This is topic Joe's Goldberg Port Review 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=002218

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-29-2001, 09:25 AM:
 
Joe:

I have to disagree with your assessment on the Goldberg Projection ports.

First off, they haven't used the thumbscrew for their ports since 1995 or so. That was only their first generation of them...by the end of 1996 they had switched over to the latched version of the port (See the South Branch Cinema 6 photos to see them as they are currently manufactured).

As to the glass, they offer 3 different grades, clear uncoated, optically coated, and Amiran. If your complex didn't get the coated glass (optical) than that was their CHOICE, don't blame Goldberg for providing what the customer wanted (UA). For the bulk of our installations, we use the coated glass but sometimes the customer doesn't want to pay for it.

Next comes the sealing up....again it hasn't been a particular problem though I'll agree it is far from perfect. They slot the holes (now) and allow you to adjust it to ensure a seal all around. A single pain port is NOT going to block the sound of the projection booth completely (nobody's) I find that Goldberg does a fair job and with the projectors we install (Simplex, Century and Kinoton) there isn't the big clacking or banging sound coming from the projectors in the first place...perhaps your projector(s) are just too noisy.

If sound isolation is your thing, go with a double port system, also offered by Goldberg (and others).

Next the tilted glass....it really depends on the down angle of the projector as to how big of an issue it is. If the projector is pointing down then then image reflected off the glass (only really an issue with the uncoated stuff anyway) will be bouncing towards the ground. If the projector is pointing nearly level, then, yes it is a problem. Again, Goldberg offers two other ports with angled glass (an 18 x 18 and their double pain port). The 15 x 21 you reviewed is on the lower cost side and is easier to make and works in most cases.

Next the view port, Goldberg make a single and double pain 12 x 12 (now called the 11 x 11). It can be made with or without a slide shelf (see the South Branch photos for the view port). Again no sealing problems...it is screwed in (no alignment problems in the dozens we have used) and had handles for easy removal of the glass assy.

Again, I won't say the ports are perfect but the current stuff is certainly better than your review indicates. I have NEVER had any complaint about them, in fact, most installers and end-users compliment them and like them.

Steve

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


Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 04-29-2001, 11:48 AM:
 
The Kelmar projector ports should be reviewed also.

 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-29-2001, 11:52 AM:
 
Steve, I absolutely agree with Joe's review on the ports. I used to use them exclusively and I even worked with them on the THX double glass port and put the first ones in. However Golddbergs lack of QC and poor attitude overall really turned me off. The thumbscrew type were a bust and you literally busted yout thumb getting them open. The forst bunch of latch type also were not properly executed either and the latches did not pull the port closed tightly...all in all they arem the P35 of projection ports.
On the other hand I suggest that both you and Joe check out CPI's ports. They are exquisite in manufacture and QC and blow the Goldbergs to kingdom come! They also have the samer glass options to go with theirs, and I do prefer tthe coated option. I use the CPI ports in every job that I can.They are better quality in every way!
Mark @ GTS
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-29-2001, 12:03 PM:
 
I too like the CPI ones. I have as off late found Golderbergs QC a little lacking alot of undeburred edges on reels


 


Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-29-2001, 12:07 PM:
 
Mark:

I have used the CPI ports as well but wanted to keep to the issue of the Goldberg ports. I am not as fond of the CPI ports as you seem to be. Their manufacture is far from consistant and getting the main glass in can be an issue as are the spline nuts. You can chuck the refrigerator magnet to cover the mic hole idea too. The CPI ports seem to be of similar quality to the Goldbergs yet cost more too. CPI's double port design seems to be better but far from perfect.

I'm surprised that on the thumbscrew springs weren't mentioned on the Goldberg ports...it is normally a matter of hours before they were lost, but I digress.

My issue with Joe's review is that he was reviewing an outdated design by almost 5-years. Furthermore one of the complaints was the glass itself which is a customer issue, not the manufacturer. Goldberg offers coated glass (two grades even).

Either company's design beats the heck out most of the home-brew ports I've had to deal with.

Again, never a complaint with the Goldbergs, just a bunch of satisfied customers.

Steve

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


Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-29-2001, 01:00 PM:
 
Steve wrote"Either company's design beats the heck out most of the home-brew ports I've had to deal with. "
I agree on that 100%
One thing no one mentioned is the ease of installing fire dampers with any of them. In many locations because the booth is common to more than one auditorium they still require a fire closure to prevent the spread of a fire in one aud to another via the booth
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-29-2001, 01:32 PM:
 
Steve,
My problems with the CPI ports are zero. And I will request to Ron and Dave that one be sent to Joe for review. I can't say that my problems are anywhere near zero with the Rube Goldberg ports. Defend them if ya want but I'll never use them again.

