First of all, I am at home without access to our equipment, so if my descriptions are somewhat vague, I’m sorry. I'm really a Timer/Grader with minimal projection experience, so I know the lab end far better than I know a booth. With that being said...
Our current projection equipment consists of a pair of Simplex XL’s (older black wrinkle finish) with matched soundheads setting on those gray Monee peds, and running a pair of Xenon-arc lamphouses (think they are fairly new Balentyne). We had a pair of Monee’s, but got rid of them (didn’t care for them) when a this pair of XL’s were donated to us.
The basic thrust of my inquiry is; Should we keep the old XL’s (in very good operational condition) and upgrade the soundheads, or has their really been that much of an advance in projection technology to warrant replacement? Couldn’t the heads just be reconditioned (to be sure of function) and the soundhead replaced?
Also, are the new LED soundhead assy. compatible with unilateral, bilateral, variable density and other type tracks?
Does anyone make a “turret-type” sound reader to deal with multiple-format soundtracks?
We will be requiring a set of projectors for both the main screening auditorium and the quality control/inspection projection room in the main laboratory.
Many thanks for any input. I will answer any addition questions that are required for clarification.
Thanks
------------------
Frank Wylie
Laboratory Supervisor
Library of Congress
Motion Picture Preservation Laboratory
All opinions expressed are my own and do not represent the official view of
the Library of Congress
(Before I get flamed on Simplexes, yes they do run forever, but my point is that Centurys are more "gentle" on the film.)
Perhaps some rig of exciter lamps switchable to a JaxLights by the operator would be best for the sound.
Any projectors used at the LoC are not going to be run everyday like a regular theater, so even a rebuilt AA-II shoud last a long time. But since the AA-II's are not made anymore, it would be very important to have them rebuilt only by someone who knows what they are doing.
Why I would suggest AA-II's:
If it were me, the order of importance would be careful handling of the print first, then image quality. Of course I would want it to look good, but the print can not be damaged.
The AA-II's have large sprockets to grip more of the film than many other projectors. This means film with damaged perforations are more likly to run through. Larger sprockets also mean lower (rotating) shaft speeds for a bit more safety. Although of minor importance, there are only three driving sprockets (rather then the four used in most American projector) for less wear. The soundhead is the "inertia-type" - the film is not run under tension while passing through the soundhead for (again) less wear.
The lens holder is the newer 4" dia. type, which can hold just about any motion picture lens ever used (remember those monster "Cinerama 70mm" lenses?)
The projector is the best of two time periods; the most modern type made that still was originally designed to run nitrate. (I would guess most of the LoC's prints are nitrate.) Several built-in safety features (some not found in brand-new projectors) could keep damage to a minimum. It was designed to run either emulsion in or out. ("In" was shown to be better for the print.) It can run 35/70mm, optical or mag striped prints at different frame rates, so the one projector could run several different release print formats. The image is so steady, the projector could almost be used as a reference tool.
If I could not get a AA-II's I would look at the Kineton's. But, while they are very fine projectors, I think the order of importance would be reversed, ie: they have good image quality first, good handling second. They are still better then almost any other projector, though.
Is this the new film preservation center being housed in the abandoned nuclear fallout shelter?
Not to be nosy, but can you give us a some idea of how much money is avaiable? Whenever the goverment is mentioned, people think there's tons of money avaiable- of course this is not always so. I will take a wild guess and say that one AA-II in "good to great" shape would cost about $17,000. Other people would know better then I, but just to give a ballpark. A new Kineton PK60D is about $8000 to $10,000 (projector only.)
------------------
I don't think most archives use ANYTHING in the way of film cleaning solutions on their prints, for even something that's been on the market for 20 years "could" start showing some form of damage. FilmGuard has been in testing for 10 years with 10 year old coated prints still perfect to this day, but for something like the Library of Congress, that's just not long enough.
If you use it for 16 fps, you will have to do something about the amount of light and heat from the lamphouse. The Swedish Film Institute's projection equipment includes a couple of rebuilt DP70s; they place a grid between the lamphouse and the gate when they run 16 or 18 and it works well, AFAIK.
