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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » 5-Star soundhead question (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: 5-Star soundhead question Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-23-2004 04:34 PM                     I dunno Brad, yours and my "in-the-field" results differ more than not...take emulsion-in versus out...In these parts...emulsion-in polyester or otherwise still yields the most stable focus...yet in your part of the world it does not. As to Mark...most of his posts are "This is the only right way" so why would this be any different. One problem of using synthetic oil from the start of freshly machined items is that is makes the break in period intermably long...I tend to start with real and then move to synth. Steve  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-23-2004 05:11 PM                     Emulsion in up here yeilds more stable results too and the orginal rubber roller from strong definitley yeilds better results on most basement readers than the OEM ones and as for synthetic oil I think everyone knows my opinions on that issue  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-23-2004 06:44 PM                     Steve, Most of my posts are related "From expericnce", not that "I say this is the only right way" as you state. I thank god that I'm right only some of the time as is everyone else here, so I generally speak from experience instead. Much of my input in past years is also because of the fact that I also care enough to buy what ever test gear is deemed necessary to make or break a point and or to do a test properly on some piece of equipment. Flutter is only one thing that I've measured, and on just about every optical reproducer in existance... ripple and inrush are another two and so on and so forth. Certainly you don't have any objection to me trying to do things the right way. Not many other dealers or techs care much about some of the minor things that I do. As for the roller issue all you have to do is measure the difference with a W&F bridge and 3khz flutter film. Without the rubber roller higher flutter is easily measured on the 5 star, on the 4 star its not as high but still higher than with. The idea of eliminating the roller was not mine.. like Brad I also liked the idea at first.... I just had happened to aquire a couple of 4 stars with a steel spacer in them instead of the rubber roller. All of my tests were carried out with same manufacturers projector heads mounted on the sound heads, X-L on Simplex, Kakee model 21 projector on Kalee sound head, etc., all tests were also done with asynchronus motors so as not to spoil or possibly increase the flutter reading with the pole hunting that sometimes comes from certain types of sync motors. Steve K may remember some of these tests as I believe he helped do some of them and I seem to remember him also thinking that it was a great idea to eliminate the rubber roller. All tests were carried out with Acetate Flutter film not Estar.. so I can't speak for estars effects on flutter in these reproducers but that would be an interesting test to perform. In regards to synthetics I agree that break in time is alot longer, but break in time really isn't a factor in a projector except for seeing a diminishing amount of metal and phenolic or fibre particles in the lubricant. According to Mobil who manufactures the majority of the worlds synthetic oil when having had regular oil in a mechanism the effectiveness of a pure synthetic will always be somewhat stymied by other contaminants of the regular oil of which traces will long remain in a given mechanism. If you're willing to tear down that mechanism and clean off all the origninal regular oil then you will see very effective results when using synthetic, but of course with some mechanisms that are not dowel pin located you're right back at square one and have to break in the mechanism all over. This is one reason why many high end car manufacturers are filling engines with synthetics right at the factory these days. I believe the Corvette and Porchse are among them. Mark  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 05-23-2004 07:32 PM                     Mark, I've no idea how similar the 4 star and the 5 star soundheads are (never seen a 4 star), but this trick works dandy on a 5 star. It will not work on SH-1000 type soundheads. People with those are just screwed.