Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Simplex vs. Century: 35/70

This is topic Simplex vs. Century: 35/70 in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001903

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 02-07-2001, 04:11 AM:

I may have a chance at getting some Simplex 35/70 machines. However, it seems odd to me that this projector is hardly ever mentioned while the Century JJ dominates the American 35/70 landscape. Even the best/worst projector threads turned up little or no opinion on the Simplex. What accounts for the much greater popularity of the JJ over the Simplex 35/70, especially when the Century SA and Simplex XL/35 seem about equally well regarded?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-07-2001, 05:45 AM:

It would be interesting to know how many of each were made. It may just be that there are more Century JJ projectors in the world, so that is what people have an opinion about.

Pat Moore may have the historical sales records for both.

------------------
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 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-07-2001, 07:23 AM:

In my opinion neither projector legitimately wins as a decent machine for running 70mm. Both will put out a good 70mm picture, however both also have many faults. The Simplex star and cam being first in line. It is simply too small for long life. It is still the same size as the standard 35mm star and cam except the star has a longer shaft to accomodate its 65mm wide sprocket. Thats right, It does not even have 70mm wide sprockets! They are 65mm, so the film overhangs a bit on both sides. This is a leftover from the days when these machines were hand made for Panavision camera 65 tests. The Simplex also does not have a driven penthouse which is important with wide film. The Simplex is in reality an adaptation of the 35mm Simplex and nothing more. Extremely short on space and loops have to be exactly the right size so film damage does not result.

The Century has a more robust intermittent that will outlast the Simplex by a factor of 4 or 5. It also projects great pictures, however it also has to have loops that are the exact size so film damage does not result. Also the optical soundhead has to have at least some of its 35mm parts removed so film scratching does not result. I have seen more damage to 70mm prints that have come in from the Century than any other machine. Strong has made a good attempt at fixing these problems but alas too late as 70mm was on the way out when they bought Century.

IMHO either the DP-70/AA-2 or Cinemecannicca V-8 are better machines for 70mm projection. Both machines afford much more space for loops, are not as loop fussy and do not have the film damaging components in the path that the two you mentioned do. Both have extremely robust mechanisms as well that can last for decades, literally. The DP-70 IMHO belongs at the top of the list as it can project 35mm every bit as well as it does 70mm. It is truely the Cadillac of projectors. The V-8 however is a very poor choice for 35mm projection as the picture is generally not very steady. Poor gate design, and lateral control being the factor here. The Vic-8 has neither a straight or a curved gate but a combination of both which is quite odd. There are several other good machines out there for projecting 70mm but they are more uncommon that the ones that I have mentioned above.
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-07-2001, 08:04 AM:

On the issue of convertable machines the Ballantyne Pro35/70 is a very robust and reliable machine that produces excellent results
The big draw back with it is the long conversion time between formats

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-07-2001, 08:15 AM:

Mark, you are seeing scratched prints coming from poor projectionists. I have never had to disassemble any parts from a JJ to run 70mm and can assure you that any scratching you are seeing at theaters running JJs is due to a threading error...NOT the design of the JJ. I have never had a scratched print on a JJ (35 or 70) to even the slightest degree. If someone misthreads a Cinemecannica, they will get scratches too. The loops may not be as forgiving when running 70mm on a JJ, but if the projectionist doesn't know what he is doing, what in the HELL is he doing running it in the first place???

The Simplex 35/70 is a piece of junk. I agree wholeheartedly with Mark's above comments.

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 02-07-2001, 08:29 AM:

If given a choice, I'll take the Century.

I loved Simplex equipment until a rare print that I have got a nice scratch down the center of the image area.

The projector owner denied that it happened, but I know that it did.

That damn sound idler roller.

I've seen and threaded a JJ and thought it was not horribly demanding or critical with loop sizing, though I could do damage if there was too big a loop, or too small...

The Victoria 8 is a real baby. I love hearing one run at 30fps! It screams!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-07-2001, 08:45 AM:

Brad,
Well then what you are saying is that the Union projectionists that ran the JJ's around Chicago and damaged a good portion of the 70mm films shown there in the 70's and 80's shouldn't have been in the booths in the first place?? Thats what I always thought too! Ive literally seen the mag striping scraped right off the film! The JJ would be my third choice for sure as it is reliable, but only with all the modifications that Strong has added into them.
Mark

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-07-2001, 09:34 AM:

If someone came to me and asked what 35/70mm projector I would like to use and wich one I would like to avoid I would have to say Norelco to use and pro 35/70 to avoid. As far as the Century 35/70 if films are getting scratche do to the 35mm pads being hit by the 7omm film then no one is checking the film to make sure no contact is being made. In this case it is always human error like Brad says. But with the per foot cost of 70mm film it is better to be safe than sorry so removing these componets makes very good sense. Curious question. Does the pro 35/70 have the same problem with picture unsteadiness do to the coupling as does the regular pro 35?

