This is topic What makes older projectors better than newer ones? 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=002969
Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 01-15-2002, 12:14 AM:
 
I've always heard that vintage projectors are better quality than new ones. Particular Simplex. I've seen some XL's from the early 50's in action, and they do produce an awesome rock-steady picture. What makes a vintage XL so much better than a modern Simplex?

Speaking of XL's, is there any difference between the XL and the 1050 other than the fact that the 1050 has a turrett?

------------------
This one time, at Projection Camp, I stuck a xenon bulb....
 

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 01-15-2002, 12:34 AM:
 
The XL and PR1014/1015 (the PR1050 is the turret version of the 1015) are for all intents and purposes, the EXACT SAME MACHINE, just with a different name, the major difference is that the 1015 and 1050 do not have any of the nitrate-friendly hardware (fire shutters, fire rollers, film buckle sensors) on them like many older machines do. They use the same parts, they look basically alike.

As for why some people like that older machines better? I am not sure. Some claim they run better, other claim the build quality was better in the day, others prefer the 'antique' look of a 1949 XL as opposed to a 1989 1015... I have run them all and don;t see too much of a difference.

-Aaron

 

Posted by Wes Hughes (Member # 981) on 01-15-2002, 01:49 AM:
 
I have always felt that (most) vintage machines are better than new ones. The only exceptions I make are to anything with a flat gate...they just don't pass muster with thin polyester film. I think older simplex and century projectors were more solid with very precise critical tolerances. Todays new century and simplex machines are made in the same factory by the same company,and I will never agree that manufacturing tolerances are as precise as in previous decades...even with modern computerized machinery. I have personally witnessed that new Century/Simplex intermittent halves are not machined perfectly flat. I have had some re-machined locally.

As far as some "new-age" machines (non-traditional) such as the Christie gearless machine: Junk 'em after maybe 10 years.
 

Posted by William Bunch (Member # 1040) on 01-15-2002, 04:25 AM:
 
In the military (Army & Air Force) we are still using Simplex XLs exactly like they were bought in 1951. I am personally responsible for all of them within the Pacific region in six countries. 33 theaters. We almost never have to work on these except to change the oils. Never had an intermittent go bad. Maybe a bearing or two over the last half century. We use changeovers and NOTHING is automated. There is always somebody nearby. We also use the straight gates and the polyester film is not a problem except for noise. We don't rack up the hours per day that you folks do but most all of our theaters have been continuously operating for 50 years.

They are beautiful examples of what manufacturing used to be. Even the owner's manuals still work!

I'm happy. (knock on wood that tomorrow I don't get a call from Guam or someplace) Then again it would be nice to get away from all this snow.

Ya know what I think it is?? That 500 pound cast iron pedestal absorbs all the vibrations so that none of the machined surfaces ever touch each other

Bill BuncH
Misawa, Japan
Army, Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES)
 

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-15-2002, 05:46 AM:
 
What's wrong with straight gates? I've never had a problem with them. The Century C's (straight-gate model) that I'm familiar with are in great shape and give a rock-steady picture. I will admit that they're probably not as nice as the SAs with damaged film, however.

Bill--check the picture gallery under "Hanscom AFB"; is this the "standard" AAFES theatre equipment package? I ran that booth once last year and really enjoyed it--the equipment ran beautifully. They need a better rewind bench, however. Is there any chance I could get a print of the funky AAFES policy trailer?


 

Posted by William Bunch (Member # 1040) on 01-15-2002, 06:27 AM:
 
Scott, I saw that Hanscom photo site some time ago. Except for the paint on the walls this could very well be any AAFES projection booth.

Plain is simple and simple just plain WORKS !! (typical military)
 

Posted by William Bunch (Member # 1040) on 01-15-2002, 06:44 AM:
 
Most all our electric rewinds are Goldberg.

Did you also get to "inspect" the film, one 2000 ft reel at a time on the hand cranks ?? We almost never damage films. No platters, always somebody right nearby the running film and the film running inside those enclosed upper and lower magazines. No dust, no static. But you better not get too engrossed in that magazine come changeover time

Bill Bunch
Misawa, Japan
 

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 01-15-2002, 10:29 AM:
 
I think the key thing here is when a real person maintains the equipment, it can run indefinitely.

My own feeling about new vs. older projectors is that while the machining accuracy has improved, the quality of parts, assembly and some engineering has gone down.

For example, I'm fixing ten Simplex PR1050s we bought about 7 years ago. The stainless steel gate lateral guide rollers have all rusted. I don't think anyone tightened the set screws for the pins that hold the lateral guide rollers because they are all loose. To get room to work, I sometimes have to unplug a 3-pin Molex connector that controls the aperture. Apparently, the Molex pins were crimped wrong, because I see someone stuck a soldering iron in there and soldered the wires to the crimp pins. While that did get the projectors out the door, the wires now break off very easily when you try to unplug the connector. A fairly simple job has now turn in to a nightmare. It also looks like they removed the feed sprocket film stripper to make room for a wire. I think this would be crazy, especially with polyester film.

Just my own $0.02.
 

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 01-15-2002, 12:13 PM:
 
Simplex has done away with the film stripper on the feed sprocket. I don't know if the machine you're talking about was just an isolated case of that, but none of the 12 Milleniums at my last theater had one.

Isn't the 1040 the modern version of the XL? I saw 1040's at a theater I visited in Knoxville last year. They look like XL's (If I'm thinking of the XL correctly), but they have the newer Strong gray hardened gloss enamel. Basically they look like 1050's but with straight gates and no turrets. And they have that door to the film compartment that you can close. Isn't that basically what an XL is? I've never heard of the 1014 or 1015.


