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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Making New Parts For Older Projectors (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Making New Parts For Older Projectors Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-19-2006 05:00 AM                     quote: Tim Reed Engineered better? I never said they weren't. Sad thing is that today engineering is at a pinnacle that never existed in the old days so projectors today should be better engineered but they are not for the most part. The problem today is that the quality of the individual parts is at an all time low and greed seems to prevail to get a new design in the booth way before it should even be into the testing stage on location somewhere. The Apogee Projector sure fits that last statement to a tee. Today parts are made from softer/poorer quality metals in order for them to be cranked out via cnc faster and allow to the tooling to last longer. I've personally compared the hardness of old parts vs. new parts on a brinnel tester myself... old parts are way, way better. Tim, Funny... the only clunkers that I service regularly are Simplex X-L's that are oil bath and still don't last as long as an old Super or E-7, and an occasional Century that has been neglected. On the Simplex's it's generally a noisy movement, and sloppy upper and lower sprocket bushings... on the upper and lowers pulling the shafts out ALWAYS reveals a clogged oil spiral full of bronze particles..., just real poor design and a reason I always hated the X-L, those assemblies SHOULD have been ball bearing from day one! You rarely find this on an E-7 or Super unless its been sitting for a long period and the oil has evaporated in it which in that case just clean the spirals and re-oil... then return it to service for another 50 years. Mark  |  IP: Logged Michael Moore Expert Film Handler Posts: 188 From: Dover, DE / USA Registered: Jun 2006 posted 05-26-2007 07:54 AM                        Mark Oil does not evaporate and if it does its not much! Oil, is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons, that are entangled into each other. If there is any evaporation it is most likely the smaller less tangle hydrocarbons that were broken down from use leaving the solution, however the volume loss would be negligible. If you heat oil, you will not get it to evaporate any faster, mater of fact, it will ignite before it evaporates. I do know however that oil becomes rancid over time, some bacteria will grow in oil in the right conditions, as well as mold too. I think mostly the oil found its way to the floor via a porous casting. Mike  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-26-2007 08:01 AM                     Michael, What ever it is in oil that evaporates(solvents most likely)it can literally glue a shaft into its bushing. Sometimes even removing a shaft in an arobr press is very difficult and may require many days of soaking in solvents to loosen it up. Same goes for grease. Today's range of synthetic lubes don't exhibit this problem. There are thousands of Christie projectors out there that have permanently filled intermittents(with synthetic oil) that have been running on the same oil fill for many years... some close to 15 now!! Mark  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 05-26-2007 08:31 AM                        Whenever this industry has a contraction (and it is now with digital displacing 35mm in some places) good equipment moves around displacing anything wierd (Motiograph, older Simplex, Wentzel, Brenkert, etc.) I believe I can see that whatever 35mm is still around in 25 years will be some style of generic Century/Simplex XL/clones/maybe Christie. The rest will perish and maybe that's good. There is already a severe decline in Ballantyne/Cinemeccanica/Tokiwa; all "modern" projectors who did not achieve "critical mass." Louis  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-26-2007 10:30 AM                     My observations mirror Tim's (same coast and nearly the same area so it makes sense)...The Supers and E7s still in service are mostly junk and only a shadow of their former selves. As for XLs...I don't have the disdane Mark has for them and I also don't have the lubrication problems that Mark seems to have...in fact, XLs are THE machine around here that seem to run forever on original parts or damn near original parts. Centurys always seem to be chewing up main drives and wearing out shutter drives even if people don't change them when they should. As to what will be around in film's demise...I think it will be the Kinotons, oddly enough. That isn't because of my fondness for them but due to the locations in which they seem to go in (in the States...this feeling has nothing to due with the rest of the World where things are probably different). Those theatres/screening rooms that plan to run film regardless of Digital's installations seem to be going the Kinoton route and have been long before they were marketed to the mainstream cinema in the USA. That is, when I look around the screening rooms around here, I see FP20s, FP28s, FP26s, FP23s, FP30s, FP38Es, FP38ES...even FP75Es for the 70mm crowd. When and if film is removed in mass as a thing of the pass...it will be the mainstream projectors that hit the dumpster en mass, not the machines in the special venues that will continue to run film. Even their mechanical machines seem to last quite a bit with perhaps the intermittent bushing for framing being their weakest link. The electronic intermittent ones seem to keep evolving with 2007 marking the entry of the "Premiere" series that are 4-5 times steadier than their previous "E" intermittents that were many times steadier than anyone elses mechanical machines (including their own). The best thing that Century and Simplex have going for them for longevity are that there are multiple sources for their parts...with Strong, Wolk and LaVezzi. Having to single-source is always a risky business.  |  IP: Logged Michael Moore Expert Film Handler Posts: 188 From: Dover, DE / USA Registered: Jun 2006 posted 05-26-2007 11:04 AM                        Mark If there is solvent in your oil then it not pure oil, but "watered down" or has additives, If you have parts that are stuck it maybe due to metal particles fussing over time while in the oil closing up the tolerance on one side of the part, this does happen just like a wedge then it is very hard to get things apart even with a press. As for parts, I'm sure I could make a gear on my mill; I have a rotary indexing table, as well carbine tooling for cutting gears. But I would be using an old gear to go off of; also it would take me some time. So in the end I don't think it is worth it for me. If I thought it would be worth it I would keep my Super and not get the Century from Louis. I once asked a local machine shop to make me a few fiber gears and brought them in to see if it was cost effective. One of my hobbies is aluminum casting, I can get an investment casting and make aluminum gears, but I don't think that's a good idea either. I think parts for Century and Simplex will be here for a long time as well as 35mm film. Even as digital takes over, our theater could never afford a digital! So making my own parts, (and I have) is very attractive. Mike  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 05-26-2007 12:01 PM                        FWIW, Kodak's print film sales this year continue to be very good. Even in the USA, digital cinema installs are still only about 10 percent of screens. All of Kodak's motion picture films are now made in Rochester, so manufacturing efficiencies are better than ever.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-26-2007 01:52 PM                     quote: John Pytlak All of Kodak's motion picture films are now made in Rochester Yeah...home of the Redwings and Frontier Field!  |  IP: Logged Matthew Jaro Film Handler Posts: 74 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Registered: Jul 2003 posted 05-29-2007 03:18 PM                        I changed to Simplex X-Ls from E-7s. The E-7s and Super Simplexes had very small heads and they were very difficult to keep clean. The X-Ls have the advantage of curved film traps -- which I find very useful with warped and older films. I have never had a moment's trouble with the X-Ls. The newer X-Ls seem flimsier than the older ones (IPC to Simplex 35) so I can't speak to the reliability of the newer machines. The larger sprockets in the XL are more tolerant of torn film than the smaller E-7 sprockets, and I haven't had much trouble projecting shrunken prints. The XL gearing seems to have less backlash than the earlier machines. Most importantly, the shutter timing can be set without disassembling the shutter assembly. If you unframe the image to show the framelines (or run a RP-40 test loop), the frames are rock steady -- especially with older prints that were copied more carefully than today's release prints. The XLs have the steadiest image I've seen outside of the Kinoton electronic intermittent. In my humble opinion -- it would be hard to find a machine that had good parts availability coupled with relatively low cost on the used market that will match the XL mechanically. Proectors like the DP-70 are not easily obtainable and are pretty big. Things like Bauers, which are built like trucks have poor parts availability, and I think the Century projectors are just not as robust. So if the XL is a clunker --- let's hear it for clunkers.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-29-2007 06:14 PM                     quote: Matthew Jaro Proectors like the DP-70 are not easily obtainable and are pretty big. Just let me know how many you want. We can have them dropped at your door. Doesn't get any easier than that . Mark  |  IP: Logged Matthew Jaro Film Handler Posts: 74 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Registered: Jul 2003 posted 05-29-2007 09:04 PM                        Gee, Mark -- If I had a dozen, I could thread up any film at the beginning of the show and run a 12 way automated changeover system. That way, I wouldn't need platters and I could just relax for the entire film. Hmm - I wonder how many processors have provision for Projector 3, Projector 4, ... ?? However, keystoning might be a problem with 12 projectors.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 05-29-2007 09:23 PM                        Don't forget to reinforce the floor! Louis  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-29-2007 09:51 PM                     quote: I wonder how many processors have provision for Projector 3, Projector 4, ... ?? Well the obvious one is the CP200. There are others however. Even the CP65 had a Dolby authorized moditication to allow up to 4 projectors (optical). Electro-Sound had a multi-projector system that was, way-cool, in my opinion. Aside from the Nixi-tube volume readouts...the buss system they used could allow one to probably stack as many projectors as one needed. If there was any demand, the Panastereo CSP1400 was designed but not yet implimented...it could handle up to 4-projectors. Many a theatre had three projectors if they were 70mm equipped so that was somewhat common in the pre-Dolby days.  |  IP: Logged Joshua Waaland Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: Cleveland, Ohio Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-29-2007 10:02 PM                     I have two AAII's for sale. One is a parts machine but most of the main parts are there and the other is a running machine. I kept one for myself and can't wait to set it up in my basement. Last weekend I spent close to two days tearing out our kitchen for a contractor to come in and remodel. I spent another half a day taking one of the AAII machines in the basement with my hand cart by myself! I was soar as heck the day after moving the AAII but was never soar after the two days of tearing out the kitchen walls, floor and cabinets. Those things are freakin heavy!! The head was the worst part and that was even after removing the lens holder, door and mag head. My wife thought the house was going to cave in every time the hand cart wheels hit the next step and I was trying my hardest to let it down slowly. I should have gotten help I know but my size tends to make me overconfident.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-29-2007 11:20 PM                     Moving a DP70 by yourself (from room to room, except on a dolly without any steps) is dangerous and frankly dumb. In the office, we have three remaining and they are all on dollies for moving. However, when we've installed them...you can't have enough people to handle them. As you've noted...the head itself is the toughest part...many curved surfaces and some may have oil on them. In addition to the Mag assembly...loose the optical soundhead...there is another big heavy weight...plug it give you another good place for hand or a hoist strap...etc. Remember, if you get hurt moving one (or get yourself into a situation you can't get yourself out of...another person to get help ASAP is essential.  |  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.