This is topic Projection: Platter v. Changeover - Opinion Poll 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=002746
Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 10-23-2001, 04:32 PM:
I was talking to a projectionist that worked mostly during the 70s and 80s the other day, and asked him if he ever missed projecting film. His response was, "Sometimes I miss being a projectionist, but I have no desire to be a button pusher." Basically, what he was saying is that he doesn't really like to whole concept of platter projection where a single projectionist is running an entire multiplex. Obviously he is simplifying the whole process by calling it "button pushing," but I understand what he is saying. I am lucky enough to be running one of the only changeover houses left in Madison, and I have never run a platter system. (I have run films on a Double MUT when one of our projectors was down) I really like running changeovers. I do feel like it is an art, to a degree. I enjoy the control and the responsibility that comes with it. With my experience using the MUT, I don't really think I would get the same satisfaction out of running films any other way. (I would like to learn the platter systems, but that's just because I'm a bit of a geek)
I am curious about how others feel on this subject, especially those that have/do run changeover houses. I am not necessarily trying to start a platter v. changeover argument (both have advantages that the other lacks), I just want to know how you feel from an operator standpoint.
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 10-23-2001, 04:51 PM:
We've talked about this before; it depends on what you have- an 24-plex or a single theater. Running any kind of rep house almost requires a c/o setup.If I had a projection setup at home, I'd want c/o's (with 1 hr reels) and a platter.
If (at my job) I had any more than a few houses to operate, I'd want a platter. Making c/o's, knowing exactly when to lower the curtian, gettin' fancy with the house lights (and footlights if you got 'em) was a lot of fun, but it wears off when you have to do too many.
Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 10-23-2001, 06:30 PM:
I think that the only major advantage of a platter over change over is the ability to have a multi-plex.Remember that as a Projectionist you are a showman and running changeovers manually along with the associated tasks is a true art form which is beyond the ability of typical 18 year old Jane or John "don't give a 
" concession stand!
I have read several articles about how platters are supposed to be easier on film than change-overs! Ya right! The big complaint that I have heard about change overs is subjecting the film to dirt and damage during rewinding--ya, like film is not exposed to dirt with platter operation? Yes, I have seen many cases of dirty heads and tails with change-overs as well as platters--but this can be eliminated by excellent film handling techniques, housekeeping and maintenance.
One advantage of change-overs vs platters is the ability to inspect reels between shows, and I would never, never consider splicing an archival print for platter ops!
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 10-23-2001, 07:18 PM:
quote:
One advantage of change-overs vs platters is the ability to inspect reels between shows...
Why on Earth would you need to do that?
Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 10-23-2001, 08:07 PM:
Why would you want to inspect reels between shows? Thats an old layover from nitrate film days. I was witness to projectionists who would both clean and repair damage (worn sprocket holes) on reels between shows as they rewound the reels--kinda sorta like everyone talking about doing build-ups on 6000s on the rewind bench so that reels can be inspected as opposed to building directly on a platter. This is not really necessary today with our current print stock and LaVezzi VKF sprockets.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-23-2001, 08:26 PM:
Yes this topic has indeed been beaten to death. Might want to do a search for it. There's more than anyone could probably be able to stomach on one sitdown in the archives.Will, platters ARE easier on film than changeoevers. Running reels is a brute force method of film handling and rewinding is more of a problem than film being exposed to the air for 20 seconds or so because of the higher speeds during the rewinding cycle that attract dust and dirt. It is also very important that the tension settings on the rewind bench and reel arms are set properly or the film will be all cinch scratched to hell at the reel ends, which I see *most* of the time with changeover houses. (Guttag's theater is most probably not an offender.)
I believe the general projectionist population does agree that for short runs of only a few presentations that changeovers are better for the sake of the film, but for a show that is going to run more than a few times that platters are better on the film.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-23-2001, 08:41 PM:
I agree that this topic has been beaten to death. I work with both systems on a semi-regular basis (not to mention 16mm with changeovers as well)...each has its advantages and drawbacks.
The one setup that I haven't tried but would like to at some point is a multiplex with automated changeover equipment. On the surface, it seems like more work than platters and more subject to the effects of automation failure (but more redundant, too), but I just don't know. All the changeover booths I've worked in are manually operated and aren't multiplexes, so it would definitely be a different experience.