 

Posted by Dennis Atkinson (Member # 345) on 01-15-2002, 12:17 PM:
 
I think the quality droped when companies went from all gears to belt drives. A rock steady picture is a good enough reason for me to like an old XL
 
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-15-2002, 03:14 PM:
 
With projectors today, it seems more like quantity control instead of quality control.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-15-2002, 07:10 PM:
 
I don't completely agree that newer machines are all bad, in fact with a couple of exceptions they are actually better in may ways.
Take the X-L for example. The main casting has been made much thicker and heavier over the years. Iahve personally machined off about 100 fronts of X=L's over the years and I can definately testify that the older castings were sometimes paper thin above the lens mount, same for the gear side. Newer castings are far thicker, less porus, andleak less, expecially when you get a new one that is painted at the factory. There have also been numerous improvements to the X-L intermittent such as the addition of an oil passageway to the end of the Starwheel bushing to help allevialte this common point of seize. Also, seals have been between the intermittent carrige and mainframe, intermittent and carrage, and a seal at the outer end of the starwheel. The starshaft seal serves two fold, 1. to prevent film crud form getting back down the starwheel shaft, and a possible resultant seized shaft, and 2. To keep the oil in the machinery. I don't however agree with the latest round of gate/trap assemblys. IMHO they goofed it up there. Another VERY important improvement that was done was to move the upper sprocket up higher to allow lenses to rotate in the turrett without having to open the darn thing up. If they'd only go back to the old sstyle trap it would be a great machine. While there was quantity production for a couple of years here in the states it has gone either back to normal or less than normal(more likely) than it was. There is one machine, all belt driven, that I won't go into here. It doesn't qualify!

There are two very old machines I make exception too, and in my opinion they are the best ever made. One is the old cast iron Century C, and the second would be the E-7, which is still a commonly found machine in film labs today. I've never seen either one of these have any problems running polyestar film, ever. That may be another story with a Super or Standard though, I don't have any customers still running them. They may require some minor adjustments to the gate springs to get the proper tension but I can't imagine them not being able to run the stuff either.
Mark @ GTS
 

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 01-15-2002, 09:53 PM:
 
Kindasorta related question: What do you guys think is the best Simplex projector? (Model and vintage.) Just curious. Thanks.

------------------
This one time, at Projection Camp, I stuck a xenon bulb....
 

Posted by Richard C. Wolfe (Member # 431) on 01-15-2002, 10:30 PM:
 
I love Simplex machines. I think the X-Ls are what I would like to have in my booth if I could find two at a reasonable price. Isn't it amazing that the price of the XL today is probably not that much different then when they were new. I have E-7s and they are great. They have been running everyday since 1945 with only a few gear replacements every decade or two. E-7s are real workhorses. I learned many years ago on Brenkert 80s. They were good machines as well. They would practically run any condition film without a problem. They are very roomy and easy to work on.

I just bought 25 E-7s this past week so I guess I'll have backups and parts to last the rest of my lifetime and beyond. Does anyone need any?


 

Posted by Bob Koch (Member # 1062) on 01-15-2002, 10:32 PM:
 
Maybe the XL of the early fifties. As Mark points out some of the castings were`nt the best but the hand fitting and lapping of the intermittents can` be duplicated to day. Bad points bad New Departure hexagonal ball bearings. and pad roller springs that would be more suitable for a bear trap. E7 new 1938. One shot oiling system,Erneman [Fulco]had this in the early 20`s. Intermittent good, first one with a cam plug to control end play on the cam. Worst point; oblique shaft which drove the upper & lower sprocket shafts and the steel shutter shaft gear. Poor design. Fibre gear on oblique shaft wouldnt last very long even if you changed the position of the framing carriage daily. Much less if you did`nt. Super Simplex[1931]'; the E7 was`nt much of an improvement.


 

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 01-15-2002, 10:43 PM:
 
Welcome to Film Tech, Bob. You've been registered 2 months and your first post was a reply to my question. Now don't I feel special.

Richard, if I had the money, I'd love one of those projectors. I'll get back with you on that in several years.

------------------
This one time, at Projection Camp, I stuck a xenon bulb....


 

Posted by John Eickhof (Member # 323) on 01-15-2002, 10:49 PM:
 
HI BOB! Nice to see you are doing good! Sad to hear about Gil, another fine machinist / projectionist is gone! Mark, I will attest to the E-7s! I used to service 12 pairs the ran 'rock-and-roll' (forward & reverse) at Fox Studios in LA! The ran great, even backwards! As far as I know, they are still in use today! I have had no adverse experience with straight gates and poly film! With the exception of the Balco Pro-35, but they shake and shimmy with any type of film! My favorite...the pair of XLs I have serialed #123 & 145
(the 22nd and 44th made!) They run as steady as a rock, and so quiet (even with poly) that they sound like a good running Super! Next favorite on my list is the Brenkert, they probably had the finest made film trap of any american machine! Even more gentle than an E-7!
In fact I think the only thing that would make a Brenkert any better would have been 24 or 32 tooth feed sprockets!! Anyway, just my 2 cents worth!

------------------
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 Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-15-2002, 10:58 PM:
 
It would be a toss up between the cast Iron Century "C", and the X-L. The cast iron Brenkerts would be a close third. Not much else out there is worth talking about here. I'm assuming that you are strictly talking about U.S. made 35mm machines in this thread.

Now my reasons......

Century "C" cast iron, pre 1941 I believe. This is now well aged cast iron that is harder than a diamond. Ever try to cut the front out for a Kelmar Turret? Good luck! Tried a jig saw, sawzall, and a verticle mill. I went through no less than 20 saw blades and end mills of various types trying to cut the stuff. This is what happens when cast iron becomes Titanium...... I finally had them torched out by a welder that promised a clean cut. He did a great job. That was about 10 years ago and I might be just finishing up the first one tonight after loading in my 900th saw blade on my 60th sawzall. Andy Margolin of Kelmar systems also claims that this main frame is the strongest and most rigid of all U.S. projectors ever made. I concurCommander, it would easily survive a neuclear blast!

