Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Horizontal Movement On Strong Millennium

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Horizontal Movement On Strong Millennium (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: Horizontal Movement On Strong Millennium

James Westbrook
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1133
From: Lubbock, Texas, Usa
Registered: Mar 2006

posted 02-05-2009 02:11 AM

Paul or Eric?

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-05-2009 08:51 AM

Ha! You're right... Eric! LOL

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 02-05-2009 01:06 PM

Come to think of it - there is a couple of occurance with the Mils that I was aware of: is the adjustment for the sliding Century gate - how far does it need to be forward when it locks into place.

Two machines had their band tension setting all the way to "5" and the picture was still not fully steady.

I had to loosen the two bevel allen screws that locks this assembly in place and slide the assembly forward about 1/16" to get more tension on the bands.

With this, it cured my image problem and allowed me to get my tension settings down to "1" - where it really supposed to be for miminal band wear.

Only thing that really bugs me about the Mil is the discontuning of the larger pad roller grab knobs that are on the earlier "XL" units.

Why did STRONG put shorter grab knobs on the pad roller arms (course, why does STRONG do what they do anywhos when taking a good thing and 'trying to make it better when it was good in the first place') ???

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God

Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004

posted 02-05-2009 02:29 PM

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Why did STRONG put shorter grab knobs on the pad roller arms (course, why does STRONG do what they do anywhos when taking a good thing and 'trying to make it better when it was good in the first place') ???

Because regrettably it seems to be their standard mode of operation, let's save a few cents on each unit by cutting corners on anything possible.

With the price of this equipment, such stupid decisions are annoying. I realize if they had production runs in the hundred thousand units, such a cost savings could be substantial. But with the limited runs it would seem more costly to re-tool or modify than any possible savings.

Prime example: late-model switchers.

The early runs had comprehensive LED indicators on the outer case to show full status of internal boards, fuses, etc. They were (Green: 20vdc, Vin, Fuse, GO) and (Red: Temp, Vin, Module, Strike, Ripple) Very handy to help diagnose any problems.

Now we're down to just 4 LEDs (Green: Vin and GO) and (Red: Temp and Module)....and yet, if you open the unit up the PCB still has the spaces for ALL of the LEDs and the related support parts.

I bet it cost MORE to re-tool the sheet metal top than it would have to keep the LEDs.

And the hideous cast framing handle on the PR-1014's, etc...that was brought about as they had changed the sealing on the framing knob shaft (which, except for drive-ins with an upward tilt, was NEVER a leak issue) making it very hard to turn. I would bet the cast knob cost a LOT more in R&D (or maybe not since it looks like it was made in some hack's garage) than the phenolic knobs (which they still use on the non-op side.)

All the machines I have installed, I replace that cast knob with the phenolic one, and I cut the spring on the shaft seal to reduce the tension, and I still have no leak or other issues.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 02-05-2009 02:43 PM

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Why did STRONG put shorter grab knobs on the pad roller arms

Because the longer ones would catch some lenses when the turret rotated (I think the pad roller had to be open to catch the lens.

While it is easy to jump on Strong...they DID do positive things for the equipment too.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Eric Robinson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 538
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Registered: Jan 2005

posted 02-05-2009 03:54 PM

quote: Eric Robinson
Lateral guide rollers inner and outer are perfect.

ie. not frozen open. Inner lateral guide roller springs back and forth.

I might check into Montes idea of moving the entire gate closer to the trap. I wonder if there is some mechanical spec for this? One tricky part about this type of adjustment is making sure the gate and trap are perfectly aligned horizontally so that the foucus is even from top to bottom.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-05-2009 07:03 PM

Might the curved runner be worn or the gate bands be too loose??? Have you tried another set of gate bands or the runner off another machine?

Mark

| IP: Logged

Ken Lackner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1907
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Registered: Sep 2001

posted 02-05-2009 07:15 PM

Off topic:

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
And the hideous cast framing handle on the PR-1014's, etc...that was brought about as they had changed the sealing on the framing knob shaft (which, except for drive-ins with an upward tilt, was NEVER a leak issue) making it very hard to turn. I would bet the cast knob cost a LOT more in R&D (or maybe not since it looks like it was made in some hack's garage) than the phenolic knobs (which they still use on the non-op side.)

