Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: New York Times Profiles Projectionist

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » New York Times Profiles Projectionist (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: New York Times Profiles Projectionist

Jim Cassedy
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1661
From: San Francisco, CA
Registered: Dec 2006

posted 12-01-2010 01:43 PM

quote: Jeff Taylor
Years ago they dumped tons of those inflight systems when video came in. As I recall they were generally modified Bell & Howell 500 series units with marc 300 lamps and lamp changers working off a 5,000 foot reel.

Some years ago, I acquired a number of 16mm "airline prints".
Many of them were still mounted on the "Inflight" reels.
Here's one of them:

They were made out of lightweight aluminimum
The mounting hole is 3.5in in diameter.
The reel hub is 8.5in in diameter.

The reel itself is slightly larger than a
standard large capacity 16mm reel:

quote: Tom Wurz
Does anyone have pictures of these inflight systems?

Somewhere around here I have the complete set of operations
and service manuals for the INFLIGHT systems. I'll see if I
can dig them out and post a picture.

| IP: Logged

Tom Wurz
Film Handler

Posts: 17
From: Highland,CA USA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-01-2010 02:10 PM

Thanks Jim.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-01-2010 02:20 PM

I, too, would be interested in a picture of these things.

The "Automated Theatres 16mm projector systems" manual in the manuals section has some information about how they work. This was the application that led to the development of the MARC-300 lamp.

Note that these systems would have all been designed to use 400Hz aircraft power and wouldn't be especially useful in any other environment.

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-01-2010 02:39 PM

In my experience as a 16mm collector, 'Airline Print' generally meant 2 things...

1. Highly sanitized version of the original.
2. Scratched to the shithouse.

| IP: Logged

Jim Cassedy
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1661
From: San Francisco, CA
Registered: Dec 2006

posted 12-01-2010 03:32 PM

We're getting far off the original projectionist article topic but:

quote: Jeff Taylor
As I recall they were generally modified Bell & Howell 500 series units with marc 300 lamps

Interesting, as my recollecton is that they used a highly modified Kodak Pagent mechanism, as these were much lighter than the B&H's.
(Unless there was more than one type of system or they evolved over the years)

But we can agree on the Marc 300 lamps.

And I'm not sure about the 400hz power. I think only the lamp and amp power supplies ran off the 400hz. I beleive there was a converter to run the projector motor at 60hz.

I moved over the summer and some of my 'stuff' is still in boxes, so it may take me some digging to find those manuals,and get some answers to all these issues!!

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-01-2010 05:32 PM

While I agree that it isn't true that there are NO good movies coming out nowadays...there are always good movies coming out...however in the last 15-20 years, the quantity of those...as a percentage sure feels like it has diminished a great deal.

Yes, looking back into the pre-1960s got you a great number of movies that most have never heard of...you are also reaching back to a time when most homes did not have TV and also the illiteracy rate was far higher. The theatre was often the newspaper and also the equivalent of the TV of today (and even the internet of today). There were "B" pictures that were pretty much throwaways...TV has negated the need for that and the internet perhaps even more so.

And while it is true that Hollywood remaking movies is not a modern conception...typically, a remake also meant it had SOUND too. The remake was more than just an obvious "Gee, we are out of original ideas...lets redo a movie that did well 20-years ago" (or so).

Hollywood has definitely earned its "knocks" on issuing more crap movies that it used to. Don't get me wrong...there is nothing wrong with a mindless movie every once in a while that just takes you away from reality without altering your life, but the constant remakes and sequels and generally low production values of todays movies is beneath where Hollywood should be.

As for the music. While I don't think the music of today is as good, on the whole, of some of the more pioneering versions of each particular category...there are indeed some great stuff coming out. The ability for the people of today to not depend on an expensive studio to get decent results is great and allows for a much greater variety of styles and creativity. The downside...those don't tend to have the ability to get the same level of penetration as the recording industry of yesteryear.

-Steve

| IP: Logged

Rick Raskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1100
From: Manassas Virginia
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 12-01-2010 05:53 PM

Back on topic...

Its good to see an unsung hero noticed these days. I remember in DC when the Washington Post did an article on the projectionist at the Biograph on occasion of his running "Pink Flamingos" for two years of midnight shows.

| IP: Logged

Vern Dias
Film Handler

Posts: 28
From: AllenTX USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted 12-01-2010 09:59 PM

quote:
As I recall they were generally modified Bell & Howell 500 series units with marc 300 lamps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting, as my recollecton is that they used a highly modified Kodak Pagent mechanism, as these were much lighter than the B&H's.
(Unless there was more than one type of system or they evolved over the years)

The reason for the confusion here is that there were two competing systems. Inflight Motion Pictures was the originator of movies on aircraft. They used Kodak projectors, with horizontally mounted stacked 6000' feed and take up reels. MARC 300 lamps were used, but with only a single lamp. They could handle roughly two hours of film using mylar stock.

The newer longer range aircraft needed two movies, so Bell and Howell created a competng system that used larger reels capable of holding two movies. That is the reel shown in the picture posted earlier.

American airlines did use a system that ran a single print through multiple projector heads, but they were the only airline that I recall using it.

I was a technician at the Hilo HI airport for 3 years or so, working the Saturday shift. We had a delivery van outfitted with rewinds and spare parts that we drove out to the aircraft. The narrowbody aircraft had 3 projectors, the two of us on a shift could service the aircraft in about 10 minutes or so. Each station was held accountable for any failed shows, our station was consistently at a 99%+ successful showing rate.

We serviced United, Western, and Braniff airlines. Continental, the United DC-8 series 62 long range flights and 747 widebodies used the competing B&H systems.

Vern

| IP: Logged

Jim Cassedy
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1661
From: San Francisco, CA
Registered: Dec 2006

posted 12-01-2010 10:20 PM

Thanks for the very interesting info Vern, and for
clearing up some of the confusion.

I did some searching online, and I did find this PATENT for the
inflight system which clearly shows the projector
to be a Kodak Pagent, but I also found other patents
for another company that showed a Bell & Howell
mechanism. Your post clears up the eveloution of
the different systems.

Just FYI, here's an image detail from the INFLIGHT
patent, which clearly used a Pagent projector.

You can see the complete patent (#3262358, July 1966)
and all the diagrams at the patent link in my post.

| IP: Logged

Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1517
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 12-04-2010 01:38 AM

There was an episode of (I think) "The Lucy Show" where she's a flight attendant and tries to start the movie only to have the film spill out everywhere.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.