Simplex X-L:

The only thing that keeps these alive is the fact that its an oil bath(the original brochure said oil vapor). The venerable Simplex is like the Eveready Bunny, it keeps on going and going and going as long as you feed it some oil now and then. Many variations of this machine have occured, some really good, and some really bad. Lately, overall, they are alot better with many small hidden improvements that most here don't even know have been built into it. Get one, take it apart, and be amazed!

Cast Iron brenkerts:
The darn thing weighs almost 140 lbs! Even with bad motor mounts on the RCA 9030's that usually drove them they were dead steady. Over complicated gearing in all the Brenkerts, but they had to find a way around other companys patents. They run a long time but the cone shaped shutter gearing was its downfall. Later 1980's replacement gears were even worse and unless you can find an original Brenkert replacement for this gear it usually spells the end of the line for the head. The BX-60 did not suffer this gearing arrangement! The lens mounts were also way too deep for any short focal length lenses, necessitating a special Kollmorgen lens with built in Magnacon that generally produced a relatively muddy image.
John,
I just replaced an original E-7 install in central Utah. Oddly it was an oblique head too. It has been running in the theatre since a remodel in 1947!! Of course those gears on the shaft had probably been replaced at least 900 times! Its mate is on display in the lobby.
There is alsoa VERY LOW SN consecutive set of X-L's in the Gateway Theatre in Chicago. I think they were below SN 110! There are a pair of Super Cinex's on them that are still used.

"My 3 cents worth"
Mark @ GTS
I wasn't allowed to have a xenon lamp at .....


 

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-15-2002, 11:43 PM:
 
Ken, I am partial to the old Simplex E-7. If you have one laying around somewhere, it is worth rebuilding. The second best liked Simplex is the old Super Simplex. A bitch to work on sometimes, but it is a good old machine. Third, I like the older XL's. The newer ones just seem like they are built too "cheap."

Bob, if you can get your paws on a Vertical Shaft E-7, you have yourself a REAL machine! I had an opportunity to buy two of those for 50 bucks a pop, but I declined. I must have had my head inside my body when I made that decision.


 

Posted by Don Sneed (Member # 955) on 01-16-2002, 01:03 AM:
 
I have a 1937 Super Simplex head in my shop, one on these days I will replace the bad imtermittent in it, I want to know is why they call them Simplex, there is nothing simple on that machine !! I use that head at a twin theatre a few years ago before the movement locked up, a bit noisy but it ran for a year before I replace it with a Century "C"...the Super was damn good machine, hard to keep clean though !!
 
Posted by Phil Housh (Member # 1721) on 05-31-2003, 05:17 PM:
 
Anyone out there care for BX100's? [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Michael West (Member # 428) on 05-31-2003, 07:45 PM:
 
older is better! my favorite is the century c with the simplex xl a close second (its that rubber damper roller that pushes against the sound drum that makes it a second for me) the newer simplexes feel to cinemeccanica like. of course the older projectors are nice but in the end is the availability of parts although i don't think the xls would be to bad for that. also the older projectors are probably not really meant to run platters although the xl with its "oil bath" may be an exception. the century doesn't do this.
 
Posted by Michael Cunningham (Member # 210) on 05-31-2003, 09:19 PM:
 
I have not had the opportunity to work with that many older machines (Simplex XL's [I think] , Ballantyne Pro 35's and Century ?JJ's? from the 70's is about it). I did get to play with a Norelco AAII (the Todd AO version) for about a year. Just loved that machine. Rock steady, built like a tank, extremely hard to kill. Anyone have thoughts on these?

- Mike
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-31-2003, 10:56 PM:
 
I just went through ten(of almost 30) DP-70's of varying age and have to say that the lack of wear on these 50 year old machines really amazes me to no end. All movements were torn down for a through cleaning, mainly to remove 30 year old oil deposits that had dried up. All the cam pins and slots in the star wheels literally looked like new. Also, no real wear to the gear train in any of them to speak of. Four have been put back into service this past week, with another 4 over the next two weeks. LIke the other DP-70's out here I suspect that future service calls will be minimal. In spite of the new breed of projector(s) that have replaced the DP-70 its sad that there's nothing else out there that compares to them any longer in terms of reliability or build quality.

For those that have not seen one, below is a photo of the insides of one of the intermittents after cleaning the parts in the ultrasonic cleaner. Note that the radius of the star is conical...the cam is ground to match. Radius clearance is adjusted by moving the cam closer or away from the star wheel which is in a fixed position laterally. The cam pin is also ecentrically mounted for absolute dead straight entry into the slot! I'd love to see a present day american projector manufacturer attempt a feat like this! No way they'd ever do it.

BTW: The just entire lens mount assy. on the DP-70 weighs in at almost the same weight as an entire Super Simplex head......

Mark @ CLACO

-
 
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 06-01-2003, 01:07 AM:
 
quote:
Anyone out there care for BX100's?
I've had them at my drive-in. They worked as well as any other Brenkert I had. I liked the picture window they called a front door.

The only problem I'm aware of is that the 100 doesn't turn as easily as other Brenkert models, which puts a lot of stress on the sound head & drive motor. Mine were sitting on top of Simplex soundheads, and they got pretty warm.
 
Posted by Dick Prather (Member # 1136) on 06-01-2003, 03:39 AM:
 
Ken,
I do think the XL is the best Simplex projector. From about serial number 3000 to 7500 which were made in the 50's. As a rebuilder you get to notice the differences after you have done a bunch. I do agree that the metal technology was not as good as today but today's machines DO NOT FEEL as good as the older ones did. I feel the quality is not as it use to be. I am sure it has to do with getting the product out quicker.

