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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Thoughts after 1st booth time in 17 years (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Thoughts after 1st booth time in 17 years Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-04-2009 09:33 AM                     Eric... The trick is to use bearings with rubber seals on the main drive shaft... then the grease inside won't evaporate/dry up near as quickly. Don't over tighten the belts, lube all the shafts on re-assembly with some type of synthetic oil so getting it back apart the next time will be easier. On the stabilizer and lateral guide you can only use bearings with shields but a tleast you don't have to tear down the whole dang thing to get to the bearinbgs!! Convert any old square tooth drive machines to round tooth drive as these belts allow one to run them at much lower tension then the square tooth belts, bearoings will last much longer as a result. quote: Eric Robinson I didn't know the vertical jitter specs were better on a SH1000, why is this? Two reasons... You have the smoothness of the gear drive and you have the extra sprocket to isolate any uneven take up anomolies from the sound scanner. Mark  |  IP: Logged Dick Prather Master Film Handler Posts: 259 From: Portland, OR, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 11-04-2009 05:55 PM                     Bad thing about X-L soundheads were the cheap bearing retainers Simplex used. As they were also the pad roller stop they broke over time causing leaks, etc. I did stock the retainer and used several. Also did not like the fact Simplex changed the gearbox screw pattern so SH-1000 gearbox would not work. We still have a pair of SH-7200 (Graflex) soundheads running. Were installed in 1968 or so. Ran, repaired, and hated them. Dick  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-04-2009 06:14 PM                     My complaint with the SH1000 compared to the XL version was that the use of that little ball bearing to lock the roller arm closed They eventually got sloppy  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-04-2009 09:05 PM                     It's not impossible to get the ball bearing out... done it quite a few times. Springs while not available off the shelf can be aquired fairly easily. Mark  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-04-2009 09:10 PM                     Gotta love something that uses the 12-24 screw...don't see them much anymore. Put me in with the 99% of the others that prefer the SH-1000 and XL (SH-1007-SH-1028) way over the 5-Star. Keep em oiled properly...they run forever. They also reproduce sound better too....just what IS your perceived advantage to the 5-star (SH-7310 and later)? Steve  |  IP: Logged Robert Throop Master Film Handler Posts: 412 From: Vernon, NY USA Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-05-2009 09:29 AM                     quote: Eric Robinson I didn't know the vertical jitter specs were better on a SH1000, why is this? The SH1000 type soundheads used rotary stabilizer (oil filled) flywheels on the scanning drum. I think that is a big reason. Bob  |  IP: Logged David E. Nedrow Master Film Handler Posts: 368 From: Columbus, OH, USA Registered: Oct 2008 posted 11-06-2009 07:16 AM                        re: the SH-1000 v. 5 Star. I stand by my statement that the threading path is awkward. Jamming the constant-speed sprocket at the top of the chamber means that it can't be seen -- at least by someone 6'4" -- without crouching all the way down. And I don't like to thread by touch. Don't worry, John at American Theatre Equipment has said the same, re: the repro quality. It's a good thing too, since I have two of them and wouldn't replace them just because they're awkward to work with (for me).  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-06-2009 11:52 PM                        So you're saying that you would opt for not having to crouch a bit over better sound reproduction for your audience? You didn't say that, did you? Did you originally work for Carmike?  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 11-07-2009 01:28 AM                     How did you read that he "wouldn't replace them just because they're awkward to work with" to mean that he would?  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-07-2009 07:16 AM                     Personally, I'm wondering how the upper sprocket on the 4-star is any more difficult to deal with than the upper right idler roller on the 5-star. They are physically about in the same place. Then you have to send the film diagonally down to the lower left idler/damper arm...and then finally over the sprocket and down. Thats three things to hit on the 5-star after the drum versus the 4-star that has two things. The logic is just flawed on why the 5-star is easier to thread than the 4-star. I can accept one prefers the 5-star over the 4-star...we all have our personal preferences...some may seem illogical but that is why they are personal. But the rationalization is another thing...the argument thus presented does not fit the facts. Steve  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 11-07-2009 07:26 AM                       Unless we're talking a drive-in with a steep negative rake, I don't know of many projector installations that can be threaded without crouching or squatting when you get to the reproducer. ???  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-07-2009 08:49 AM                     He hasn't found out that all of us are under 5'8" yet...  |  IP: Logged Bill Enos Film God Posts: 2081 From: Richmond, Virginia, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 11-07-2009 10:25 AM                     I'm 5'8" and still have to squat to thread the Sh 1000s, keeps the knees flexible.  |  IP: Logged Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 11-07-2009 11:03 AM                        quote: Tim Reed Unless we're talking a drive-in with a steep negative rake, I don't know of many projector installations that can be threaded without crouching or squatting when you get to the reproducer. Probably doesn't apply here, Tim, but I once had a drive-in where the projector(s) sat on 2 1/2 foot concrete piers... a failed attempt to keep the beam above passing trucks. The sound head was easily reached without bending.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 11-07-2009 11:58 AM                     quote: Tim Reed Unless we're talking a drive-in with a steep negative rake, I don't know of many projector installations that can be threaded without crouching or squatting when you get to the reproducer. Odd, I fail to see the problem.  |  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.