The problem with the Kinotons that you either get a 35mm model (a very good one, but still only 35), or a 35/70 machine that is inferior in almost every respect to the AA-II; that is, the DP70, if my assumption is correct. Archive projection equipment should be able to handle 70mm prints.
If I'm wrong about the AA-II being the same machine as the DP70, then allow me to suggest the Philips DP70 instead.
Pat
Now don't get me wrong, the XL is a damn fine machine...but the Century always outperforms it in regards to film handling. Of course, the XL is generally more reliable over time.
When will the Simplex's soundhead design be changed to eliminate this pressure roller on the emulsion side of the film as it runs over the sound drum? There really is no need for it. All it does is embedd dirt into the emulsion (conveniently enough right after it's heated up at the aperture). Get rid of that one flaw, and you'll have yourself a spectacular machine! 
Yes, the VKF will run fox hole perfs BUT not if they have shrunk in the slightest (ie archival films). Hence the VKF is not the best choice for this sort of venue. None of the LOC nor National Archives machines in the Washington DC area are running on VKFs at the moment. We do have film collectors with large inventories...the VKFs proved to not work with shrunken film.
Steve
------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
quote:
Originally posted by John Walsh:
If I had my way, (snip)A new Kineton PK60D is about $8000 to $10,000 (projector only.)
First of all, let me thank everyone for responding! Wow. Lots of good information here.
John,
You are correct in your forward thinking about future formats; we will probably need to have that option. And, you are also correct in noting that the projectors will probably not be run on the same basis as theatrical projection systems, but that remains to be seen.
I am investigating projection equipment for two booths; one set for the main theater facility, which will be a common gathering theater for the Film Center and one set for the Laboratory Quality Control screening room.
A real problem I have is in anticipating just what will be screened in the first room. A bit o' history as explanation:
The LOC is attempting to gather it's widely flung motion picture collections into one facility. As you may, or may not know, the LOC maintains the United States Copyright Collection as well as the (for lack of a better term on my part) "general" film collection.
The LOC has maintained Nitrate vaults and their Motion Picture Preservation Laboratory in Dayton, OH since about 1982. Safety holdings have been deposited in Washington, D.C. and in the greater D.C. area in scattered collections in Government storage areas in Military bases and so on. Most storage is remote and hard to access. We hope this move to Culpepper, VA. will allow the LOC to consolidate our holdings and allow for better care and access for all collections that make-up the whole.
The lab in Dayton, (where I am currently) is strictly a B&W 35mm and 16mm facility. That is, the end product is 35mm or 16mm B&W. We do copy non-standard formats like 28mm and paper prints to modern stocks of either the 35mm or 16mm gauges.
The fact that the #1 screening room might possibly be dealing with the Copyright Collection, complicates the issue substantially. The formats in this collection undoubtedly span the entire range of gauges known to man (at least in safety format).
The #2 screening room is complicated by the fact that it may be part of a more comprehensive soundtrack restoration facility (in addition to being a Quality Control screening booth for the lab); but that remains to be determined.
The possibility of Nitrate screenings in the #1 booth are rare, but possible and in #2 almost certainly never.
Anyone tearing their hair out yet? ;-)
John, the center is being built in an unused Federal Reserve Gold Bullion Storage facility built into the side of a mountain (more like a hill).
As for $$$ we have to spend, I have to assume we will get the money we need and plan on that basis, otherwise we shoot ourselves in the foot. I can always cutback, but you can't "cut-ahead"; as anyone knows can happen in these "pie-in-the-sky" proposals.
I again thank everyone for his or her posts, and ask for patience in my responding.
------------------
Frank Wylie
Laboratory Supervisor
Library of Congress
Motion Picture Preservation Laboratory
All opinions expressed are my own and do not represent the official view of
the Library of Congress
quote:
Originally posted by Andy Davis:
Don't forget the Film-Guard!