I have a pair within this range in my booth with modified flat traps and C/S sprockets and mag heads. They run fine with all types of film.

I do think the E-7 is a slightly steadier machine and have spent many hours on them. In Portland we did not have any vertical shaft versions. In all the years I ran them I replaced only 1 oblique gear. G-287 if memory serves. I finally installed a vertical set into a collectors house and had to replace the shutter drive gears in those. The key was to put a couple of drops of oil on the gear directly to keep it moist. The one-shot oiling system did not oil every oiling point on an E-7. I liked them a lot and if I hadn't worked so hard to get these XL's I would be running E-7's. Around here the operators either hated or loved them. I also ran Standards and Supers in booths and had no problems with either.

There are other good projectors but you wished an openion on Simplex so I will leave it at that.
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 06-01-2003, 05:50 AM:
 
Mark:

Watch Your mouth. The Admin. will put You into a museum together with with worlds best projector !! [Big Grin]

p.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-01-2003, 08:55 AM:
 
Per,
That would be ok with me [thumbsup] , however I think that some day the Admin. will also learn to appreciate fine machinery. I kinda like to compare the DP-70 to the Hardinge HLV lathe...... http://www.hardinge.com/Pages/115_Manual.html
Note the guaranteed spec. spindle runout on the Hardinge.......
The lathe weighs more but they are both the standard of their classes in my book.

Dick,
I totally disagree with you on metal technology and the quality of the older X-L's vs. the later ones. Having machined off close to a hundred fronts of various age X-L's for installation of TU-2000 turrets in my own shop during rebuilds I can absolutley say that the older 50's machines had VERY porus alumnium main castings as compared to the later General Precision castings. There was no difference in regards this as related to serial numbers either. Metal casting technology has advanced greatly since WW-2 and GPL obviously used a different and better foundry for production of main castings, or the old foundry installed new casting technologies. Also the older 50's castings have VERY thin, inconsistent, front walls to them while the later castings are much much beefier there and in other spots. Weigh a 50's vs. a GPL casting some time, you'll see what I mean.

I had one 50's casting whos front wall was less than .125" thick!! GPL increased the front wall to around .250". The GPL castings are also no where near as porus as were the originals, the amount of porosity has a very definate relation to the strength of a casting. The best castings I've seen are the ones being made today, they are even beefier, and much much stronger than the old stuff. The main problems I am seeing today with new, or with rebuilding the old machines is the crap bearings being used in them, and a steadily declining quality in the stars and cams comming from LaVezzi. Also Strongs toying around with different gates and such has left a bad taste in peoples mouths, and has caused too many problems and much confusion. Indeed, the old intermittents, gears, shafts and other parts were far superior to what is being made by todays automatic CNC machines and that is why they ran better.

At any rate, older leaky Simplex's can be made pretty much seep proof by todays modern powdercoating methods.

Mark
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-01-2003, 01:16 PM:
 
Something tells me Per really, really, really likes the DP70, because every time this machine is brought up there is a little remark made. Be happy about it Per! Yes it is a good machine, but I feel there are better alternatives that are smaller than a refrigerator and weigh less than a 747 that can do an equal or better job. It's just an opinion. Besides, this way there is one less person on the planet rushing out to snatch them up away from you. [Wink]
 
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 06-01-2003, 01:48 PM:
 
One thing that has changed from the "old days" to now is the manufacturing techniques. Today everything is computer run and as such, there is less personal attention paid to each part. Many times a person who is not even a machinist is making parts, because all they have to do is put a hunk-o-metal in the machine and push a button. The demands of being competitive in the market place have made it mandatory to use this type of production method. Although parts can be more accurate, the quality of the part is not necessarily better. Manufacturers in the US are having to compete with countries where the cost of living is real cheap compared to the US (thanks NAFTA). Add to that the fact that many companies (if not all of them) are run by bean counters instead of craftsmen and you've got the difference between then and now. One more thing, is that many so called "engineers" have the paper, but not the experience, and a lot of them don't have a clue as to why they do the things they do, they just do it because a book told them to. But then kids with an "engineer's degree", are a lot cheaper than guys that have been around forever and know all the tricks.
It's all about money
 
Posted by Dick Prather (Member # 1136) on 06-01-2003, 02:55 PM:
 
Mark,
You might want to go back and read my post again as I thenk you missed part of it. I did agree with you on poor metal technology in older XL's. I also have done several cutouts for Kelmar updates as well as many many more rebuilds. I have rebuild machines from around #100 to #16,000+ and I do find a defference in all but the machines with the serial I mentioned numbers still being the best for fit, alignment, and all around running. I will still stand by my openion of better quality in assembling and testing the older machines before they were sent out of the factory. I just don't agree with you.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-01-2003, 03:14 PM:
 
Mark--this probably sounds like a stupid question, but I'll ask anyway: what's the difference between the cast-iron Century C and the later versions? I've worked with a number of Century C's (with both large and small lens holders; also, some have doors like on modern Centurys and some have doors with three smaller windows with wire embedded in the glass) and have liked them all. How do I tell what material the casting is made of?
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-01-2003, 03:30 PM:
 
Scott,
The pre WW-2 cast iron Century C's are the strongest of all the American made main frames and also have the least, and smallest cutouts in them for mechanical things that need to pass through the center of the frame....such as the fire shutter and such. he cast iron of these main frames is exceedingly hard and super strong. The thing about cast iron is that it age hardens, and keeps getting stronger and stronger over the years. We found the same thng happenning to the older DP-70's, especially the old arc lamphouse tables which we shorten up for todays modern Xenons.
I always end up taking cast iron Centuy C's to a welder to have the fronts plasma cut for the Kelmar turrrets as you'll need many, many sawzall blades and alot of time to acomplish sawing one off. A good welder with a plasma cutter will also do a cleaner job of it!