I also haven't worked with towers, but I assume that operation is the same as with platters and automation, except that the prints need to be rewound.
Posted by John Westlund (Member # 913) on 10-23-2001, 08:43 PM:
I work in a single screen theatre with a platter. It is nice to have it but I sometimes wish we did changeovers instead. 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-23-2001, 09:05 PM:
I have run changeovers. In absolutely no way do I believe that it is an "art form". If you can thread a projector, hit the motor start switch right when you see the first cue and then hit the changeover switch right when you see the second cue (or a second after it, actually) then you can run changeovers. No special "talent" required. Just skill. If you try to get artsy when you push these buttons, then you are probably screwing up the show. Exceptions being fading the lights up at just the right time and stuff like that. Some will argue that running changeovers makes you part of the "magic". That's fine and dandy if you believe in hocus-pocus. The magic is in the making of the movie, not in a precisely timed changeover. Using the "I'm part of the magical experience" logic, then you are also helping make a bad movie bad, since you are part of it.
You can have a great presentation with changeovers and with platters. But I am sick and tired of people whining that they are superior just because they run changeovers. Most of these people are a bit older, stuck in their ways and blinded by their past. These are the same people that probably go around saying things like "In my day I had to walk to school in 8 feet of snow, we didn't have these fancy cars to drive or the sun to melt the snow back then. You kids have it so easy today". Running changeovers does not make you more of a showman. Your presentation either is incredible or it is not.
Bottom line: It takes more skill to be a car mechanic than to do changeovers. There are far more mechanics than projectionists. Lots of these guys were the same concession kids that have been described. It's not for everybody, but it doesn't exactly take mindbending skill to run changeovers properly.
Posted by Wes Hughes (Member # 981) on 10-23-2001, 10:24 PM:
BRAVO Mr. Redifer! I cannot count the number of times in the past 10-15 years I have wanted to make the very point you made !!
Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 10-24-2001, 12:48 AM:
Whoa there, Joe. I'm hoping it was what the old projectionist said to me that ticked you off, and not something that I said. I didn't mean to come across as superior at all. I just enjoy running film the way i do, and don't believe myself to be a better projectionist [or more magical] than anyone here. I was just curious about people's personal preference. Since you've done both, what's yours?
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-24-2001, 02:23 AM:
I really wasn't thinking about "names" when I wrote my post, so it was not directed at any one individual. If you enjoy changeovers then that is cool. Personally I like platters. At the Telluride Film Festival, everything is changeovers. There was one film (Straight Story) which was run first for the staff. Then it was run at another theater (there were 5 different theaters at the festival that year, I believe) then finally at my theater. At each reel change (including the moments leading up to and after) I could see signs of wear... scuff marks and even some dirt. This movie had only been run 3 times and it looked OK when I saw it on it's first run with the staff. All changeovers don't have to be like this... perhaps I am a bit jaded due to the prehistoric equipment used at the TFF. The reel rewinders are the type where you close the case and it has two speeds: super fast and off. Not exactly friendly on the film. Hard starts like that can ruin a film very quickly. If I made a film I would never want it run there unless they updated their equipment to something with variable speeds. I guess if you want your film to get damaged quick, then that's the stuff to use.
If a person finds running changeovers "fun" then more power to them. They certainly don't have any advantages over platters as far as presentation goes, however (assuming the best projectionists are working in either scenario). But platters do have an advantage that there is much less wear on the film since there is constant handling with changeovers.