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-07-2001, 04:55 PM:

I have never worked with Simplex 35/70mm machines, but did work with Century JJ-2's for many years.

If the 70mm film is curved, it will scratch in the JJ's optical soundhead. Iwould curve back, toward the lamp. People have told me that several 70mm prints in the early 1980's were "made wrong" (don't know exactly what was wrong) resulting in the film being curved. Perhaps this would not happen today. But it did then, and I had to do two things to prevent it: I had a machine shop cut back that "wishbone" shaped guide (that is supposed to guide the 70 in-between the lens barrel and the 35mm sound drum) and remove the optical lens assembly. I'm sure Century would agree somewhat- that's why on the newer JJ's it goes out the front and around the soundhead (a poor, cheap design way out of the problem IMHO.)

There's no point even talking about a AA-II, because it was/is practically perfect in every catagory (except having to move them!)

Although, I feel that 35/70mm projector designers are were not completely crazy: they would not design a projector that scratches film. I bet most 70mm damage really comes from "operator error" but few operators are going to admit it. But a projector design could be such that it's easy to make a mistake. For example, on a JJ, you can turn the pad rollers one way to hold 35mm, the other way to hold 70. Helps making changeover from one format to the other easy. Unfortunally, it's also easy to turn it the wrong way (causing the 35mm pad roller to squash the 70mm film.)

Mark; How is a V8 gate curved? Both 35 and 70 gate/traps look flat to me. Or do you mean that slight little curve part just where the film enters the trap at the top?

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-07-2001, 05:37 PM:

I have always found the Ballantynes rock steady pictures if looked after and that was usually a fairly simple task.
In 70 they were extremely stable and are the workhorse of most theme parks

Posted by John Eickhof (Member # 323) on 02-07-2001, 05:50 PM:

The Norelcos are simply the best! The DP series is like Mark says...the 'Cadillac'
Ballantynes are nominal as the framing coupling takes a real beating on 70mm!
Gordon, most special venue and theme park
Balcos are equipped with a one piece sprocket shaft, NO framing coupling, thus they are much better than the ordinary Pro-35, however, there is no means for frame adjustment! Thus the practicality of these in commercial cinemas is quite poor!
The JJ-2 with webbed star and larger cam pin seems to last OK, except the feed sprocket shafts are still in oilite bushings so maintenance (removal, burnishing and lubricating) is very necessary!
For antiquity sake though, the early Simplex
XLs modified for 70mm by Straight Industries are a neat collectors item! I would not recommend daily grind runs of 70 through them though! (They do pass more light than the
Century however!)

------------------
John Eickhof President, Chief Slave
Northwest Theatre Equipment Co., Inc.
P.O.Box 258
Wendell, ID. 83355-0258
208-536-5489
email: jeickhof@nteequip.com

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 02-07-2001, 06:21 PM:

I have run all the projectors that have been mentioned in this thread.

The best one is the Norelco AA2.

I had a Ballantyne Pro35/70 in one of my theatres. In 70mm it was one of the best projectors I have ever had the pleasure of running. But in 35mm it was the worst projector I have ever had the displeasure of running. And Gordon is right, it took too long to convert.

I had three Simplex 35/70s. They were as someone else mentioned, a bit of a kluge. But they worked OK.

But if I had to choose a used 35/70 projector to buy for my next theatre I would pick the Century JJ because of two reasons. One is that parts are readily available from Strong and two, becasuse it is, hands down, the easiest to convert to 70mm. We had a film clip show that ran 70mm, two projector 3-D then converted to 35mm, two projector 3-D and them back to 70mm, two projector 3-D. I believe there were 4 projectionist and 3 technicians in that booth for that show. But it would have been darn near impossible with anything but the Century JJ.

