to and explaining things to the kid, he was polite and professional enough to carefully check his framing during each thread-up and rarely did he touch the knob. But there were some other idiots with whom I worked who had severe problems threading in frame...why, I do not know. But their framing was soo bad that the framing handle would be cranked to eiter full detent and the film would be run with screwed up loops all day! Yes, that is right, they were too stupid and lazy to at least recenter the framing knob between shows !  |  IP: Logged Thomas Procyk Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1842 From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 04-02-2003 10:41 PM                     Will -- Sounds like what I go through every day. I'm afraid to ask people why they don't thread in frame for fear of getting a dumb response like, "The projectors are just old. They never start in frame." or the classic, "It don't matter." *sigh* =TMP=  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-03-2003 03:16 AM                        Of course we are all predicating this on the assumption that there is actually someone in the booth who will SEE the frame-line in the middle of the screen and correct it. I recently sat through four trailers at the UA Sheepshead Bay in Brooklyn, all four running totally out of frame and no one was in the booth to be able to fix it. Even the non-professionals have to be physically present to see that big fat black frame line! Frank  |  IP: Logged Larry Zuverink Film Handler Posts: 98 From: Caledonia, MI, USA Registered: Nov 2002 posted 04-03-2003 02:25 PM                     We can all complain as much as we want here but the problem is that the idiots that can't start in frame wouldn't be on this sight. Someone also said that it's going to happen as long as we don't pay projectionist what their worth. I've always believed and have never seen otherwise that lazy and incompetent people are that way no matter what they are paid and also professionals are professionals no matter what they are paid. I totally agree good projectionists are under paid but thats another thread.  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 04-03-2003 06:15 PM                        I KNOW that there are many lurkers out there that couldn't start in frame if their life depended on it. I also know that there are some very, very competent professionals out there that also like to lurk. A decent wage would attract more professionals. I know many great projectionists that would love to still be working in theatres but simply cannot afford to.  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 04-03-2003 06:34 PM                     I agree with Daryl. If you analyze the situation, who can afford to work when the price of gasoline being what it is? Who can afford to work when some of the insurance companys are getting horny about the milage you put on the car getting to and from work? Who can afford to work when the taxes are so damned high that a worker basically works for nothing? With these points in mind, who can afford to spend more money that what they make if they work a crappy paying job? If someone is on military retirement and social security, it is cheaper to stay home, especially when running part-time jobs for a supplemental income. If the correct amount of tax is withheld from these jobs, the jobs are really not worth going after because the paycheck is so damned small to begin with. Yeah...you guessed it. I got nailed by IRS for an additional $3,200 because I made more than the government allowed me to make while drawing pension. After looking at the fuel burned to drive to and from work, wear and tear on the vehicle, insurance costs, etc. I am better off to stay home. What I find amusing is high school graduates think they are going to land a $50,000 a year job as soon as they graduate are in for a nasty surprise. Most think they are going to go out and "set the world on fire" soon realize they are running out of matches. For the young people on these forums: Get a college education. You are not going to "make it" on a $10.00 per hour job. Those days are long gone. (Edited for a stupid typo. ) [ 04-03-2003, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: Paul G. Thompson ]  |  IP: Logged Larry Shaw Expert Film Handler Posts: 238 From: Boston, MA, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 04-03-2003 08:33 PM                        Christian, I'm sorry you've seen som badly adjusted E's. Of course anything can be made to work poorly. And I personally believe in the part of Murphy's law that says "Anything that improves a device can be made to screw that device up worse than ever". However there is really no question that the E movement can project a better picture than a Geneva, our's or others'. No way is it inferior! And they do last; just last week I was at Warner Bros in Burbank where one of the first EC's was installed. It's still in use every day (including slewing forward and reverse at 300 fps) after about 12 years (FWIW they were working on Matrix II that day). And meanwhile Warners has bought EC's for all its mix/ADR rooms in Burbank and Hollywood, so I guess they're satisfied. But don't worry, there is no plan to stop making Genevas. In fact within the last few years Kinoton has spent a huge amount on specialized high precision CNC machining centers so they can make the stars and cams ,etc in house. I think they are the only (quality) company doing this. Genevas are wonderful devices and for many screens the advantages of the E can't really be justified. And as long as price is the driving force in cinema equipment selection the Geneva will be with us. It will be a long, long time before an E will cost less than a D. Brad, Doing the "advance 1 perf" button wouldn't be too hard (I'd only have 1, just keep pushing until you like it). I will pass this idea along to the designers. The auto-framing could also be done, but who is going to get the kiddos to put the cues on correctly? Of course they'd have to be on each trailer, snipe and reel of the feature because splicing is so difficult to do in frame. And if some old center cue was left on the film from a previous theatre, or if one's automation used center cues...... Auto loop setting also could be done, but this would not be cheap to accomplish. In fact a mechanism of this sort was used on the MC's years ago. Of course other things like a "gate closed" switch (the FP-16's had one) would not be a bad idea either. Unfortunately the reality is that the theatre owners just won't pay for such things. As an example, Kinoton offered a auto-focus option a few years ago. Many tens (hundreds?) of thousands were spent developing it. A special video camera monitored the screen and a computer drove a very fast focus motor. I saw a demo in Germany. It worked great, you couldn't notice it focusing, but the image was always razor sharp, even when running short bits of different stocks. A thing like this would be a real boon to the industry, right? Especially in theatres with giant screens? How many were bought worldwide? Less than 10. It was discontinued. I think you can understand why the real world buying habits of thatre owners has a chilling effect on Kinoton's designs for cinema (as opposed to studio) equipment. Daryl, Some advantages of the E over the high speed Genevas (HSG): 1. In my experience the HSG doesn't last nearly as long as normal Genevas. 2. The HSG goes from 0 to full speed almost instantly, the E ramps up and down to protect film and reduce image jitter. 3. As Richard noted the large sprocket helps with film damage. 4. Field adjustment software eliminates jump. 5. Movement always stops "in lock", harder for kids to screw up framing. 6. In my experience the HSG isn't as steady as normal Genevas. 7. Continuous -and remotable- framing. I don't offhand know the dwell time, but I know that they chose to leave extra time between lock and shutter opening to allow the frame to stabilize fully, in other words they opted to go for enhanced stability over squeezing every bit of light through a less-than-optimally-stable image. And I do agree with you that paying for professional projectionists is the right soloution. Michael, Despite the sound you hear, no cats were harmed in the making of these intermittents!  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-03-2003 08:40 PM                     Thanks for your detailed answers, Larry. Yes I would very much like to see a "jump one perf" option along with a way to prevent (physical or software) the kiddies from ever being able to "fine tune" the framing between perfs. In regards to the auto framing, I was simply using the assumption that every theater has at least one person who can splice in frame. (This person usually builds the films.) That being the case, he puts the cues on the leaders once when they are built and that's the end of that. No more misframes. I am very interested about the discontinued auto focusing feature. What was the approximate cost of this? Were there any limitations? Did it work in dark scenes? Could it ever be sold again? You know, you can never have too much automation, no matter what that Steve guy says!  |  IP: Logged Don Bruechert Mmmmmmmmm, bird! Posts: 340 From: Manitowoc, WI, USA Registered: Jan 2003 posted 04-03-2003 09:19 PM                        Wow... You guys make $10 an hour?? I'm impressed! I get $7.50 and I'm both a manager and a projectionist (one of a team of 5).  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.