I do regret that exhibitors see platters as a way to skimp on payroll and training and just shove people into the booth. Brainwraps are rarely caused by the existence of the platter, just poor film handling and maintenence. Don't blame the equipment when you see platter damage on film. Blame the operator and/or the tech who services it.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-24-2001, 02:26 AM:
Scott - IMHO, Brad's 'brute force' argument with regard to film being pulled off a feed spool (as distinct from being fed off a platter under power) applies to towers only more so. What's even worse is that many actually use reverse tension on the feed spool in order to avoid the large weight of the vertically mounted feature from yoyo-ing out of control as it is pulled by the projector's feed sprocket. To ensure an even wind on takeup, the motors used are of much higher torque than the typical belt or chain-driven arrangement used to drive take up spindles that are an integral part of the projector. And when you rewind, reverse tension is again applied to the spool feeding the film to stop it from running out of control.All this is very bad news for the print. IHMO, towers are the worst of both worlds and the only possible justification for them would be in a projection box where there just isn't the floorspace either for two projectors or a platter. For this reason we had to use on at a university film society I was involved in years ago (the projection box was formerly a cleaners' cupboard!), and I do not have happy memories of that thing, what it did to the prints and especially what it did to my back lifting the prints up onto the feed spindle!
Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 10-24-2001, 05:05 AM:
Towers DO NOT damage film! Just like reels and platters don't if used correctly. This myth that towers damage film starts when people do not know or care enough to use the equipment as it was intended to be used, or the equipment is in a poor state of repair. I have long since given up attempting to educate operators how to use the Westrex tower correctly, I've found that as soon as I'm out of the booth they revert to their old, lazy habits; rewinding a full spool in five minutes, running with too much tension on, etc, etc. One of the great things about particularly the Westrex tower is that you can adjust the pay-off and take-up tension very subtly and easily.
Used correctly the towers will not damage film, used incorrectly (which sadly seems to be the way they are used) they will damage film, just like any other film transport system, although it's fair to say that it's easier to abuse a tower than it is the average platter.
I ran a print of Pulp Fiction on towers when it was released, it left our cinema some six months or so later, having been run in all three screen with only reel joins and no visible scratching. The result of a team of operators who knew how to use the towers properly and cared enough to do it. We got the same copy back for rep runs weeks and weeks later and it was in a terrible state.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-24-2001, 05:05 AM:
There is no excuse for scuffed and marked film in a changeover theatre. Changeovers done right with proper handeling and rewinding will not damage film.
Also I have run and installed many multiplexes that were automated changeovers and found them to be far less work in the long run
and now a word from Steve on this issue
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-24-2001, 05:25 AM:
Not only can you adjust the tension very finely, you have to, constantly, throughout the show as the weight of the print gradually transfers from top to bottom. With the Westrex tower I was taught that adjustments needed to be made every ten minutes (the Cinemecannica ones are a bit better, admittedly). Both platters and projector-mounted spools, on the other hand, do not need adjusting throughout the entire duration of the reel (be that 20 minutes, the entire programme or anything in between).And fast rewinding may not be desirable, but in a tightly scheduled turnaround between shows there is no other option. Neither platters nor two-projector operation has this disadvantage. Nor is there any 14,000ft spool limit which forces you to put an intermission in longer films whether you want one or not (though polyester stock has raised this limit almost to the three-hour mark). The only unavoidable delay between shows with a platter is the time taken to clean the film path and relace, and with two projectors there is no need for any delay at all.
I agree - towers can be used without damaging prints, but doing so is harder work and requires greater skill than with any of the alternatives, which is why I never liked them. They make life unnecessarily complicated.
That having been said, one point in favour of towers is that they eliminate the problem of static wraps.
Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 10-24-2001, 07:58 AM:
According to the Westrex manual for the 5035 film carrier assembly, 'It is possible to find a setting for both Variacs at which a projector will both start and run the entire length of a 36" spool'. This is the practice I have always used with the 5035. It relies of course, on your projector running up to speed in asensible time, usually about 6 seconds. The manual never mentions adjusting tension throught the show, indeed I have that sites which adopt that practice have film damage problems, whereas sites that set it and leave it, have few problems. I never liked the Cinemecanicca DGB units, you can't adjust the tension easily, they won't run small centred spools, and you can't alter the height of the spool shafts to suit the installation. The auto-stop rewind system is the chief cause of damage to film, because more often than not, it doesn't stop at the end of the reel, and I am finding now that parts for the earlier DGB towers are no longer available.I'm not saying that towers are the ultimate film transport mechanism, far from it, just trying to dispell some of the myths surrounding their (mis)use! You are quite right Leo, the things do require more skill to use properly, but bear in mind they come from a time when skill and good training was somewhat more abundant than it is now.
