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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » SIMPLEX X-L: Perfuct Focus? (Page 6)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9

Author Topic: SIMPLEX X-L: Perfuct Focus? Jarret Chessell Master Film Handler Posts: 288 From: London, Ontario, Canada Registered: Jan 2009 posted 11-07-2009 01:14 PM                     While operating this projector today I noticed the picture was so sharp that I got cut! It's like working in a brand new cinema!  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 11-07-2009 04:27 PM                        quote: Steve Guttag Cinelux is a Schneider trade name. Up until about 1982, Schneider was the importer of ISCO lenses...some even mused that ISCO stood for International Schneider COrporation. The name ISCO derives from the original name of the company Jos. Schneider & Co., where Jos. stands for "Joseph", the founder of the company, and Co. stands for "Compagnon(s)" which means partner(s). One of the co-founders was Schneider's son. In 1936, when the company needed to expand, they started building a new factory in Bad Kreuznach and also founded ISCO as a daughter company for lower cost lenses in Göttingen. Back then, acronyms which could easily be pronounced as a whole word instead of single letters (like "Gestapo" or "Stuka") were trendy, and since JSCO is hard to say, they simply replaced the J with an I as both letters sound the same in German anyway ("Joseph" or or "Ioseph" both sound like "Yozef"). J as an individual letter is pronounced "yott" in German, and "Yottsco" is not only clumsy, it also sounds a lot like "kotzen" which means "to puke". That was probably not the image the company wanted to project (pun intended). One of Schneider's original lens models was already called ISCONAR anyway, and I think it was production of this model that they moved to the new company. Schneider was run as a privately owned company by family members until the early 80s when it was transformed into a publicly traded company, and at that point, they were split up into separate companies.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 11-07-2009 10:11 PM                        Always good to hear a success story. Louis  |  IP: Logged Jeremy Weigel Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1062 From: Edmond, OK, USA Registered: Mar 2007 posted 11-18-2009 02:43 PM                     quote: Brad Miller I have a spare one from Mueller's Atomics, used once. Email me if someone needs it. Its a great little tool. Brad, Do you still have this available?  |  IP: Logged Victor Liorentas Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: london ontario canada Registered: May 2009 posted 10-15-2010 12:47 AM                     I swapped my reflectors tonight to see if i could get better light with the same bulb same projector. This would tell me if i had an alignment issue or a twisted reflector. The light i was getting was ok but never as evenly spread as one would want. The light was darker in 2 opposing corners and i could never fill it without messing everything else up! It is now brighter and the dark corners bright as ever! I waited a long time to do this because i was already using the better mirror with less flaking from heat damage but this flaky mirror has a cooler color temperature and very even light! It seems much brighter! I still need to run film but i am bursting with joy from these results!  |  IP: Logged System Notices Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi Posts: 215 Registered: Apr 2004 posted 05-24-2013 05:14 PM                 It has been 952 days since the last post.  |  IP: Logged Victor Liorentas Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: london ontario canada Registered: May 2009 posted 05-24-2013 05:14 PM                     For those who have followed this thread,in the interest of keeping it complete and relevant. Near perfection was achieved on this Simplex XL but in 2012 I bought a 1997 era PR1014 head and decided to swap it out. What a dumb move that was! Anyway some things I have learned. 1.If it's not broke but near perfuct! Don't fix it or swap it out! 2.Many of the issues we had with the 50s era XL was to do with the inconsistency of the Simplex lens holders.The ones I have are all very different from each other and will change the perpendicular alignment lens to gate. If I had the alignment tools I would have had an easier time. With the newer XL head I right away got a softer picture and it was harder than expected to get it to the level of perfuct the old head was putting on screen. I had to swap out gate parts and the entire lens assembly. I also put in a rebuilt shutter assembly. We are mainly digital now but kept our 35mm projectors in place. This has made it harder to see the results of any changes I make because I don't get to see what different movies look like the next day. You get to know a specific film and then you change something.Then you see what that film looks like after the changes. Not anymore unless I stay all night running my films or trailers over and over. 3. Not all lenses are the same even if they are the same exact brand and focal length. I have 3 Isco Ultrastar HD full size anamorphic attachments that each focus differently. One will focus perfect side to side and middle but top and bottom are weak. Another does top to bottom perfect with side to side weakness. This is without changing anything else. This is also very subtle but can be seen. That's all I got for now.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 05-24-2013 09:42 PM                     SuperSimplex and E-7's knew how to run film in an excellent way. The XL was a needed inprovement for the company, but got lost in this department.  |  IP: Logged Victor Liorentas Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: london ontario canada Registered: May 2009 posted 05-29-2013 12:20 PM                     I have seen many good and bad examples of the Simplex XL with curved gate at the plexes over the years. This is on flat and curved screens. I have noted that these screens were all 3k bulbs or more with prime back up lenses usually under 95mm. In my case...110mm prime with a 32 foot wide scope image on a flat screen. Very little downward slope angle and close to centered horizontally. I sometimes wonder if a curved gate works against me using only 2500 watts of Super Lumex brightness? I get that the curved gate should help any situation but more so beyond 3000 watts. So could the curved gate or the amount of curvature be a problem under 3000 watts?  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 05-29-2013 03:01 PM                     I've seen 3K lamphouses behind flat gate XL's issuing out great results on the screen in long throw houses. It's just that the curve gate 'stretches' the film to prevent focus drift when the heat of the arc or lamp distorts the film when the frame is in the trap. The trick with flat gate units is to build the upper loop a bit higher where the film is entering the trap dead straight in with no curl at the very top of the trap where the curl of the loop is nowhere close to the top of the gate rail. This is what gives the steady image .. along with the machine running tons quieter. Anything of a higher wattage would need the water cooled trap version. Nothing wrong with a Super-LumeX behind an XL as long as bulb focus is correct.  |  IP: Logged Victor Liorentas Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: london ontario canada Registered: May 2009 posted 05-29-2013 04:01 PM                     My bulb lamp house align is fantastic. I don't have a turret so most issues come down to the Simplex lens holders I have because they are far from perfect. I have a couple like new one's on order and maybe another Ultrastar HD anamorphic lens. Hoping to stumble on the right combination. I have my flat gates still but I don't want to go back to them. I don't plan to go back to my old XL head because it's now on the other projector.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Bodge Film Handler Posts: 83 From: East Dorset, VT Registered: Nov 2006 posted 05-30-2013 09:01 PM                     Interesting discussion. I for some reason have always liked the look of a straight gate. I remember walking into a cinema in North Hampton Mass and the picture blew me away. Come to find out it was a Brenkert BX60. At one point installed an XL straight in Montauk NY and what a great picture.  |  IP: Logged Victor Liorentas Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: london ontario canada Registered: May 2009 posted 01-08-2014 09:40 PM                     How often have others of you found alignment issues on a curved gate non turret XL? What methods have you used to adjust for these issues? 1.Gate to film misalignment. 2.Lens to gate misalignment. Just wondering if there is anything I have not tried.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 01-09-2014 08:22 AM                        Mostly the two rods get bent. That moves the shoes out of alignment side to side. Don't bend them back, shim the shoes. This is not a problem with a straight gate since the solid part of the gate is the part that holds the aperture. Bent rods don't matter; they only hold the spring which is self aligning. louis  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 01-09-2014 10:09 AM                       Could you be more specific about the rods? I'm not getting it. Maybe it's just the term rod.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9

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.