If I were buying new, I would look very hard at Kinotone. I'm am sure I would choke at the price.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-07-2001, 06:31 PM:

Toronto in the 80's was heavy with pro35's and several pro35/70 booths and all were grind houses. outside of the odd oil leak and very few couplers they gave very little grief and a rock stable image.
We have several pro70's in Toronto in rides and they do not have a one piece sprocket shaft and seem to stand up okay
Getting the gate tension just right is the main trick with the pro35 to prolong the couplers life.
Compared to many other machines they really had a much better than most track record for service

Posted by John Eickhof (Member # 323) on 02-07-2001, 07:05 PM:

Gordon, I can agree with you on the overall track record of the Pro-35s! In fact it still is the ONLY machine that carries a FIVE year warrantee! The other thing that used to eat up couplers was 'button pushers' adjudting the end play of the sprocket shaft tooooo
tight!

------------------
John Eickhof President, Chief Slave
Northwest Theatre Equipment Co., Inc.
P.O.Box 258
Wendell, ID. 83355-0258
208-536-5489
email: jeickhof@nteequip.com

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-07-2001, 07:50 PM:

Having run both the JJ and the PR-3570 extensively both 35 and 70mm....

They are a toss up. If it is a multiplex with a Simplex 35s, then the Simplex would be my choice, likewise with the Century.

Contrary to peviously mentioned, nothing HAS to be removed to run 70mm on the Century JJ but I'd recommend swapping the upper pad roller from 35mm to 70mm (two 70mm pad rollers) for 70mm (this eventurally became an established "modification" that was even part of the instruction manual).

Depending on vintage, the JJ out of the crate would indeed scratch film and probably have contributed to more 70mm prints being scrached (operator error or no) than any other 70mm machine I know. Heck, "JJ scratches" are an industry term. Some of the bygone places include the gate upper fingers where there was a support rib that the film would pucker into (created zillions of fine base scratches about the frame line). The double hash marks from the upper 35mm pad roller are world renowned. Continual emulsion scraches from the 70mm guide in the optical sound head (this can be made not to happen but if mis-set, it can.

Personally, I think the JJ's 35mm picture is steadier than the SA's picture.

The Simplex PR-3570 isn't sitting pretty either. The penthouse not having a driven sprocket isn't the issue some make it out out to be. A proper Davis loop doesn't need a driven sprocket. The problem is they didn't get the springs right...they are missing the spring that counteracts gravity...in fact, they have one that pulls in the wrong direction.

Also, while in the penthouse, where are the head shields? You have to use DC changeover coils to avoid HUM in the mag heads during a changeover or at show start.

Moving on down to the film gate...yes everything is based on a 65mm film not 70mm....as a result the lateral guide rollers will try to fold the film around the runners unless the spring is reduced to ineffectiveness.

Down to the intermittent... if the shoe on the 70mm gate isn't adjusted right (two film thicknesses, just like the pad rollers) you will rub down tracks 2 & 5...actually gouge them down!!!

Speaking of pad rollers, the Simplex 35/70 has a novel approach in that the pad rollers are double profile and can slide (in for 35, out for 70mm)...Makes the switch from 35 to 70mm and back a breeze...there is just one catch...they don't lock in place horribly well so the act of opening and closing the pad roller arms you might bump a padroller in...thus it not only isn't effective, you probably just took a hunk out of the pad roller when it hit the sprocket teeth!

For the optical soundhead, the 70mm is a clean pass through for the Simplex.

Contrary to what Mark has said, the Simplex 35/70 intermittents actually have outlived their Century JJ counterparts by about 2:1 and counting (in my area, at least)...Sure the Century is a beefier intermittent but the Simplex gets the better lubrication from the oil bath.

In the hands of a competent projectionist, all of the above problems (With either projector) can be minimized to insignifigance and long safe 35 or 70mm runs can be had.

Are they the Norelco AA-II (DP-70)? Nope, not that the AAII is perfect either but both can run well. On just reliability, the Norelco wins pretty easily though.

Steve

PS I really HATE the current JJ's method of having the 70mm film go around the optical sound head. I much prefer going through the R-50.

The only benefit of the current scheme is that for either Simplex or Century, a complex can upgrade any of their Century or Simplex 35 theatres to 70mm with about $10,000 since only the projector head need be changed (no penthouse) and can be done so rather quickly.

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 02-07-2001, 07:55 PM:

Norelco AAII!!! Cadillac? no- more like Mercedes-Benz! and built like a Sherman tank to boot! (about as heavy as one too)

I am trying to get the four of them we have installed somewhere soon...

If parts were only a bit less expensive...