The damned things used to give me back ache, lugging full reels around the building, hoisting them onto the pay-off shaft! Great pieces of kit when you want to change that ONE trailer in the middle of the previews though!
The bulk of my services are running 5035 Westrex towers, a good 50% could never use platters due to space restrictions, or operational restraints, (moving prints between screens is fast and safe when it's on a large reel, admittedly heavy!). At one site one of the girls is quiet short, so they had to build steps so she could reach the top of the towers and projectors!
Each to their own, for multi's it's gotta be platters, but a second machine in the premier screens is a good thing. For singles yuo can sensibly use anything, but for those showing archive material or preview it has to be changeover. The three or four screeners, use whatever, usually towers up here, but we do have the odd platter.
Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 10-24-2001, 09:29 AM:
It seems that what it boils down to as far as which method of transport is best, is mostly dependant on the operator. The inherent problem with platter systems is not the platter system itself, but the fact that the operator is some 16 year old kid that hasn't been properly trained in its use or proper film handling techniques. I think a properly trained projectionist working on properly maintained equipment of any kind will leave a print in good shape, but I think that a poorly trained projectionist is a bit more likely to cause damage in a platter situation, as there are more variables: a longer film path, many more rollers to go through, more problems with static, etc. A poorly trined projectionst in a changeover situation is more likely to have horrible and incosistent presentation, but a little less likely to do loads of damage to a print. Do you agree?
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 10-24-2001, 09:42 AM:
I worked in a theater with 4 screens - all had two projector c/o's with 1 hour reels. Besides the usual advantages (could break down a show without staying late) it had another: If the manager wanted to not have an operator, it was easier for him because he could thread one projector while shows were running on the other.Also, it didn't take very long for upper management to say, "We could use those extra projectors somewhere else" and pull them out.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-24-2001, 10:45 AM:
On the only Westrex tower I ever used for any significant length of time, no way could you leave the variacs on one setting throughout. Either you'd have to start off with the take-up pulling far too hard or it would have ground to a halt after about 5,000 feet I'd guess (on both sides, though I do remember that one was far more difficult than the other to start). I thought that was normal, but I guess the motors must have been almost burnt out.I do remember trying to show 'Schindler's List' by running the first hour on a 6,000 foot spool and then changing over to the tower (the print had arrived at the last minute so I made up the first three reels on a 6,000 to buy myself time to work on the rest) and spending most of that hour praying that the tower wouldn't play silly buggers over starting. The motor tended to start off sluggishly and then suddenly pull really hard, so you needed to take up the slack by hand and then act as a human shock absorber as it ramped up to speed. My usual trick was to put about 100 feet of polyester spacing on the start of each reel (polyester was quite rare stuff in those days) which could withstand the motor speeding up - not an option when you're coming in on a changeover. I got away with it - just.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-24-2001, 12:57 PM:
Joe -- I agree that those Goldberg enclosed power rewinds are terrible on film. They seem to do much better with 5" hub standard metal house reels than with shipping reels, though. And they don't have any way to crank the takeup reel up to speed by hand before starting the motor, either.
Still, crappy rewind benchs don't invalidate reel-to-reel projection as a concept any more than mistimed platters invalidate the concept of non-rewinding film transports.
All of this discussion is beside the point of the original question, which, as I read it, wasn't about "which is better for the film" (answer: it depends on the equipment, the operator, and the length of the run), but rather "what do you prefer."
If I were building a "dream" theatre, I would put in a changeover system, but, then again, my "dream" theatre would have a program that changes every day, so individual prints wouldn't be run more than once or twice. I'd also have 16mm and 70mm capability, of course, but this is starting to be a topic for another thread.
Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 10-24-2001, 02:36 PM:
That one's exhibiting 'sick tower syndrome' Leo!The spool shaft bearings give up after 25 years or so, also the capacitors on each motor go soft. The motors themselves are all but indestructible, they are actually designed to withstand being stalled for long periods of time, without damage, so the projector could be started by automation (usually Cinemation of the period). I change the odd Variac bush from time to time, but basically the 5035 just keeps on grinding.
Posted by Craig Hanham (Member # 1010) on 10-26-2001, 05:34 AM:
From what I've read here obviously film handling is the key.
