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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Simplex PR 1050 Gate/Trap Tension (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Simplex PR 1050 Gate/Trap Tension Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 08-20-2005 11:28 PM                     quote: Mark Gulbrandsen Thats why I prefer DTS! The track is in a no contact area...at least if the machinery is set up correctly. I prefer real projectionists who know how to take care of their prints.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 08-21-2005 02:04 AM                     quote: John Hawkinson We use abbreviations and shorthand like that in-and-out of our daily lives. ..and I get chewed out for using INT for intermittent (lol)... quote: Brad Miller real projectionists who know how to take care of their prints Unfortunately, in this day and age, we have to make things simple for these circuits who uses those "B"-ushers running their complexes, instead of paying to have "real" projectionists to run things correctly - thus why DTS is the easiest digital to use (as long as they remember to switch the discs around when moving prints around). I say this because I'm SURROUNDED by these morons at work and in this area here. Maybe, it's time for us "real" projectionists either to retire and forget all about this, or find a different career and watch the movie-going world do it's thing as it wants to. -Monte  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 08-21-2005 02:15 AM                     Monte, think about what you just said. Anyone who is a lousy projectionist surely won't be bothered with moving those dts discs around.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 08-21-2005 02:24 AM                     lol...true. And I've seen piles of discs floating around in many booths due to the extreme laziness (or lack of knowledge-which is usually the latter) of booth handling. ..if they would only know.... So..in comes SR-D as the 2nd best for Digital. A little wear between the sprocketholes that can still keep a decent error rate, but no discs to mess with. Now, that is what's called "simple." -monte  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-21-2005 10:15 AM                     quote: Monte L Fullmer and I get chewed out for using INT for intermittent Who in the world would do that?  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 08-21-2005 11:40 AM                     lol...I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count..  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 08-21-2005 12:09 PM                     Wellllll, Monte. "Which ones are acceptable versus which are not are driven by accepted practice and convention." and then: "and I get chewed out for using INT for intermittent (lol)" That's because most people don't understand your TLAs (Three Letter Abbreviations); they aren't commonplace, and are often inscrutable, especially for new Film-Tech participants who are trying to learn. I think using INT, CHR, etc., is a bad idea, and I do wish you would spell out the word; it's not as if they are really long multi-word polysyllabic behemoths. It makes FT (Film-Tech!) a lot friendlier to use the spelled-out words. --jhawk p.s.: Gordon, right you are! How could I have forgotten the new RP 40 edition? Shocking!  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-21-2005 12:45 PM                     In truth, I also find the 3-letter abbreviations annoying or the other oddity...MIL2000...it is a PR-2000 or Millenium...even in the 3-letter world it would just be MIL (too close to Mil-spec, I guess). Now there are other common place abbreviations that have been used since ASCII or text messaging has been around...things like LOL (laughing out Loud), IIRC (If I Recall Correctly) that I will conceed have been in use by non industry people since before the WWW (World Wide Web). They tend to be expressions or sayings rather than a contraction of a proper name. Often, just a model number is sufficient...does the AW3 conjur up anything in this forum other than Christie platter by that name? If it did share a name with a common piece, then I can see adding the manufacturer to the name. In the case of 2000...there can be MANY...Just from Simplex there is the PR2000 and the TU2000. However, the PR and TU pretty much narrows down the field. Back on the first level of off topic...the RP40...it is not proper to call the film by that name. The Document is RP40 without a date...the date denotes the latest revision...if one were to quote a statement off the document, as John P just might...then it is proper to denote the revision since anything that is revised may have changed since the last revision and what was correct in yesteryear may no longer be the case. The test film described in RP40 is called 35-PA...you can't order RP40 from SMPTE (without just getting a paper describing the test film) but your can order 35-PA or 35-IQ. The problem wiht the target was that it contained (and It probably still does, I can't recall) the "RP-40" name on the target...making the mistaken name very easy to understand. Since the same target is used for IQ as PA, it would not be possible to have the designation change. It also would drive cost way up to change targets and then recheck accuracy (waste film and time). In any event, 35PA with BH-1866 is a poor target to use to set gate tension, or depth in motion picture projectors. It is best used for measuring resolution and projected image (including shutter ghost). Will gate depth affect resolution across the image, quite possibly but it still isn't the best/only method.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-21-2005 03:08 PM                     quote: John Hawkinson I think using INT, CHR, etc., is a bad idea Whats the matter... can't you girley men keep up with Monte? I certainly don't have problems with the abbreviations.... it saves bandwidth on this site and in fact when you meet and work with Monte he also talks like that.... so you'd better be on your toes!! Monte, perhaps you should put together a list of your abbreviations so these girley men can look them up..... Mark  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 08-21-2005 03:44 PM                  UNCLR ABRV BLW!  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 08-22-2005 03:49 AM                     I could be mean and and start with..Mil2K,TU2K,OSR(am),Kino15's, CineV18's...et.al. (LOL) Thx Mk for your supp't. (hey, it's just tekkie talk in which I picked this years ago-a language that we've just learn to understand from one another..) True JHawk, I can see where you're coming from - having to speak on a level for the "newbies" that come into this forum that want to learn what we have to offer..... -Monte  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

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.