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-23-2004 08:33 PM                     Brad, The 4 star is the same as the SH-1000. It does work but takes forever for the stabilizer to get up to speed. The reason the 5 star drum comes up to speed faster is because of the spring loaded and damped stabilizer roller. A similar sprung and damped roller between the projector and 4 star soundhead stabilizer will cause it to speed up about the same as on a 5 star. Mark  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-24-2004 07:35 AM                     Also Mark the 4 star has a double flywheel (one iside the other coupled via a viscus oil) and it needs the higher pressure than the solid one on the 5 star  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 05-24-2004 11:41 PM                     Yes Mark, I am well aware of the damper roller and why it works. I've tried it before on an SH-1000 and after ramping up the projector twice gave up on that idea...just like you did. You should however try the mod in a real 5 Star though. I will do the Guttag-test this week and see how long it takes for the damper roller to relax back into running position after startup for changeover houses.  |  IP: Logged Wolff King Morrow Master Film Handler Posts: 490 From: Denton, TX, USA Registered: Feb 2004 posted 05-26-2004 01:13 PM                        I've got a quick question about the 5-star sound head I figured I could ask here. When I first started doing projection last year, I was trained (along with all the other projectionists) to thread the damper roller such that it was half-way in between the screw guards. Eventually I developed the habit of pulling the damper more towards the right "silver" screw rather than in the middle as normal. Lately, we started having problems with analog sound not being detected in one of the projectors. This never happened to me, which I assumed was because I had been threading it differently than everyone else. I went back and swabbed all the lenses to be certain after hearing about the problem. Anyway, I found the 5-star Sound Head manual and it states that the damper "must be pulled to the stop-point and then back off one sprocket". Unless I'm mistaken, this sounds a lot like what I'm already doing. I just want to have this confirmed by more experienced projectionists before I adopt it as the official way we thread up. Thanks!  |  IP: Logged John T. Hendrickson, Jr Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 889 From: Freehold, NJ, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-26-2004 08:00 PM                     Wolff- That is correct. Steve Guttag discribed it best: one full perf backed off from full tension. My parts have been ordered from Strong. I will be replacing the friction roller, bearings, and roller shaft. I also ordered some additionals of these parts in anticipation of other heads going south. Thanks to all for your advice.  |  IP: Logged Josh Jones Redhat Posts: 1207 From: Plano, TX Registered: Apr 2000 posted 05-30-2004 05:39 PM                        Although I would tend to believe the engine crankcase enviroment to be completely different from the projector gearcase enviroment, at least on sportbikes, they are coming from the factory with synth oil. Josh  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-30-2004 05:45 PM                     Josh, You are exactly right!! The crankcase environment is far harsher than a projector... and hence synthetic oil when used in a projector can last a long long time... at least if it wasn't for all the particles that never get filtered out in most projectors. Mark  |  IP: Logged Josh Jones Redhat Posts: 1207 From: Plano, TX Registered: Apr 2000 posted 05-30-2004 05:56 PM                        I have also heard that, like others have said, it is better to break in a machine, or engine for that matter, with dino oil, as the break-in period is shorter, and in the case of engines allows the piston rings to set correctly. After break-in, then switch to synth oil. A friend of mine who techs has said that as of late he has been switching XL's to brenkert oil. he said it seems to fix a lot of problems, and amazingly, they dont leak any worse than before the switch! Josh  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 05-30-2004 10:47 PM                     AW ISO-10 High-Speed Spindle Oil is great for projectors that have nothing but bushings instead of ball bearings. The only ball bearing Brenkert had was the thrust bearing on the main input shaft. Everything else in that machine was bushings. I would be just a little afraid to use ISO-10 in a projector that is equipped with ball bearings up the Gazoo. I honestly don't know how well they would stand up to such a thin oil. Seems to me it could lead to an early bearing failure. True, it probably would not really cease because there is no real load on the bearing - so it might be OK. I have seen bearing failures on equipment that had nominal loads on the bearings where the oil viscosity was too light. An example is a roller bearing crankshaft with roller bearing rods. Harley Davidson comes to mind.... But on the same token, many jet aircraft engines used synthetic oil for lubrication. It was known as MIL-PRF-6081 (formerly known as MIL-L-6081) Lubricating Oil Grade 1010. I am trying to find out just how heavy that stuff is, but I have had no real luck yet. However, the last time I shook the crap out of a can of that stuff, it rattled around in there like one would expect to hear from just plain old Texaco WF-31. Slightly heavier than ISO-10.  |  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.