Running c/o with carbon arc means I have to do a far bit of work esp. on a 3 and 1/2 hour Bollywood movie.
Since most of these films do very short runs (1-3 screenings) in both c/o and platter houses the amount of dirt and scratching is horrific. 
The big advantage pro c/o is when print shows up 1 hour b4 show time and every splice needs to be checked then it can be done while running.
Maybe i should go to 6000' reels.....
Posted by Don Sneed (Member # 955) on 10-26-2001, 08:40 AM:
Ok here is my 2-cents, what I missed the most the way a projectors use to look like....I started at a single screen theatre Downtown when there was a downtown...(only twin Jerry Lewis theatres were around back then) in 1970...the theatre was built in 1937, had all original equipment...three machines..Super simplex (why did they call them simplex, they were not simple!!) RCA sound (with PEC)....hey Gordon let see if the young guys know what PEC is !! just kidding guys !! Brenkart Enarc Lamphouse, a generator for the DC, the booth located on the second balcony....the projectors angle was close to 45 degrees (give & take a couple)....6,000 foot reels with magazines...the automation was the operator !! Whoooaaa weeee these look like projectors to me and a real projection booth....now with consoles & platters......a booth now does not look like a projection room anymore to me......or not as the way I grew up with it....of course time has change, (Ok the ship sank get over it !!!)
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-26-2001, 09:14 AM:
Don the first theatre I was chief at had 3 WE universal bases with Motiograph K heads and Ashcraft c70 lamps with the MG sitting in the booth proper. The sound system was a wall mounted Motigraph multichannel with persecta and 4 track mag
Posted by Bob Healey (Member # 1003) on 10-26-2001, 10:43 AM:
When the print arriving on time is the exception, and not the rule, I'm glad for the c/o's. Prints this fall for most cases have been arriving on average two hours before showtime. There has even been one dropped at 30 min to show. Assumining everything in the booth is powered up, we can be onscreen in the time it takes to resplice the head and tail on a reel and rewind a 2000 foot reel twice and thread. Even though c/o's can be a pain at times, I like them due to having a bit more flexibility. We only get a tech once in a long while for sound calibration, and having two machines means there if one breaks, there is a backup, and we have a guide to repairing the broken one.
Posted by Don Sneed (Member # 955) on 10-26-2001, 11:46 AM:
Wow Gordon I can Relate !!! It's been awhile, but your mention equipment, whoooaaaa weeeeee, what a tank, but damn good ,machines !!Hey Bob, I have ran on one machine many times due breakdown, that is one advantage of a C/O booth compare to platters, but if I had a twin or a triple screen theatre, it would be reel to reel, of course with xenon lamps, & automation, but beyond that, platters would have to be the way to go....In Houston when I was with RCA,Lowes theaters had a roll-around rectifier that plug into the Christie console, in case one went out durning a show, I always thought that was a great idea...
Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 10-26-2001, 02:31 PM:
I have had the very fortunate experience of being able to play around with a sound on disc machine. WE U-base Kaplan head and variable speed drive for both sound and silent speeds! Now thats a machine to operate!
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-26-2001, 06:00 PM:
Wil there is a big difference between playing around with a WE and actually haveing to keep them running with old Hindi films for 3 years
Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 10-26-2001, 06:14 PM:
Actually that machine is in a private collection, is origonal/unrestored and fully operational and in excellent condition. Yes, it takes a lot to know how to properly run it! Not too many people today are able to have that experience. After running one of these--which is definately an art--hear that Brad and Joe--an art--I have a lot of respect for the Projectionists of yesteryear!
Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 10-26-2001, 06:39 PM:
Hey Will,
Have any pictures of that projector or booth? I have never seen one of those machines. I have the projectionists of the days of yore, as well as the modern day projectionists that give a damn. I would love to hear more stories about the old days, especially the pre/early sound era.
Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 10-26-2001, 11:51 PM:
The only advantage I had with Change Overs was when this Indian Film Distributor wanted to show the same film in one Part of Aucland at a hour start time(1 print) Difference 7 kilometres from each other("Westside" Henderson and the "Crystal Palace" MtEden) well we worked it out that wouldn't work but they didn't listen ,so I started 8pm Sharp and after the first reel finished they had a Courier ready (there own people)they dashed off with the reel taking them 15 minutes to reach the Palace and so it went on (these films are normally 3 to 4 hrs long with a half hour interval , I think it cost them more in speeding tickets that the profit they made for the night.
Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 10-27-2001, 12:10 AM:
Come to think of it ,one time when I was was abit worst for wear ,having a short doze to try and freshen up ,All I heard was the sound of the splice going through the Gate I knew I had 8sec to fire up the Carbons and get the machine rolling only abit of black on the screen , but this can be abit of a handicap if your watching some old film on TV and doze off and wake up to the sight of a Change over cue on screen , as it can get your heart pumping abit before you realise where you are .
Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 10-27-2001, 12:28 AM:
I've never seen a film damaged by a machine, it takes somebody's lack of attention to detail to cause the machine to do damage.
Posted by Don Sneed (Member # 955) on 10-27-2001, 01:23 AM:
The two strangest changeover system I ever saw, one in Houston, a single screen theater with (2) Peerless lamps they had a chain connected to the non-operating side of the lamp dowser, the chain ran to ther booth ceiling to the other lamp when the operator pull open one dowser the other would close, the Weaver C/O was not working..The other was at a drive-in somewhere in Oklahoma, there was a board that slide in front of the projector port window, the operator would slide the board to block the port when change over, it worked !!
The best idea I saw was in Fort Worth Texas, at a large single screen GCC theater...the booth had Ashcraft carbon lamps, on the cables going to the lamp from the recitfier the operator install a small soft iron bar wrap around the one of the cables to create a electrolmagnet, below the cable was a bell with a small chain and a ball, when the operator struck the lamp, he would put the ball on the now magnet bar, the lamp ran at 135 amps, if the amperes got to 105 amps the weighted ball would drop, hitting the bell to alert the operator that he needed to trim the lamp, when hearing the bell, he would wake up, & get out of the loung chair, trim the arc, go back to sleep....cool idea !! not good for the people watching the show since the picture is turning dark, but good for the operator.
Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 10-27-2001, 01:36 AM:
Movie going has changed alot since I was a kid (early 60s) TV was just making its appearance in NZ and you had to well off to afford one,this was a Place where you went for News ,Sports ,serials and of cause the Matinee, the presentation was not good ,rain (on prints),film breaks ,Carbons crashing ,Ice Cream in your hair and the comotion as the lights went down at the start of the session , which really was a Session then , Coming attracion slides ,the light show before the start ,standing for the National athem (getting slapped if you didn't)all the useless travelogues and then half time , then we start over again the light show ,curtain Call, then the scratchy feature starts and you notice the colour change with every change over ,well I think we have come along way since Mono ,Carbon Arcs and poor print quality , this is only a reflection of the suburban Cinemas though as the City or First release cinemas got the best prints and presentation, the point is some times we forget some things of the past and think that it was done better then ,this is in no way saying that I didn't enjoy those times ,one of our local cinemas had a Fire Station Behind it and a volunteer brigade ,when the siren went to call the Fireman the theatre was in an up-roar as the side doors were opened by the children and the fire engines cheered up the drive ,such memories I don't think you could get in your local Plex?
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-27-2001, 01:43 AM:
quote:
I've never seen a film damaged by a machine, it takes somebody's lack of attention to detail to cause the machine to do damage.
The exception being poorly designed equipment, like the reel rewinders at the TFF. They DO damage film every time, gauranteed. I guess the same could be said for some crappy platter designs, but most of the current stuff is pretty "kick ass".
Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 10-27-2001, 01:47 AM:
The strangest change over I have used was at the "Regent" Helensville this was a completely manual C/O as you had to close one dowser and open the other and use your knee to switch the sound to the incoming machine , quite an Art as if you did this too quickly you could break the mirror protectors and snap the Carbons, they had "West-Star" with peerlees Mag. and the sound was Valve tubes (mono) Scary !
Posted by Craig Hanham (Member # 1010) on 10-27-2001, 04:32 AM:
Well Paul and Don what you describe is still my reality.