Dick,
I did note your serial numbers. I've seen no major fit, finish, or run quality differences in any of serial numbers that were produced by Simplex till GPL took over. MAjor changes then occured in alot of areas in the mahcine. The only real differences were in the low 100 serial number machines. Again todays main problem is lack of quality in the parts being supplied to Strong to build the darn things. Parts headachs generally used to only come from Wolk and lately they've actually seemed to get better while LaVezzi keeps going downhill. If Strong wanted to do some good for the machine they should bring back the rubber mounted shock resistant gearing!!
I certainly do agree though that the Simplex and GPL faactories did an excellent job of assembling them and running them in before they were shipped. Lots of attention was spent on the small thngs.
Mark
 
Posted by Dick Prather (Member # 1136) on 06-01-2003, 04:55 PM:
 
Scott,
When you lift a cast iron Century C you will know it. They were the earlier serial numbers in the 40's and ones made for Canada also had all cast iron doors as well as the frame. Info from Century factory diary pages copied at ORC by a friend of mine.

Mark,
I lost count of the number of saw blades I went through putting Kelmar turrets in them.
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 06-01-2003, 07:49 PM:
 
Yeah, Brad - I do like those old heavyweights - but maybe in a month, I'll begin to shout about little new things in my world: An FP30 D will replace my Vic 9 in screen 2, and after what i hear from many honored members, those have many fans, too, so let's see. As long as i can have a roll of film to put into any projector, i guess i'll be happy. -It's the next step, that worries me...
You know, -me and computers [Roll Eyes]

p.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-02-2003, 08:48 AM:
 
Per,
You have a VIC 9 on one of your screens..... [Roll Eyes] , [Eek!] , [bs] , [thumbsdown] , And I thought you appreciated quality machinery......
Mark
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-02-2003, 09:46 AM:
 
Come on mark the vic 9 is a okay machine never had grief from them
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 06-02-2003, 11:29 AM:
 
Hey Hey hey - Only four more weeks, then it will be gone forever with its rockandroll pictures.
My fine 60 year old Bauer B5 was badly damaged one night 6 years ago, and Miss Victoria was the only projector to get overnight - that's my excuse.
Next problem is, - if You watch the pic's somewhere in these forums, that booth nr 1 does not allow for both 2 DP70 with proper lamphouses, platter, tower and Yours truly, and the DPs have therefore been running with CX 900 shoebox lamps since they arrived here in 1974. Othervise, my dream would come to reality with the FP30 arriving - a nice plaque beside those from dts and dolby: "Cinemeccanica-free zone". But Kinoton has not got a lamphouse with the dimensions to fit in. I know very well, that the Cinemec lamps gives me fully the light, i need for my 15 feet down there, but i also know, that any other brand would give me the same light, if not better, for a much smaller electricity bill, so i'm still looking around...
On the other hand - You could say, the Vic is there because i want to make friends with the almighty admin - You know, that one guy in the world, who will not take our DPs away from us..! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-02-2003, 11:57 AM:
 
There's those happy thoughts again. [Wink]

BTW, I used to have a DP70 in my screening room.
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 06-02-2003, 06:02 PM:
 
Oh, my goodness, -oh, my goodness

Mark - help me out here:

The admin must have one point for having had a DP70 in his booth, but he will also loose a point by getting rid of the beauty, but damn - The princess must have done something wrong to be thrown out - will that be a minus point for DP70 ??

I never as much as touched or even seen a Century, new or old, but the fact, that two of those now do the job at the FTscreen, of cause make me believe, this must be really something - if they were not simply sponsored, that is...

Only Century's in Denmark seems to have been those of a travelling Cinemiracle Cirkus, later donated to the danish film museum, who threw them out - just like all those fine 70mm prints.

"Happy T a l k " - qoute South Pacific - in ToddAO !
To end it up: Old men go for Old projectors - And that's the way it is ! [Wink]
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-02-2003, 10:26 PM:
 
Per,
I won't say this too loudly [Razz] , but that ex-admin. DP-70 is producing fine pictures(far better than a JJ can)on one of our customers screens up in Wyoming. I've had quite a few JJ's myself and the only really good ones [thumbsup] are the Cinerama 70mm Centurys which were not originally set up for 35, in fact they had 70mm only sprockets on them. I've converted several over to 35/70 myself and they actually will give comparable performance to the DP-70, but not near the light level or steadiness. The JJ itself is too lightweight [thumbsdown] weighing in at less than just the DP-70 lensmount and single motor mount weights combined......unless mounted on a 500 lb Cast iron Super Simplex base [thumbsup] .

There is then some competition going on between the two contenders [Big Grin] . Also, JJ's with serial numbers lower than about 300, and with the rare steel shutter blades are the only acceptable JJ's [thumbsup] . After that serial number all hell broke loose in the Century factory and the quality fell drastically [bs] .

It doesn't take old men to appreciate old projectors. The DP-70's we've put in command a special reverence from the teenage operators that run them!! They seem to take extra special care of them too.... Also, projectionists from neighboring theatres constantly roll into the booths thata re DP-70 equipped to pay homage to them [Cool] . This is true!!
Mark
 
Posted by Robert Throop (Member # 61) on 06-04-2003, 11:20 AM:
 
Mark,
Were there many straight 70mm Cinerama machines? I know that New Orleans and St Louis had them. Do you know of any others?
I was told that Century once made a steel intermittent drive gear for JJ's. Is this true?
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-04-2003, 11:54 AM:
 
hehe, Mark and Per you guys are pretty entertaining.