Andy,
We are currently awaiting documentation on Film Guard to begin evaluation of this product to see if it can fit into our program in any capacity.
We are happy to evaluate new products that may help us in our quest to preserve and protect the Nation's Film Heritage.
Thanks
------------------
Frank Wylie
Laboratory Supervisor
Library of Congress
Motion Picture Preservation Laboratory
All opinions expressed are my own and do not represent the official view of
the Library of Congress
quote:
Originally posted by Brad Miller:
Yes, if you have the bucks Kinoton seems to be the choice (even though I've never had the pleasure of using one yet).
Brad,
I tend to lean toward the Kinoton Projectors for the #2 Booth, although I am open to all suggestions.
Anyone had any experience with the FP 38 in a sound reinforcement/recording studio? I wonder if the Time Code interface could be spit between the studio remote control and the machine interface between the projectors and a digital sound editing workstation?
quote:
Originally posted by John Roach:
This has nothing to do with projection equipment, but I have heard that the library of congress will swap safety film copies of nitrate prints they don't have. Anyway, I tried to contact the library of LoC in dayton, And got a form email. A real number or address would be appreciated.
John,
Try contacting Cooper Graham (ccgr@loc.gov) and explain what you have to him and what you would like. Mr. Graham will be able to fill you in on the policies for donation of film elements and what can be supplied in return for the donation.
I hope this helps.
------------------
Frank Wylie
Laboratory Supervisor
Library of Congress
Motion Picture Preservation Laboratory
All opinions expressed are my own and do not represent the official view of
the Library of Congress
quote:
Originally posted by Brad Miller:
I don't think most archives use ANYTHING in the way of film cleaning solutions on their prints, for even something that's been on the market for 20 years "could" start showing some form of damage. FilmGuard has been in testing for 10 years with 10 year old coated prints still perfect to this day, but for something like the Library of Congress, that's just not long enough.
Brad,
We use Lipsner Smith cleaning machines with both perchloroethylene (safety and nitrate) and isopropranol Alcohol (safety only).
You are right in stating that no archive prints (at the present time) are treated with any type of preservative, but we are open to testing.
Thanks.
------------------
Frank Wylie
Laboratory Supervisor
Library of Congress
Motion Picture Preservation Laboratory
All opinions expressed are my own and do not represent the official view of
the Library of Congress
quote:
Originally posted by Brad Miller:
If you go the AA2 route, just make damn sure the exciter shuts down when the motor stops or you will blister your film from it.
Thanks Brad.
That's important to know.
------------------
Frank Wylie
Laboratory Supervisor
Library of Congress
Motion Picture Preservation Laboratory
All opinions expressed are my own and do not represent the official view of
the Library of Congress
quote:
Originally posted by Pat Moore:
Just a note of caution to all;
When you say "archival", is there any intention of running nitrate prints? None of the machines mentioned can do that. Better to keep the XL's and find the proper (snip)Another note: some archival prints might be foxhole sprockets -- VKF won't run them. Pat
Pat,
After phone consultation with my boss, I am assured we will need to run nitrate in the main screening booth (#1 theater).
Now the problem can be defined (at least for the #1 booth)as:
Need to project 16mm, 35mm (all aspect ratios and sound formats) and 70mm, as well as be nitrate safe. Oh boy.
In addition, like most archives, we will NOT be using a platter system if at all possible. In fact, you can almost bet there won't be a platter in the booth.
Was 70mm ever run on the change-over system? I assume so.
An added complication will be sound readers: variable density (all variations on that theme, push-pull, etc.), Variable Area (unilateral, bilateral, etc.), magnetic (clueless here), dye tracks, digital, and ?
I have a headache.
At least we don't have to rig-up for any mechanical playback like the embossed tracks of the early 30's! :-)
------------------
Frank Wylie
Laboratory Supervisor
Library of Congress
Motion Picture Preservation Laboratory
All opinions expressed are my own and do not represent the official view of
the Library of Congress
One reason I did not suggest Centurys is they do not have a film trip device above the gate, to detect a film break above the intermittent. A AA-II also detects problems with the take-up reel. This is done without adding failsafe rollers. (In my opinion, additional rollers and sprockets are bad for this application.) Although these features could be added, a AA-II was designed from the start with these features.