Aaron

Posted by Michael Cunningham (Member # 210) on 02-07-2001, 10:06 PM:

Speaking of the Norelco AA-II, how many of you currently working with them have had to replace the shutter multiple times? That's the only thing I don't like about this machine. When "threading monkeys" get their hands on it, they just can't seem to figure out that moving trap thing and are constantly slamming it into the shutter. There is one of these beauties (actually labeled as a Todd AO) in the entire state and it is situated in a booth with no competent personal. The shutter has been replaced four times that I know of in the past six years.

-Mike

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 02-08-2001, 12:11 AM:

IIRC, you aren't supposed to be able to even OPEN the gate unless the machine is not in motion on an AAII..or it has a kill switch... regardless, I am sure that more than the shutter gets damaged when someone does something stupid like that...

Aaron

Posted by Michael Cunningham (Member # 210) on 02-08-2001, 05:53 AM:

You are right about the kill switch, but I'm not talking about while the projector is running. The problem I'm talking about is when they come to thread the machine and don't set the intermittant position before trying to open the gate or trap or whatever you call the part with the aperture plate that moves back into the shutter housing. They feel a bit of resistance (as the trap encounters the shutter) and just assume that the pivot must be sticking. They then push the knob back forward and slam it back open in an attemp to "unstick" the trap. Yeah, that is pretty stupid...

-Mike

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-08-2001, 08:36 AM:

Michael,
Perhaps your kill switch has been removed. Also there is a weighted governer on the end of the shutter shaft to prevent it from even opening while it is running. I wonder if that is also missing. I ahve yet to have a DP pile up its shutter blade in normal service. Even with film monkeys running them. Check these two inportant things out next time you are at that theater!!

Aaron,
Why are you having to feed your DP-70's so many parts??? Thats odd. Perhaps they were well worn to begin with. Normally, you should only be replacing the normal sprockets and gate bands every 4 or 5 years. Occasionally a motor, perhaps a contactor. Not much really goes wrong with a michine if its in good shape.

John W., I have seen the curved 70mm thing that you are talking about. This is known as cupping of the film. It can also be caused by too much take up tension, either by reel or platter. This apparently happened at allot of theaters in Chicago running JJ's in the 80's as I got in all to many prints with the famous sound lens scratch as well as the 35mm upper pad roller scratch. I myself had it happen to a small section of film years ago. What a pisser! It never happened again. I know many techs that reccommend removing all 35mm stuff from the R-50 when doing a 70mm run. Also installing a 70mm pad roller in place of both 35 mm pads to prevent those neusance scratches.
Mark @ GTS

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-08-2001, 09:38 AM:

As far as film "cupping": this is often due to the film being excessively dry, such that the gelatin emulsion shrinks relative to the support, causing the film to "cup" or curl. Kodak recommends maintaining a relative humidity of 50 to 60 percent RH in film handling areas. Processed film will normally lie flat, or have only a very slight amount of benficial "positive curl" under these conditions. But if the humidity gets really low, say under 30 percent, the curl may become quite severe. This is sometimes a problem in cold weather, when heating systems dry the air excessively.

Monitor projection room humidity with an accurate digital humidity gauge or sling psychometer. Use an evaporative humidifier if conditions become too dry. (Misting or ultrasonic humidifiers should not be used, as they spray water into the air, leaving behind deposits of salts and minerals).

A simple way to check for the proper humidity is to let a short piece of the print (leader) hang freely in the booth, and observe the curl after it equilibrates to the room conditions. It should normally lie flat, or have a very slight amount of positive curl.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-08-2001, 04:40 PM:

If anyone is interested, the 70mm feature I ran that was "cupping" the most was "SW-Jedi." It did it on others, but that was the worst. I'm sorry now that I didn't think of checking the take-up tension. At that theater, the union had been thrown out about 7 years before, so there wasn't any old timer to show me those little things that can really make a big difference.

A guy from Boston L&S who did the TAP alignment then suggested to me about changing out the 35mm pad roller for a 70mm one. Luckly, I had a friend who is a tool and die maker- he cut back that "wishbone" guide for me in the same day we opened.

I would always run the same reels on the same projectors- even if there were an odd number of reels. If a projector scratched the film, I would know which one.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-08-2001, 08:04 PM:

If you need to get parts for DP-70's, or any other pricy parts machine for that matter, try checking with your local tool and die shop or local job shop. You will find the price far more bareable than any other route. Shutters, and gears included. Take them the old part and tell them how many you want.
Mark @ GTS