Yes my old DP70 is up in Wyoming. I think somewhere in the archives I made a list of why I did not like it. I'm sure I could put a few minutes of thought into it and make a new list if you are interested in hearing my reasons.

(Nothing in the screening room was "sponsored". My JJs are older rebuilt units.)
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 06-05-2003, 04:52 AM:
 
As a matter of fact and honesty: If One can get used to running a cinema in Malling, one might also get used to the DP70. Both just being signs of one being able to accept a little bit of this and a little bit of that OR one being a bit slow on under-standing, how rough life is.
Of course, that machine is old-fashioned - the drawing is fifty years old. No-one was building multi-cinemas at that time, and then, why should the booth be automated. To change picture format, You'll have to stop or c/o, if You're lucky enough (!!) to have two of those, -but i can live with that, when i think of the plusses: You will have to buy one of the new electronic Kinoton's to get a more steady picture, You won't (as far as i know) find ANY projector, letting more light through the hole than the DP70, You will (almost) never have any expenses to spare parts, except when You're foolish enough to let the Princess unattended when running a damaged print. A new intermittent sprocket now and then over 29 years, -that's all.
To compare: I once attended a show, where suddently, the picture hit the sidewall in stead of half of the screen, because the boys up there had been to work too many beers of time, and a fight went on. That would never had happened, if they had been running DP's. Worse - believe it or not: The projector, they were almost knocking around, was a U2 !! [Big Grin]

Be nice to Your princess, and she'll be nice to You. Better yet: -Buy a Princess from Mark, and even Mark will be nice to You !
Let's see that list, Brad, when You've got the time. -But careful now: You will have a headace, making it more than a few lines. Taste and likes maybe should not be discussed, but Mark and i are such sentimental little ones, forever defending our loved ones.
BTW: I once showed a pair of DPs to a very bright, young high school boy named Hauerslev. - Look, what came out of that !

HAPPY THOUGHTS [thumbsup]

p.
 
Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 06-05-2003, 07:12 PM:
 
As a machinist with some pattern making experience, I do need to reply.

The puprose of CNC machining is to speed up the production process for long production runs. Multi-axis machines with the use of modular fixturing can eliminate a lot of specialized tooling and machine set-ups that may be needed otherwise. Also, the fact that with CNC machining, the work is constantly being flooded with coolant/oil mixtures which keeps the work at room temperture...less heat means faster machining capability. But bear no bones about it, cnc DOES NOT MEAN QUALITY! Things to take into consideration...how good is the programmer? I have been witness to programmers who do not know what they are doing..By the time they wrote the program, I could have made the needed parts many times over on manual equipment! Plus, if the programmer is incompetitent, he or she may write a very inefficient program. They may have the computer programming skills, but may lack the experience of a qualified machinist or tool maker that will know how to macine a part in the most logical sequence.

And as stated earlier..."machine operators"!

Furthermore, I have both done and have been witness to very accurate high speed machine processes using manual equipment: turret lathes, pentagraphs, gang drilling and boring equipment and the like.

CNC machining and CAD do have advantages...such as solid 3-d modeling so you can see the completed product before ever making it. During the days of manual drafting, it could sometimes take months to prepare the drawings for a complicated plastic injection mold or stamping die. There are now computer programs that can design the mold or die withing hours! But with all this computer technology at our fingertips, it constantly amazes me about all of the mass product recalls that exist in industry...especially the automotive industry!

As for metalurgy....the metal technology today is by far superior to what it was a hundred years ago. The modern technology that allows us to inspect material at a cellular level...superalloys...the ability to closly monitor smelting, casting and heat treating processes...this is a whole complicated topic unto itself.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-05-2003, 07:49 PM:
 
Alright Per, let me try and recall why I did not like the DP70.

I'm sure there are more, but that's all I can think of right now. Anyway, now you have an idea of why I did not like the unit. As far as reliability, sure it's very reliable, but the reliability doesn't outweigh the bad points in my opinion...that's why I sold it to someone who would appreciate it and got something that I am happy with. In the end, everyone was happy. [Smile]
 
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 06-05-2003, 10:53 PM:
 
* Cannot hold 6000' (24 inch) reels on takeup. The unit only accomodates 22 inch reels, which is no good for me.

It does but not with the magazines on

* The analog sound is godawful lousy! Of course this doesn't much matter anymore with the BACP reverse scan reader for the DP70, but back then it was a huge issue. Look at a pink noise loop on a scope. It's just plain terrible.

If you install the Todd AO "film " slit replacement for the little brass slit you can see 16k

* I am not a fan of the self-destruct handle. What a wonderful idea it is to provide each projector with a self-destruct handle, so if by accident this is touched during a movie, you will take out your shutter and who knows what else.

There's a trip switch that if there and wired up, shuts the projector down when you try to do that.

* Cannot use short throw lenses in the DP70. The picture hits the side of the projector.

My Schneider anamorphic on the front of a Schneider 85mm sticks out even with the front of the projector. My 55mm for flat has no problems

* Must have HUGE port windows for all but long throws. Since the motors stick out the front end more than Divine's gut, the aperture is ridiculously far away from the port window resulting in a large blowup on the glass.

Mine measures 11"H X 18"W

* Does it really need to hold 5 gallons of oil to do the job? (Ok I'm exaggerating here, but you know what I mean.)

Just a little less than 2qts depending on the tilt

* There is no good place to mount a failsafe. No projector should be without a failsafe. One must be rigged.

I think CE offered one that mounted where the bottom fire trap is

* Under no circumstances may you stop the projector with the exciter lit. You will melt the film from the exciter's heat! Granted this again is taken care of by BACP, but this is an inexcusable fault in the design.

There was a tech bulletin in the mid 60s that described an "at idle" circuit that cut the exciter light output when the motors were not on.