A AA-II is better documented than most other projectors, with good quality photographs. Actual specifications (tolerences, torque, pressure, dimensions, etc.) are given, so when there's no one left alive who even knows what "film" is, the projectors can still be serviced.
There is no way one projector could run all of the film formats that are stored at the LoC, but a AA-II could run many. It might be possible to fabricate parts to extend the use of the machine. For example, it might be possible to have custom-made gates, sprockets and rollers made to run Fearless 65mm, CinemaScope 55, or Grandeur. A motor modified for 18 or 16fps- or even a totally variable rate. A tach-wheel could be added to provide feedback for speed control, or to interlock sound equipment. While not cheap, it might be cheaper than another projector (with unknown chararistics.)
Regardless of whether a XL, AA-II, Century C, etc. is used, LoC will still need a different projector if they want to project unusual formats. My guess is they will not, as it would be better to convert really unusual formats to 16mm, 35mm or 70mm. (Guessing again) wouldn't it be better to convert a VistaVision film to 70mm since the printers are still avaiable and the image area is almost the same (and the slight difference would be made up with by today's lower grain film.)
Oh yes. This is how I always run my 70mm shows. It's a wonderful feeling to run "Ben Hur" with 7 change-overs and an intermission (my recollection is 9 reels, but I could be wrong), without a platter in sight.
I _love_ 70mm.
Sigh.
Also, on failsafe rollers...USE THEM! Set up properly they do not cause film damage and having a takeup belt break and dump a one of a kind film all over the floor would not be acceptable for your use.
quote:
Originally posted by Brad Miller:
Gee Frank, you've got a tough one here! The only thing that hasn't been pointed out is "if" you go with different pairs of projectors and change them out for odd formats, the AA2 is virtually impossible to move, so another machine would be desirable.Also, on failsafe rollers...USE THEM! Set up properly they do not cause film damage and having a takeup belt break and dump a one of a kind film all over the floor would not be acceptable for your use.
I seem to remember seeing a picture of the AA2; monster of a machine! I see your point there.
The failsafes would certainly be required, although, the LOC has a policy of NEVER projecting a one-of-a-kind print until copied, but then again, at the current price of printing a feature, it is practically one-of-a-kind anyway!
If we ever get into printing 70mm, I can hardly wait to hoist a roll of rawstock onto the printer in the dark! Oh my achin' back.
All of the 70mm reels were combined from two lab reels, except reel 6 that was shorter (reel 6 was the last one before Intermission). This should mean a total of 9 reels. 9, maybe 10 if I'm confusing the "Ben Hur" print with the "Spartacus" print...
The Intermission (and the following overture) in the 35mm print we got was gone, as was the overture in reel 1. Damned vandals. I always filed bitter and angry print inspection reports when I got that print.
The 70mm prints had the intermission and the overtures intact, thankfully.
BTW, that same June 1990 issue of the SMPTE Journal has an excellent paper by John Belton on "Todd-AO: A History". Big pictures, big screens and big audiences deserve 70mm prints. 
------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Frank,
the "-S" (studio) or "-EC" (electronic control) machines would probably handle the machine/workstation interface problems you have, possibly in conjunction with a lynx. BTW the "-E" machines do tricks like switch selectable pulldown (E.G. switch from 3 to 4 perf pulldown) and have continuous run shutters which cut flicker at low frame rates.
-Larry
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Gulbrandsen:
Definately go the CP-200 route. Its very easy to find a very late unit. Alot of chains will trade out even for a new CP-500. Its important to have the real noise reduction and not a make believe version.
Mark
Thanks Mark, and many thanks to everyone who posted to this thread!
At least now, I have good idea of where and what to look for in both the used and new markets.
Many thanks again.