Westrex c/o with Peerless arc lamps and the 'automation' is the aircraft wire from dowser handle to dowser handle via pulleys anchored to the ceiling. Only changed from the ORIGINAL Westar sound heads and amp and mono speaker a month ago (wanna buy 
), got reverse scanning and CP65 now .
But still manual sound changeover. I like it. It works. Its damn simple and easy to truoble shoot. Just dont pull the handle in a panic.Hey Paul I bet I know which Indian film Distributor you are on about. Wish I knew about you a few months ago! email me.
Posted by Don Sneed (Member # 955) on 10-27-2001, 08:29 AM:
Hey Craig, it work, I just wish I would have thought of the simple idea & patient it, maybe I would not have to be working now...I would like to know when & who thought of this idea for a simple change over.... 
Posted by Bob Healey (Member # 1003) on 10-27-2001, 10:43 AM:
For C/O's, we have everything wired into a series of relays which are activated by a button on each projector. The motor and lamphouse dowser are seperate from this system. There are also manual overrides for everything except the input selector on our dolby unit, and that is only a matter of finding the time to wire it up.
Posted by Craig Hanham (Member # 1010) on 10-27-2001, 06:36 PM:
Don as far as I know my c/o system was thought up by whoever fitted the gear in the early seventies.
To me it looks like the sort of thing most stage techs. would come up with.
I have made simmilar set ups for all sorts of stage effects.
Basically KISS (keep it simple stupid)and refer to a 8 yer old if you cant come up with something. 
:beer
Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 10-28-2001, 06:43 PM:
Sorry, I am not able to post any photos of that particular machine. There are some photos in the pictures format (there are a few museums featured). According to the History of Simplex listed in the manuals forum, it is stated that the Kaplan was a direct copy of the Simplex Standard/Regular. Yes, it is true.As far as being showmen--that is what the Projectionists of the silent era were! Imagine working in coordination with the organ player or orchastra to run the film. Hand cranking a full length feature and varring the speed according to the action and organ player--WOW! That handcranking bit will be sure to give someone Popeye forearms ! It is also an experience to swap the hand cranking from one arm to the other w/o varrying the speed! I have also heard many a story about how those old Projectionists lost their lives--or were badly injured due to nitrate fires--and how they went to extra length to ensure that a fire did not get out of hand. These are stories that I have been told.
Posted by Carl King (Member # 398) on 10-30-2001, 08:28 AM:
Right on, Joe.It doesn't take an artist to run a booth. It takes a person of some skill and care. You don't have to be an Einstein(did I spell his name right?) but a few brain cells do help. Running a modern booth is short on physcial work but long on care and attention. Just about anyone can be taught in a short time to threadup and push the button but not everyone really cares about a good presentation. Those that do are worth their weight in gold. We all know that a good presentation is what the patrons pay for. Give it to them each and every time they put their butts in one of your seats and they will come back.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-07-2003, 12:14 PM:
This thread and many others have debated the merits of platters vs. changeovers. There seems to be general agreement that in skilled hands, either platters or changeovers can and do work fine without causing film damage. But there's a thread on rec.arts.movies.tech where 1 or 2 changeover diehards INSIST that platters destroy film, period, and therefore presentation quality has declined. They will not be persuaded otherwise.
I'm not trying to dredge up the platter vs. changeover debate here! So don't yell at me for bumping this up. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But here's a question. Note that I'm talking mainly about mainstream, first-run theaters now, not specialty venues. Whether you are an advocate of platters or changeovers, in your unbiased opinion, overall, has the widespread use of platters improved onscreen presentation quality in comparison to the changeover days? Has onscreen presentation quality declined because of platters? Or has there been little or no change?
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-07-2003, 12:31 PM:
There are too many factors here to single out the means of film transport as having improved or harmed presentation quality over the last 25 years or so.
My personal impression (though I am too young to remember) is that the height of film presentation quality would have been in the larger downtown theatres in the mid- to late-1960s. By that time, optics and electronics had evolved significantly since the early days of film, 70mm and 4-track 35mm mag prints would have been, if not common, at least not rare (along with dye-transfer Technicolor prints) and the large single-screen houses (complete with curtains) would have still been in their prime.