I thought we already went through this on Jeff Joseph's BB?
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-05-2003, 11:05 PM:
 
Aha, maybe that's where I made that list. Anyway, Per specifically asked why I did not like the DP70 so I told him. Now take away all of the recent upgrades that were not available when I had mine and factor those in. At the time with what was available, it did not do a satisfactory job just based upon the analog sound alone. Then of course there were the other issues.

So tell me HOW are you able to fit 24 inch reels on the takeup? Mine did not have magazines on it and it simply would not fit. Have you actually done this, or are you just assuming they will fit?

I don't see what good the trip switch would do. By the time it killed the motor, the damage would be done.

I didn't know about the exciter bulletin. I had considered rigging something like that, but by the time I found out about the blistering I had already decided that the machine was not acceptable for my purposes, so it wasn't something I pursued.

I wouldn't call 55mm a short throw lens. Put something shorter in there and watch what happens. [Eek!]

Wasn't it you who once said that the best projector is whatever each person ownes? There are different needs for every situation and no two people will always agree. I just did not like the DP70 and it was not suitable for what I needed it to do. So? Big deal. I got something I do like. You guys have something you like. That's all that matters.
 
Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 06-05-2003, 11:30 PM:
 
How much shorter, Brad?

A Simplex E-7, as great a vintage machine as it is, won't play fair with a short-focal-length lens in short-throw installations unless the front lens carrier (C-416-C) and tie rod (R-300-C) are removed to avoid vignetting, as is what I had to do for my home rig in order to accommodate a 50mm lens for flat. I clamped the carrier to the anamorphic adaptor, but it is a small PITA to mount the adaptor, carrier and all, on the projector owing to the tight clearance of the bottom bore on the carrier which mates with the pivot rod.

Also, in my situation, the lens sits so far back that I cannot remove the film trap door for cleaning unless I remove the lens. Without the front carrier, extension tubes and stop collars are out of the question.

To change the subject slightly (but remain on the original topic), one of the things I do like most about the E-7 is the framing light. Pushing the lever forward while seating the film in the trap is a motion that only takes a small amount of time to get used to, but the full illumination of the aperture and the ease in threading in-frame even with dark leaders is definitely worth it.
 
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 06-06-2003, 12:17 AM:
 
****So tell me HOW are you able to fit 24 inch reels on the takeup? Mine did not have magazines on it and it simply would not fit. Have you actually done this, or are you just assuming they will fit?

First flip that little spindle lever that holds the reel on then.....just kidding....
I ran downstairs and measured it. Actually a 26" almost fits. I have one of those and could almost get it on. I thought it was a 24 I was going to take a picture for you

****I don't see what good the trip switch would do. By the time it killed the motor, the damage would be done.

The moment you pull out on the lever (before you start to swing it open) everything shuts off. Actually you can't even get the lever to the point of being able to swing it open when it happens. Probably that would alert the person doing it that they had done something stupid. I guess the makers figured a professional (that's what they were when the DPs were being made) wouldn't do such a thing.

I think every machine must have it's downside. I bet a person could find something wrong with every projector. Things are always getting better and sometimes things get out into the field before mistakes are caught. Oblidee Oblidah
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-06-2003, 01:08 AM:
 
Indeed it is all but impossible to open the cooling plate while its running....unless the governer on the shutter shaft sticks for some reason. This has never been a problem on any of the 30 plus DP-70's running in this neck of the woods.

Here is a fair comparison.......

JJ....3 ounces of oil, no filtration......... DP-70 2 quarts of oil typically....triple filtration plus 2 magnets to catch ferrous partilcies.

For every verticle shaft in a DP-70 you go through a JJ will go through at least 10.

For every intermittent you wear out in a DP-70 you will need 6 in the JJ.

The DP-70 has far more efficient water cooling than the JJ.

The DP-70 has an orthogonal gear design that is less wear prone than the JJ. Except for two fibre/steel gears in the train its all Cast iron/Steel for better wear resistance.

The DP70 has lower wow and flutter than the JJ in either mag or optical, I have measured both myself.

These are but a few... The weight of the DP-70 is an overall advantage for projecting film done right!

MArk
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-06-2003, 02:03 AM:
 
See? Every time I mention that I am not a fan of the DP70, all of the hard core DP70 guys act as if I've personally insulted them! [Wink] Still, in the pros vs. the cons, the DP70 is just not for me. Let me try and put this into perspective. Just try and convince Steve Guttag that platters are better than changeover. It's the same thing with me and the DP70. It's just not going to happen no matter what you type. I've played with one and I just don't care for it just like Steve has ran a platter and doesn't like it. It's a dead end. So long as you guys love them, that's all that matters. Personally, I just assume I never have to run or service one again, but that's just me. I just don't like the design. I also don't particularly care for Simplexes. (The only Simplex that intrigues me is the Apogee, but I haven't had a chance to get up close and personal with one yet.) So big deal, I'll just use something else. I don't see how my preference for projectors really affects any happy DP70 owner, but I can tell you I'm not the sole person on this planet with these opinions.

Greg, I swear the unit had would not handle a 24 inch reel. Do we have anyone around here who may be able to verify if there was two different sizes of bases in regards to accomodating takeup reels?

Mark, where are you getting these numbers? For example, I know JJs that have ran for 15-20 years without having to change the vertical shaft. If a JJ would use 10 times the vertical shafts, 10x15=150 years...and the DP70 hasn't been around that long! I'm not saying the Century is a better designed machine, but those numbers seem inflated. Since the DP70 was introduced in the early 60's (I think), by your calculation and assuming that it has taken 40 years for a DP70 to have an intermittent go out or a vertical shaft wear to the point of replacement, no Century intermittent could run for more than 7 years tops and no vertical shaft could last for more than 4 years! That is simply not the case.
 