Gord,
If a building is sprinkled that will prevent the fire from spreading. All new construction, and rehabs in the states that I have been involved in has been sprinkled and that makes the port dampers obsolete. Personally, I think a plex that is not sprinkled is an unsafe building for anyone to be in.

Of course, the sprinklers, if they are set off, will also make all the equipment in the booth obsolete unless it is a Halon type. I have only seen one master Halon system put in to date. Of course, as a dealer, I prefer the water type sprinklers!
Mark @ GTS


 


Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-29-2001, 02:10 PM:
 
Steve,

Your points are valid, so perhaps the name of the product could be changed to something more specific than "Goldberg projection ports"? Past that, I have worked with these ports for several years and they are a joke. Joe didn't even mention the fact that the hinges are screwed in place, which leads to even more alignment and especially sealing issues. I don't know why you like them so much, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

What are the various ballpark prices on the breakdown of the Goldberg ports? You mentioned CPI's port was of about the same quality, but cost more. I haven't had my hands on a CPI port yet, but looking at the specs, I cannot imagine how that could be the case. They look to be made of very high quality.

By the way, I don't think Joe was even looking for a review, but he was in town last week and went to see a movie. The projector noise was blasting through the window so loud that it was extremely distracting. After the show we went to that port window to see if anything could be done and the bolts could not be tightened any further. It was at that instant that the 2 hour annoyance warranted a review, so he fetched his camera and took shots of that exact port window as it was.
 


Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-29-2001, 02:28 PM:
 
Steve,

What is your opinion of the exact ports that I reviewed? I didn't even know newer models existed. Goldberg doesn't seem to have a website, so there is no way I could have known that.

I stick with what I said, though. The Goldberg ports in my review suck my hairy ass ten ways from Sunday. I can't imagine ANYONE saying ANYTHING good about them. Ever. There is definitely better stuff on the market.

Brad, do you know the brand of ports we used at the Chinese? They weren't 100% perfect, but they were the best I have personaly used to date. They were double pane.
 


Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-29-2001, 02:36 PM:
 
They were custom designed, interestingly enough. They did work quite well.
 
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 04-29-2001, 03:01 PM:
 
If the product is outdated, I agree it should be noted in the review write-up. But I also notice that companies seem reluctant to tell anyone that their product has been improved/updated, presumably because people who bought the older design may insist on an upgrade.

I notice that, when a projection room is built, only very rarely will management pay to fix something. Management may pay for a new amp, or to add digital, but will probably not pay (for example) to move a port window that was originally installed to far to one side.

With that in mind, if someone buys (say) a poorly designed, pre-made port window, the staff now has to live with it practically forever. I see no problem giving it a poor review. If the company wants to prevent getting poor reviews, they can offer to fix or replace the item. Of course, no company really wants to do that, but I feel a company should make a decent product right off. Even if they fix the poor design later, I already bought it and have to suffer with it now.

 


Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-29-2001, 03:23 PM:
 
Mark I think you find Ul has something else to say about that
It falls under the issue of any opening that pierces a dividing fire rated wall.
That is why even duct work must have closures and doors have closing mechanisms (for the staff to wedge open.
Also in most of the enviromentaly friendly world Halon extinguishers have been outlawed for the last 4 years for recharging
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-29-2001, 04:10 PM:
 
Thats interesting. I have never run into a single job that required shutters on the ports or anyplace else, even in Chicago. Apparently down here city inspectors and architects do not use any of the UL stuff but rely on BOCA or National Code instead. In both of those codes sprinklers are required theatre wide, not just in the booth. Also the sound and booth walls are to be built to a certain fire rating of which the minimum is usually 1 hour, sometimes 2. Each 5/8" layer of drywall affords 1 hour. So that means that by the time 1 hour, or 2 is up the wall will be gone but the shutters may still be hanging there...albiet a bit buckled from the intense heat wheras with complete sprinklering the fire wouldn't even have a chance to get to the port itself!
I would still stick to the sprinkler method, its still the safest. Ask any fireman......
Mark @ GTS


 


Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-29-2001, 04:51 PM:
 
Actually every one I have seen uses the standard airduct folded type closure concealed in the wall itself
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2