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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Uptown Theater ditches quality projectionists in search of a crappy presentation (Page 15)

This topic comprises 18 pages: 1  2  3  ...  12  13  14  15  16  17  18

Author Topic: Uptown Theater ditches quality projectionists in search of a crappy presentation Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-24-2005 04:16 PM                        What I want is a "fine" framing adjustment which has a full revolution (at least) of travel, but adjusts no more than one perf in either direction. There should also be a "coarse" framing adjustment which can be locked down if desired, and adjusts framing in one-perf increments, with a click stop or other indication that one has adjusted the framing by exactly one perf. That would make it easy to correct for a mis-framed splice without screwing up the exact positioning of the image relative to the frame (if that makes any sense). This should be trivial to implement in an electronic projector (if it hasn't been done already).  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 07-24-2005 07:14 PM                     ..got me on that one. Never heard of the JetArc lamphouse. Gotta picture of one? thx-Monte  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 07-24-2005 09:54 PM                     It's been done Scott, on the Showscan system at least. It is also something I asked the Kinoton boys from Germany to implement, but my idea to them went one farther in that you would put a cue across the frameline at the end of the leader that would function not only as a start/douser open cue, but would also function to "auto frame". Essentially, there would be sensors to see which of the 4 perfs the film was threaded on and jump 1 or 2 perforations in either direction on the intermittent to force it in frame. Then a "too big" and a "too small" loop sensor would work together to speed up or slow down the two constant speed sprockets. This way as long as the film was thrown into the projector with the correct threading path and soundtrack towards the operator, loop sizes and framing wouldn't matter. Every show would automatically adjust itself perfectly. (Of course no one likes my ideas.)  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 07-25-2005 03:50 AM                     I can see where Scott is coming from with his dual method of framing adjustments: kinda like shortwave radio with the coarse and fine tuning - a tuner with two knobs one inset of the other. Be a bit of a complicated and costly framing device with this method. Yet, one will be constantly fighting the fine tuning due to the labs just can't get the picture printed where it supposed to be being dead center between two sprocket holes, and there is no such thing as two reels being the same - one has to be slightly different than the other... One just have to live with what we have and make the best of it. -Monte  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 07-25-2005 04:06 AM                        quote: Brad Miller (Of course no one likes my ideas.) We've been talking about that one for years now! I think the projector manufacturers don't want to spend a few bucks in R&D to come up with a design that will do that.  |  IP: Logged Larry Shaw Expert Film Handler Posts: 238 From: Boston, MA, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 10-06-2005 08:05 PM                        Brad, the lack of enthusiasm for your auto-frame idea (and many other's ideas) may be due to Kinoton's having learned the hard way that most cinema owners just will not pay for advanced features. Example: a number of years ago Kinoton showed a FP-30D with auto focus (using a video camera aimed at a section of the screen feeding a computer driving a rapid acting focus motor). This thing worked great. I could repeatedly open and close the skate a bit and the image stayed right in focus. It added a couple thousand to the price. Sales? None. So after dumping lots of $$$ into R&D for things that the owners just won't buy, I suppose one gets tired of these expensive exercises. By the way, the Kinoton's E series always stops with the movement "set" so misframes from misthreading are way less likely, and the endless electronic framing can be remoted easily so framing errors can be corrected easily from the auditorium. Wow, those things coupled with better stability and focus; operator safety, etc; they must be jumping off the shelves! Well the PK-60E (primarily made for the US market) was discontinued due to almost non existant sales. Why? It cost more than a geneva machine. Larry  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-06-2005 10:35 PM                     I can only think of one screen out of about 700 that uses its remote focus and thats in Winnemucca, NV of all places..... two Prevost P-93's. Mark  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 10-07-2005 08:13 AM                     Many of our projectors in screening rooms and special venues have and take advantage of the remote focus capability. I think an issue, Larry, is the cost versus the perceived improvement. $2K-$3K is an awful lot of money to an exhibitor for that kind of improvement. It probably did not have anywhere near that much technology in it. You figure how much time is alotted to the showing of a movie in a multiplex and just how low they pay those people...the return on investment for an auto-focus machine at multiple thousands of dollars/per screen, will likely exceed the life of the modern theatre that tends to only be viable for 15-20 years. As to the PK60E...what does it offer the exhibitor for its added cost? Don't say picture steadiness. The PK60D is already steadier than most release prints can achieve. What is the difference in cost to not only purchase but maintain a mechanical movement versus electronic? Keep a mechanical movment (anybody's) in proper lubrication with some oil changes now and then and they are nearly indistructable. What an "E" machine does bring to the table is quite a bit in the right application. The ability to dial out the image movement for running "IK" prints...the ability to slow down the projector for running silent films without the need to change shutters or have horrid amounts of flicker. The ability to have a single machine that can handle different pulldowns (2-perf, 3-perf, 4-perf...etc)...and the list does go on. Unlike a mechanical intermittent, the "E" intermittent will run a 30fps show without thinking twice about it...again this points towards special venue. I would think most of the "E" customer base would be using FP30E(S), and the studio and special venue machines...that the PK60E and FP50E, targeted for mainstream cinema just wouldn't understand or see the value for the increased cost. Now if something like a 48fps format were to catch on, especially if it is less than 4-perfs per frame, then an "E" machine, would have distinct advantages for even the conventional cinema.  |  IP: Logged Larry Shaw Expert Film Handler Posts: 238 From: Boston, MA, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 10-07-2005 09:28 AM                        Mark, I was speaking of automatic focusing, not just a remote. Steve, you may be right about these devices (although personally greatly reducing misframes and bad focus by the inept would seem a boon to the industry), but I was mainly making the point that Kinoton may lack enthusiasm for ideas such as Brad's due to its having expended lots on other suggested improvements that were not supported by the exhibitors. Larry  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 10-07-2005 04:27 PM                     It seems to me that part of the problem is that at Kinoton, everything is an Option. For some of these improvements, you have to bite the bullet and make them standard. Yeah, that raises the price for everybody... [This is a marketing game. You don't see much Kinoton advertising, either, and none of it stresses the advantages of the E series.] --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 10-07-2005 05:05 PM                     So Larry, if someone wanted to buy a machine with the auto-focus option, would Kinoton still build it? I had no idea that was an option, but it's a damned cool one. (Plus that feature would make Steve happy because then film could be wound emulsion in without focus drift. )  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 10-10-2005 07:43 AM                        If you think about it, focusing an image from the projection room is probably the worst location for obtaining optimum focus, since you are farther from the screen than most everyone in the theatre. Kodak's screening rooms all have remote focus capability, so the image can be critically focused from near the screen.  |  IP: Logged Richard Fowler Film God Posts: 2392 From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA Registered: Jun 2001 posted 10-10-2005 10:41 AM                     Options = opportunity to have it your way instead of this what you get and no more Kinoton's core of standardized parts makes custom requirements easy to implement.....it is hard for most manufacturers to advertise everything they are capable of suppling.  |  IP: Logged Jon Miller Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 973 From: San Diego, CA, USA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 10-10-2005 08:48 PM                     Just curious...is the typical remote focus control on a screening room 35mm projector a “forward/back” control (similar to a Kodak Ektagraphic slide projector with remote focus) or a more precise servo control?  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 10-10-2005 08:56 PM                  quote: John Pytlak ...focusing an image from the projection room is probably the worst location for obtaining optimum focus... Gosh John, that's why I always carried binoculars in my goodie bag.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 18 pages: 1  2  3  ...  12  13  14  15  16  17  18

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.