Based on the theatres I've seen and what I have been told by others, presentation quality took a dive in the mid-1970s until the mid- to late-1980s, when shoebox mall-type theatres became common, and when shows were often run by inexperienced operators. I would tend to say that presentation quality in typical first-run multiplexes has improved since the early '90s, particularly with the introduction of digital sound and the higher-quality optics which are in use in the newer theatres (along with other factors, such as improved film stocks and more flexible automation systems), although most such theatres are still missing many of the elements of showmanship which existed in the late '60s.
Platter vs. changeover has nothing to do with any of this, except for the (untrue) perception in the early years of platter operation that less skill was needed to operate the equipment. My own feeling is that the opposite is true: it takes about ten minutes to learn how to do proper changeovers and other ten (maybe fifteen) to learn how to trim an arc lamp. Platters and automation require additional troubleshooting skills and are more complex topics to learn about.
Personally, I started with xenon and changeovers with large reels, but now regularly run all types of systems (except for towers). As long as the equipment has been maintained well, it's possible to put on a good show with any type of transport system.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-07-2003, 01:10 PM:
IMHO, "Film Done Right ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
" is more dependent on having a skilled and caring projectionist than the type of equipment used to transport the film. To the extent that automation has allowed a "dumbing down" of booth operations to be run by part-time, unskilled and/or uncaring labor, things are worse. But even in today's "cut costs to the bone" economy, many theatres still shine in their ability to make money AND do film right, regardless of the equipment they happen to use. Their success is usually due to their respect and support of skilled and caring booth personnel. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
For theatres, "It's the Economy, Stupid!" should really be "It's the PEOPLE, Smart!" ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Jean-Michel Grin (Member # 1360) on 01-07-2003, 02:38 PM:
Changeover or platters, the difference is the cost of two projectors and reels vs. a single projector and platters.
But the most important is the cleanliness of the equipement, and depend of the conscience (?) of the projectionist. That's the difference between a real film-handler and a guy that just push a button. I really have a projectionist that work like this ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
And sometimes I think that I should kiking is ass off ! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Gordon Bachlund (Member # 124) on 01-07-2003, 06:21 PM:
Bouquets to you, John, for the best answer of all. Here! Here!
Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 01-08-2003, 02:42 AM:
Well Joe, I don't know what got into you but I find your generalized remarks about us who are a "...little older..." offensive. It was men like my father who pioneered this field (starting in 1916) who helped make the advances you enjoy today with their suggestions and technical expertise and who saw the industry go from silent films to sound, from B&W to color, from flat to 'scope and 3-D and from mono sound to stereo. I personally had to serve an apprenticeship for 18 months before I was turned lose in a booth by myself and took great pride in my contribution to the movie experience from the dimming of the lights to the opening of the main and title curtains at just the right time to the checking and maintaining a good sound level, light and focus throughout the performance to making those changeovers without any interruption in the continuity and maintaining the equipment as I lovingly handled the film that had been placed in my care. I believe the producers charged me with the responsibility of putting on a perfect performance and I believe I accomplished that the vast majority of the time and that made me feel very much a part of the production.
I have been in many multiplexes operating with platters and unattended booths since leaving the theatre and have yet to find ONE that has put on a performance that even begins to compare with what can be done in a well operated changeover booth. I understand why they are called "film handlers" today. Because that's all they do. They get the film on the platter and into the machine then push the start button and abandon the booth projecting pictures that are out of focus, out of frame, poorly lit with fuzzy edges because the projectors are not properly lined up and with sound so loud it just about blows you head off. And talk about film damage, you should see some of the trailers and splices I've seen (I realize this makes me guilty of the same generalization I accuse you of, but that is all I have experienced). And no, not all of that happen in the same plex. Those are just examples of what I've seen. There are few projectionists left. We are subject to minimum wage employees who receive almost no training and apparently have little interest in good projection.
I'll stack a well run "attended" booth up against any platter operation you want anytime.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-08-2003, 04:09 AM:
![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif)
and told us not to remove the spare projector in case of problems.....17 years later when the cinema closed down, there where 80 multiplex cinemas in the region with platters. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)