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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » KINOTON vs CINEMECCANICA (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: KINOTON vs CINEMECCANICA Per Hauberg Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 883 From: Malling, Denmark Registered: Jul 2000 posted 08-16-2003 05:51 AM                        Why not say a 45 year old Rolls with a new Fiat - It sounds more honest, but the result will be the same...  |  IP: Logged Antonio Marcheselli Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1260 From: Florence, Italy Registered: Mar 2000 posted 08-16-2003 07:24 AM                        Uhm... I'm actually working with 11 Vic5 with standard gate. I worked before with 16 Vic5 with curved gate. I have to say that curved gate offers better image but it is a bit delicated, you have to manage it kindly and adjust it regularly. I made some tests with standard gate and I found no differences projecting with the maltese sprocket all way up and all way down... Are you sure? And, please, stop taking Italian's thing as negative examples!!!! Surely Cinemeccanica's are not precise mechanisms... Bye!! Antonio  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-16-2003 11:15 AM                     Cinemecanica is a precision machine And we have lots of vic 5's that give few problems as long as one changes the belts and makes sure the shutter gear box has lubricant in it (that was the reel issue with the old ones the greese flew away from the 2 plastic gears and never ran back in just stayed compacted around the outer edge of the box but that is a moot point with the new box The open solar cell did give problems but that is not there anymore with a reverse scan reader All in all they are a good servicable machine that chuggs along  |  IP: Logged Randy Bowden Expert Film Handler Posts: 146 From: Portland, OR, USA Registered: Aug 2000 posted 08-17-2003 04:00 AM                     This is a very interesting post, to say the least. Let me give my perspective as an equipment rebuilder. First of all, theIntermittent is the heart of the projector. A poorly designed intermittent can only, in the long run reslult in a less than reliable or quality image. of course film gate design must also be taken into account. I have rebuilt about 20-30 5-V intermittents and I must say that no other itermittent is as big a pain in the ass to rebuild! This is not to say that I can't make one run great. I will say this, however, cinemeccanica should talk to the people from Lavezzi and learn how to make a quality star and cam, at half the price! The common ground with the Kinotone and V-5 are the eccentric cam pin, this makes adjusting these movements a delicate operation. The american made machines do not have this, they have a fixed pin. comapring the two I would say the kinotone is a far better machine. I would have to say that in america there are far more simplex machines in service than anything else, yet I rebuild less of thesethan the Century machines, I also find myself fixing a lot of Christie intermittents, yet they have not been making projectors for a very long time, the bearings are just terrible. The point of all this....buy a simplex, they are still by far the most reliable machine and I fix everything so I know what I'm talking about!  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-17-2003 11:26 AM                     I tend to disagree about the construction of european movements being inferior to American ones. They are designed to a tighter tollerance because they typically have much larger cam and star wheels. And it is very rare that I ever get a european movment in for repair except through stupidity (sticking a screwdriver inot it while running) (or no oil for exceptionally long periods((in fact i have seen many of the european movements run dry for long periods of time with out a hicup))  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 08-17-2003 12:35 PM                       Using oversized parts doesn't require tighter tolerances, it allows for a larger margin of error. Who's doing the more-accurate work? Someone who can make a small cam and star work, or the one who has to use oversized? That speaks volumes about craftsmanship. Cinemeccanica, with their single-bearing movement and soft metal starwheel out in the open, are prone to being bent. Either from a misthread, or someone's elbow. I've serviced hundreds, if not thousands, of these machines and I know it is a flawed design. And yes, Brenkerts had single-bearing movements, too, but they were considerably more heavy-duty in design and manufacture, and they were in a protective enclosure. They also didn't extend far out from the movement like Cinemeccanicas do. Randy is right.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-17-2003 01:08 PM                     I wonder about that at one time Odeon and Famous players used vic5 and vic8 exclusivley and I can only barely remember a Vic 8 movement being replaced and I can only think of 2 vic 5's but I rememebr lots of century movements getting swapped out  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-17-2003 01:15 PM                     Ya know, I can't think of a single Kinoton intermittent we've had go down with projectors dating back to the '60s. The same can not be said about Cinemeccanica and we've never sold a one. The Cinemccanica is a far inferior machine, from the sprockets on out. It does have redeaming qualities but isn't a precise machine and its stability leaves something to be desired. As to the Simplex...if you keep oil in the machine, change it semi-regularly (every 6-12 months) it NEVER fails, just like the rest of the Simplex. Century intermittents, despite being much beefier require far more rebuilds than Simplex simply due to the lubrication system, in my opinon...if kept properly lubricated, the Century should bury most others in the intermittent department. But back to the topic at hand...A Cinemeccanica V-5 versus a Kinoton FP-30D (or other "D" series 35mm projector...they are all the same mechanism)...it isn't a close call...only a fool would take the Cinemeccanica based on projection performance, maintainence. With the Kinoton, you have one oil tube, a chain and a gear. The chain needs to be near oil about once a year, likewise with the gear (drives the shutter) should be lubed 6-months to a year...there is very little load on it...just the shutter. The intermittent is a drain and fill via the tube. Complete operation is about 2-5 minutes and costs just a few bucks for the oil...no messy belts. Steve  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 08-17-2003 02:58 PM                        Also, it takes only seconds literally to change gate bands, lateral guide rollers or pressure shoe. And of course, the gate bands never snap in the middle of the show. Please note it is spelled Kinoton, not Kiniton or Kinetone. The name means "cinema sound" because the company did sound services before taking over Philips` projector series.  |  IP: Logged Antonio Marcheselli Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1260 From: Florence, Italy Registered: Mar 2000 posted 08-17-2003 05:56 PM                        Michael, Kinoton, Kiniton, Cinemaccanica... Where are we living?? Bye! A  |  IP: Logged Thomas Jonsson Expert Film Handler Posts: 216 From: Bromolla, Sweden Registered: Sep 2003 posted 09-26-2003 03:23 PM                       I just HAVE to say this. One thing that´s absolutely first class are the original belts in the Victoria 5. I recently changed the belts that was delivered with the machines - 10 years ago!!! Or roughly 10.000 hours. And they were hardly worn. I know Kinoton are higher quality, but Cinemeccanica deserves at least SOME points? The basement-reader for DolbyDigital could get some points, too. It has never failed me.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 09-26-2003 03:59 PM                        quote: Man, its like comparing a 2003 Lamborghini to an old rusty Fiat!! As the not-so-proud owner of a 1992 Fiat Tempra which I'm about to get rid of and heave a sigh of relief (the f-----g thing has just broken down once too often, with apologies to Alastair Campbell), I'm not sure whether or not to take that as a compliment! The bottom line to me was that if a Vic went wrong the consequences might be a pain in the bum, but I knew I could fix the thing. I'd say that my technical skills were (and hopefully still are) good enough for all routine maintenance jobs and most first-line repairs, but the bottom line is that I'm not a trained engineer. With the FP-20s in one of my cinema workplaces, there were two or three breakdowns in which I knew that in trying to fix them, I was seriously out of my depth. One of those attempted repairs resulted in my making quite an expensive mistake (buggering an intermittent unit, basically). I've never, ever felt at risk like that when working on a Cinemec and would suggest that if a site is under the day to day management of people who do not have intimate knowledge of the things, then their quirks might not be a price worth paying for the considerably better picture that they can undoubtedly deliver. That having been said, the university at which I now work is about to equip one of its lecture theatres with FPs - but at least I know what I can safely touch and what I can't. I think what I'm trying to say is that Vic 5s are extremely tolerant of projectionists who need to keep them going without the level of technical support/backup you need in an ideal world. And that's something positive...  |  IP: Logged Ken McFall Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 615 From: Haringey, London. Registered: Apr 2001 posted 09-26-2003 04:14 PM                     OK I've worked extensivly on both projectors so I know what I'm talking about. The Vic 5 is a very capable projector. Everything is easy to replace or repair. If you look after it, as with any mechanical device, it give exceptional service. The FP series is a very well established projector series. Simple in many ways, complex is sooo many ways. Changing an intermittant sprocket is quite involved compared to a Vic5/8. Changing the framing bush is a very involved process and can easily result in tears! Its simplicity is arrived at by its design complexity and compactness. The Vic 5 is a 'Belt and Braces' design and benifits from that in so many ways, it is very forgiving and tollerent. The newer FP series is, in my opinion, overly reliant of electronics and is overdesigned. I recently worked on 15 FP40's with ASK1 automation and found the equipment to be quite stable but had many propblems due to over design. If I was parting with the cash I'd tend to go for a more robust and simpler design... the Vic 5 would win hands down. The FP series may well give an overall steadier picture but the Vic is easier to maintain in every respect. That's my opinon based on a lot of experience and I offer it in that respect only. An opinion.... NOT Gospel!  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 09-26-2003 05:57 PM                     I dunno...With a bunch of FP-20s in service and now a few of the D series (I'm leaving the E series out though that is what we have mostly been installing as of late)...the FP series is just so much better than my Vic 5 enounters. I think this arguement takes on a Simplex versus Century on this side of the pond.... The Century is quite capable and beloved by many...it is easy to work on and needs the most basic of tools. The Simplex, if maintained with good oil and such will out last most anything but if you are heavy handed, you can bugger it up and blaim the machine. However, if properly maintained (keep the oil fresh and the strainer cleaned) it will have far fewer service calls than the Century. The gears in the Century are easy to change but you WILL have to change them (except for the sprocket gears...they normally survive a good long time)...the shutter and main drive gears wear relatively fast. Back to the two machines under discussion...The current FP-30D or PK-60D are quite simple in both electronics and mechanics...I can't see where the Vic 5 with its tight shutter box spacing and belt drive can hold a candle to them. We have a set of PK-60Ds in service that now years later are still running along with ZERO service calls....no belts and only one change in skates (they are Film-Guarders so the skakes even last a long time). Steve  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-28-2003 11:06 AM                     OK, in all comparison fairness how about a Morris Minor Vs. a Shelby Mustang Cobra??? Mark  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

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.