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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » MiT platter design review (Page 2)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

Author Topic: MiT platter design review Jason Burroughs Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 654 From: Allen, TX Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-13-2004 06:08 PM                     On the MUT a light under the table with a translucent window is handy when making splices. But for the love of God. Put a switch accessable from top side of the MUT, so you don't have to crawl around on the floor to turn it on/off. I'm not crazy about the multiple roller clusters on take up. Maybe a slide bar assembly, like the Speco platter with a spring loaded pin that locks into a hole in the slide bar? That seemed pretty durable. Also make sure that the payout provides at least a SMALL amount of back tension on the film, so you don't have the platter paying out faster than the projector can take it up (read Brad's review of the original SPECO payout review). Also, please please, make sure that in the payout that you don't have to "thread" the film underneath anything, like the Strong or unmodified SPECO pay outs. I do like the idea of rollers instead of just posts around the payout though.  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 01-13-2004 06:51 PM                    I am not a fan of the internal drive wheel because if for some reason the platter deck becomes warped it hits the top of the drive spindles as it turns. Bring up the payout directional roller so it is not at the very bottom of the tree.  |  IP: Logged John Walsh Film God Posts: 2490 From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way Registered: Oct 1999 posted 01-13-2004 08:30 PM                     I don't see how the connection from the platter to the MUT is done, but I'd like to suggest NOT having to plug the MUT cable in at the motors, as is done for Neumade/Potts. Having that cable hang down could mess up the decks below. I would prefer a MUT that plugs in at one place below the decks, like Christie/Strong AP platters.  |  IP: Logged Bevan Wright Expert Film Handler Posts: 176 From: Fountain Valley, CA, USA Registered: Sep 2003 posted 01-13-2004 08:35 PM                        MUT will plug in at the base of the column. Non-reversible, keyed AMP plug. The plug for the failsafe interlock will also be located there. All cover plates with plugs will be removable with screws (not rivets) for easier access.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 01-13-2004 08:49 PM                     There's nothing to grab onto for moving the brain. I like Kinoton's IMAX brain with the "fence" instead of using posts or rollers. People misthread on those, but a 180 degree "fence" around the backside would not only prevent that from happening, but also give something to grab on to.  |  IP: Logged Bevan Wright Expert Film Handler Posts: 176 From: Fountain Valley, CA, USA Registered: Sep 2003 posted 01-13-2004 08:53 PM                        We were thinking of under-cutting the block holding the rollers to give you a sort of handle, with your palm resting on the top of the rollers and fingers protruding into the undercut block. The perimeter fence would require two hands to lift it straight up. Speaking of IMAX, what is the opinon on staggering the decks say 10-20 degrees side to side like an IMAX platter? It would give easier access to the feed plates/platter decks but increase the footprint.  |  IP: Logged Dustin Mitchell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1865 From: Mondovi, WI, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 01-13-2004 09:16 PM                     Just out of curiosity Brad why do you want black rollers instead of grey? For those of us who don't filmgaurd all our prints (yes, we still exist) having the rollers a color other than black makes cleaning them much easier.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 01-13-2004 09:27 PM                     Please don't stagger the decks. 52" decks are fine so long as you don't make the top deck any higher than an AW3. Any color roller other than black over time, with or without FilmGuard, will discolor. Black doesn't. The rollers continue to look like new 20 years later. It's a cosmetic thing.  |  IP: Logged John Walsh Film God Posts: 2490 From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way Registered: Oct 1999 posted 01-13-2004 10:30 PM                     Does the industry really need full 52" decks? I don't know about everyone else, but trailer placement has become a big issue with the distributors now, so it seems we're always changing trailers, sometimes simply rearranging the order because of a request by a distributor. Shorter people seem to have a tough time reaching in there. Could we measure "LOTR" and just add an inch? I think I would rather be forced to have an intermission for the very rare 3 hour plus movie, but have it easier to reach in there to change/add trailers, snipes, etc.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 01-13-2004 11:18 PM                     I prefer the extra capacity of a standard 52" deck myself over a 48" deck. Anything smaller wouldn't work on those long movies, and you're only saving 2 inches. At that point, tell the short projectionists to use the bottom two decks on trailer changing days. It's good to use that bottom deck from time to time anyway.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-13-2004 11:36 PM                     the staggering of the decks would allow better access of each larger deck for trailer changes I kind of like that idea  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-13-2004 11:58 PM                     Brad, I have to chuckle as you keep asking for an AW-3 . Why not just stick with the real thing in the first place. Its already proven, tested, modified and has an excellent track record and its your very favorite platter . I for one don't need any more new equipment that hasn't been field proven and that I may have to waste time going out to make warranty repairs to..... Mark  |  IP: Logged Mike Olpin Chop Chop! Posts: 1852 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Jan 2002 posted 01-14-2004 12:07 AM                     Since Mark brought it up, I like the brain on the AW-3 really well. Extreamely easy to thread. No "brainwork" required!  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 01-14-2004 12:52 AM                     Mark, you are correct I am perfectly happy with the AW3 as it stands right now. However the guys at MIT have already made some improvements to their design over the AW3. I just don't want to see something done that will make me continue to prefer the AW3, when they are trying so hard to improve on something that is already an outstanding design. If these guys didn't truly care, they wouldn't be here asking everyone's opinions. Not to steer this thread off-topic too far, but lets say you are a die-hard Simplex man. Are you saying that you would not consider the Apogee projector simply because it has not been field tested and proven for many years, even though we all know it is a great improvement to the Simplex on many levels? That's just nuts.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 01-14-2004 02:44 AM                        Rollers should be conductive to provide a path to ground to help dissipate static.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

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.