HUH??? Are you talking about the gray handle that was was introduced on the Millenium (or very late 1060's that are almost Melleniums except for the gate and electronics in the turret)? How is that hideous? It makes it much much easier to rotate the shaft. Anywho, I thought it was just a direct replacement for the black knob and either can still be ordered.

| IP: Logged

Richard Hamilton
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1341
From: Evansville, Indiana
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 02-05-2009 08:13 PM

quote: Ken Lackner
It makes it much much easier to rotate the shaft.

Why do you need to?

| IP: Logged

Ken Lackner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1907
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Registered: Sep 2001

posted 02-05-2009 08:38 PM

When I do PM, I frame the intermittent all the way down so I can see the oil flow coming out of the funnel drip tube.

[Big Grin]

As for hideous, well, I guess it's a matter of personal preference, but I think the new handle looks much better than the old knob.

| IP: Logged

Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God

Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004

posted 02-05-2009 09:18 PM

Off-off topic: [Big Grin]

quote: Ken Lackner
HUH??? Are you talking about the gray handle that was was introduced on the Millenium (or very late 1060's that are almost Melleniums except for the gate and electronics in the turret)? How is that hideous? It makes it much much easier to rotate the shaft. Anywho, I thought it was just a direct replacement for the black knob and either can still be ordered.

Yes, I am talking about the gray handle, it looks like a cheap piece of shit that was molded by a 2 year-old, if Strong hadn't fucked with the framing shaft design in the first place you wouldn't need the leverage of that piece of crap casting, and yes you can still order the original knob, which is what I do for all the new installs.

Oh, and it has another drawback: in certain positions it interferes with the opening/closing of the door.

quote: Ken Lackner
As for hideous, well, I guess it's a matter of personal preference, but I think the new handle looks much better than the old knob.

Then the last dozen installs I've done the clients all noticed it before I changed it out and they ALL agreed it was hideous and very cheap looking, which is too bad, since as I have admitted in a few other posts, Strong DID make the XL castings much nicer than the older ones.

I was gonna make a wise-ass comment to Richard's post but I'm gonna be nice. [evil]

| IP: Logged

Jeremy Weigel
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1062
From: Edmond, OK, USA
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 02-06-2009 01:16 AM

I had Millenniums attached to Super Highlight 2 (1999) consoles and found that vibration from the front blower would cause shaking of the image. As a quick fix I jammed a cardboard poster tube between the wall the blower to lessen the amount of vibration until I had a chance to dismount and clean the blower fins.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 02-06-2009 02:55 AM

My other bug about the Mils, yet this is a small bug: Being that they extended the main case to handle the new turret, you can tell that the upper sprocket assembly boss, having being raised, was trimmed down to fit within this new case.

That's okey, but with this sprocket being higher than a standard "XL" unit, the upper loop, if being slightly made too big, the film - when entering the trap, rubs hard against the top corner of the trap bands and can wear that part of the band down in no time.

I know they couldn't do drastic redesigning of the case to keep the classic vertical shaft transmission intact, but wish, since they moved the sprocket upwards, is to move it forwards as well so the upper loop can be made correctly and allow the film to enter into the trap area underneath that contact point mention above....like how the P35GPS units are designed. Now that's some space between sprocket and trap that is present there.

Yea, the "T" handle framer is something else...yet on the backside is the classic black "FRAME" knob....

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 02-06-2009 06:29 AM

Tony...the extra friction on the framing came from when they sealed up the INTERMITTENT CAM to the frame...that red O-ring...not the framing shaft itself.

Steve

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 02-06-2009 06:55 AM

I tend to agree with Tony generally; the money spent on reducing the cost to manufacture seems misplaced, and for some items (not all I admit) I think customers would be willing to pay the few extra dollars.

For example, you would think 'automatic' safety features would be desired with today's unattended projectors. Yet they removed the feed sprocket film stripper (I notice with amusement that the CNC machine still runs a tap through the holes- one of which is cut in half.) On both the Centurys and Millenums, the fire safety shutter has been removed.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

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.