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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » MiT platter design review (Page 5)

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

Author Topic: MiT platter design review Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 01-25-2004 01:59 AM                       I never cared much for that orientation, either. The arms were always getting bumped and bent, and it was easy for the film to fall off, even with a keeper. Christie had the right idea putting it under the deck, out of the way, but they did need to do some kind of a shock absorber for the tail out (as on the AW-2, but maybe not as primitive). The nylon finger inside that assembly, which keeps the feedout plate restricted during takeup, was always getting broken.  |  IP: Logged Bevan Wright Expert Film Handler Posts: 176 From: Fountain Valley, CA, USA Registered: Sep 2003 posted 01-25-2004 06:40 AM                        Tim, we have simplified that mechanism quite a bit by using two optimized and independent filter/sensor assmeblies - one for payout and one for take-up. We've also added a bumper on the return arm stop rest.  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 01-25-2004 09:04 AM                       Excellent! I should've figured as much. You guys are good.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 01-26-2004 03:22 AM                     Please keep the arm under the deck for the reasons already listed here...and whatever you do don't copy that foolish "film must return at X number of inches off of the floor if you want to be able to takeup onto the bottom platter" Kinoton nonsense. Each platter should follow the same threading path as each other (like a Christie does). There shouldn't be a seperate roller to skip or go over to get to/from a specific deck.  |  IP: Logged John Walsh Film God Posts: 2490 From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way Registered: Oct 1999 posted 01-26-2004 08:40 AM                     Perhaps there could be some kind of external connection allowing someone to take DC ripple measurments across the shunt without opening the console door.  |  IP: Logged Bevan Wright Expert Film Handler Posts: 176 From: Fountain Valley, CA, USA Registered: Sep 2003 posted 01-26-2004 09:27 AM                        Eh, it was a thought. Consider it dismissed.  |  IP: Logged Paul Konen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 981 From: Frisco, TX. (North of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-01-2005 12:33 AM                     Bevan, from what I have seen, the three sections of takeup rollers should be able to be locked out of the way. I mean, there is already a spot to insert a pin or something to keep the unused rollers tucked around the back section, but a small divit or bump in the assy would make it faster or easier to swivel the right one in or out of place. Also, it seems like the bottom takeup assy would cause an extreme twist in the film coming off the first return roller.  |  IP: Logged Bevan Wright Expert Film Handler Posts: 176 From: Fountain Valley, CA, USA Registered: Sep 2003 posted 01-01-2005 05:13 PM                        Yes, we are adding a ball detent to hold those back. It is a little closer that I would like as well, the swivel action does help quite a bit.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 01-01-2005 05:58 PM                     Bevan, are the platters you are shipping right now essentially the same as what I saw at ShoWest, or did you fix the issues I pointed out? I'd have to have one in front of me again to recall all of the design problems, and since you asked everyone for input and then the final product failed to incorporate all of the "don't do this" scenarios, I must now pick on you. A few off of the top of my head: *Film cleaner mount only usable for giants. So MiT's opinion is that only tall people deserve to have good presentations, eh? Really now, put it waist high like the AW3 where it will actually get used. Don't pull any BS with the platter mount (BS=Big Sky of course). *Lose the 9 rollers on the takeup side...yes NINE! Each platter deck does not need this, and it does not permit the rollers to be truly aligned with each other either. The takeup needs a simple and proven slide bar design of some sort with the required 3 rollers (AW3 or SPECO). *The brain doesn't need to weigh 80 pounds. If it gets dropped, sure the plate won't break, but the rollers on it will. This needs to be knocked down to AW3 brain weight, or a couple pounds more. *Lose 3 cheezy rollers around the brain that film can get tangled in and replace with preferred "fence" (Kinoton IMAX brain) or the second best option would be to use "posts" (AW3 brain). The fence would be 180 degrees around the back side of the brain and would offer the ultimate in film protection during a wrap as well as provide a super easy something to grab onto for removal and carrying of the brain. Plus it would make it IMPOSSIBLE for the film to get caught on the wrong side of those stupid "protection" rollers (ala Strong) which would then initiate a brain wrap. *Upper and lower rollers (to and from projector) must be able to pivot at least 200 degrees (in the same direction) like the AW3, SPECO, Strong and most all other platters. The design at ShoWest FORCED you to turn the platter so that it pointed at the projector. Not well thought out at all. Remember, not every booth has the kind of space available that the designers would like. (Don't feel too bad though, Kinoton still hasn't been able to properly reengineer their platter either. Their last attempt permitted the upper roller to pivot 180 degrees in one direction, but the lower roller pivots 180 degrees in the OTHER direction. Well that's just great that they now can advertise "pivoting rollers", but even though the rollers do technically pivot, they mine as well not since they pivot in different directions. USELESS!!!) *Make rollers black. Really, that's an easy one. Why oh why was this not done? Come on Bevan, the platter shows promise, but right now it warrants a failing grade. Show us how much you care and fix it. Where's the MUT? You never posted pics or drawings. Hopefully the boys at MiT were smart enough to mimick the Christie MUT and not some of the shitty ones (like Strong, since it is the biggest piece of shit design of them all).  |  IP: Logged Bevan Wright Expert Film Handler Posts: 176 From: Fountain Valley, CA, USA Registered: Sep 2003 posted 01-02-2005 06:53 AM                        Brad, platters have changed since ShoWest (ShowEast had most of the latest changes), we implemented as many of the changes as we could and some smaller refinements are still in the works. Cleaner mount, one is still in the 5ft location another optional bracket can be fit in the middle - 3ft location. Feed plate has been reduced from 9lbs to 4.8lbs. Take-up clusters were made to swing out of the way (I'll post a picture). Guide rollers on the feed plate were reduce to two (Joes idea I think) at 180 deg around the back. Incoming and outgoing rollers can swivel at least 180deg. Rollers are still dark grey, done to provide some contrast against the black brackets so you can see them in a dark booth. MUT, we made it so that anyones MUT can be used with our platter. Some only require a harness others a pot and a harness to convert. Take your pick. Our standard MUT is similar to Strongs, this was required for some south-of-the-border customers who don't get their prints on reels (or even cores) and like the ability to rewind on the MUT. We know everyone has their own likes and dislikes on the MUT that is why we provide the coversion kit options - this also allows people to re-use existing tables... I've been in a lot of booths with extra or scavanged MUTs. As with any product, refinements will be forthcoming as we find the needs and the time.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 01-02-2005 07:04 AM                        So it will even power the Christie MUT? That's one of the things I hated about Strong MUTs is that I'd have to plug it into the tree as well as the wall. I'm sure someone has suggested this but it would be nice to have an AC outlet right by the MUT hookup on the tree so you don't have wires going every which way when a MUT like the Strong is hooked up. Plus everyone loves AC outlets and it would be a great place to plug in the camcorder when bootlegging movies (the computers recording and compressing would already be plugged into the lamphouse).  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 01-02-2005 07:07 AM                     I'll have to swing by Denton at some point and take a look at the new modifications. It sounds like some improvements have been made, and others ignored. That junker horizontal Strong MUT design will forever prevent me and many others from ever considering your platters for an install though. That's a dealbreaker any way you slice it! I know you are offering conversion kits for "leftover MUTs", but what about brand new theater installs? Do you actually think someone would buy the MiT platter and then go to Christie to buy their MUT? Nope. In the end AW3s would be installed. You should seriously rethink that decision. I also don't think I ever got an answer regarding backtension during breakdown. Does the MiT platter require the motor to be physically disengaged from the platter deck (like Strong, and other junk platters), or does it remain in position to provide back-drag (ala AW3 and SPECO)?  |  IP: Logged Bevan Wright Expert Film Handler Posts: 176 From: Fountain Valley, CA, USA Registered: Sep 2003 posted 01-02-2005 08:34 AM                        A vertical MUT is on the 'to do' list. [Joe, with the kit it will power the Christie mut. Ours is powered from the platter as well.] Suggestions were all evaluated and some trade-offs had to be made. Teardown can be accomplished either way. Kinda early for you Brad on a Sunday morning (or is it reeeally late).  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 01-02-2005 05:00 PM                     I dunno Brad...it seems like you want MIT to make nearly exact duplicates of Christie equipment. Whats the point...just buy the Christie if you feel that is "THE" way to make the stuff. Personally, I can't stand the Chrisite use of the 6-pin JONES plug for power and MUT control. the 6-pin JONES is distinquished by the ability to force the plug in upside down. I've yet to get a complaint about the MUT needing a separate power cord. I have found that some customers prefer the vertical reel (my preference too) and some like the horizontal reel. Do what Kinoton did (and for a while SPECO and Christie)...offer two MUTs...have it your way. Ah screw it...you'd be better off running changeovers anyway! Steve  |  IP: Logged Tony Bandiera Jr Film God Posts: 3067 From: Moreland Idaho Registered: Apr 2004 posted 01-02-2005 06:47 PM                     Bevan: Just make sure you incorporate safeguards (Fuses) in the MUT circuits to prevent the meltdown discussed in the thread "Bad Judgement = Damaged Equipment = Destroyed Print = Cancelled Show" And thank you for getting rid of that stupid Jones connector!!  |  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.