Posted by Chris Wootten (Member # 283) on 06-06-2003, 07:50 AM:
 
Hi to all, I am in the military this way and the machines bought to entertain the troops... Bauer U3, U4,and Cinemecannica Vic 8 projectors are still performing well for us. We dont screen as much as the main stream cinemas but what we lack in quantity, we make up for in quality. I agree with prior quotes that the quality of old is not there in machinery of today. The mighty dollar is the driver today, not value for money.

Chris [beer]
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-06-2003, 09:13 AM:
 
Brad,
The DP-70 has been in use since 1955. LaVezzi rates a Century intermittent be it an SA, or JJ at 5 years, same for most others they manufacture, Christie, Simplex, etc.....after this time period they are no longer at the manufactured tolerances. I was quoted this time period by Al LaVezzi years ago. Verticle shaft replacements are from my own experience and hearing from others over the years. Vert. shaft failure in Centurys is quite common, usually due to a bearing failure and it seizing to the shaft or galling it. Thats why LaVezzi came out with a hardened stainless steel vert. shaft for them.

You don't run your car with 3 ounces of oil in it?????
The JJ is still my second favorte machine though.

Mark
 
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 06-06-2003, 09:48 AM:
 
By the sound of it, the one you had might not have had all the protective devices on it. Besides the switch, there's also a little jigger on the shutter shaft that won't allow you to open the gate until it is stopped and in the correct position. Maybe if you saw one that was all there and in original working order, your opinion would be different. If I ever get a 24" reel, I'll take a picture for you.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-06-2003, 02:23 PM:
 
I run my car with the manufacturer's recommended amount of oil. I do the same with my projectors. [Big Grin]

Greg, I agree I'm really starting to think there was something missing or something different about my old DP70. If I ever make it up your way, I'd love to check out yours. Mark, do you know if anything from my old one was missing (or added)?
 
Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 06-06-2003, 02:50 PM:
 
Brad,

I won't get in to a point-by-point pissing match, but I feel strongly about one issue. I mightily disagree with language like "...inexcusable fault in the design". Given the requirements the designer was presented with in 1953, I can't find any substantiative design flaws in the DP-70. And certain modern requirements -such as a better SH - we have addressed with upgrades. We see DP-70's with (apparently) all their original gearcase parts after 50 years, and many DP-70's are still installed in the most demanding venues (e.g. AMPAS). They may or may not meet all of today's needs for everyone, but IMHO flawed of design they're not.

Will,

My opinion is saying CNC improves machining quality is like saying automation improves film presentation.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-06-2003, 03:17 PM:
 
Sorry Larry, but I stand by my comments. Burning the film IS an inexcusable fault in the design regardless of what decade in history you are referencing. Besides, today is not 1953. I can appreciate the accomplishments from 50 years ago, but I am interested in right now, not the days from half a century ago, hence my comments. I don't see why that would bother you anyway. It's not as if you were one of the designers or that it somehow reflects poorly on Kinoton's current line of products. Would you consider a projector that scratched film acceptable if the machine was 80 years old? Of course not. The word "inexcusable" when referring to damaged film is right on the money.
 
Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 06-06-2003, 03:54 PM:
 
Brad,

RE: "Burning the film IS an inexcusable fault in the design regardless of what decade in history you are referencing."
*The original sound systems Philips created to be part of the system switched exciter lamps in such a way that the exciter wasn't lit unless the machine was projecting. When it was discovered that other manufacturers' systems were leaving the exciters powered up the wiring change was developed to prevent the bulbs from going on unless the motor was on.

Wise-ass question: Is it inexcuseable to design a projector that can be started with a pad roller open? It will cause way more damage than a blister in the leader's soundtrack.

RE: "I don't see why that would bother you anyway. It's not as if you were one of the designers..."
*It's the same reason I feel bad when I hear of a skilled, careful projectionist getting blamed for a bad presentation when the fault lay with the (for example) print. Someone was doing their job well, with great professionalism, and to the best standards available. Then, despite their best efforts, they are blamed for something beyond their control. I've been there. It sucks. I hate to see it happen to anybody.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-06-2003, 04:49 PM:
 
Wise-ass answer: The difference is that the operator cannot change the way the machine was designed, but he CAN make sure the pad rollers are closed before he starts the film. You are comparing operator error to design error.

Here's the big issue Larry. If you would re-read the thread you would see that my beef with the exciter/burn damage was noted before the explanation about the auto-switching to a lower current. My DP70 did not do this and I think I've made it clear enough of that. The result, my DP70 would burn film if the projector was stopped. My comment was made based upon that. However the "inexcusable" comment remains that any design that causes film damage IS inexcusable. However, put the BACP reader into the machine and I'll bet the whole thing is a moot point (lousy sound, burned film, etc). Unfortunately that was not available at the time I owned one.

Anyway I am getting really tired of these petty pissing matches with DP70 owners. Name one piece of equipment in the world that everyone on the planet mutually agrees is the best. It can't be done! The same goes for the DP70. Geez guys, lighten up and remember, if the DP70 was so wonderful and flawlessly designed, it would still be in production and one of the only machines people would see in theaters. Not so. Greg put it best several posts earlier:

quote:
I think every machine must have it's downside. I bet a person could find something wrong with every projector. Things are always getting better and sometimes things get out into the field before mistakes are caught. Oblidee Oblidah
It is also personal preference which is everyone's right. Mine just doesn't happen to be the DP70. (Per, I hope you enjoyed my complaint list on the projector. See what unnecessary shit this has dredged up? It always does.)

Nowadays we have the PK60. With that in mind, scroll back to the top of this page to my complaint list of the DP70. Is there anything on my list that the PK60 doesn't fix? I don't think so. See? Progress! [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-06-2003, 06:11 PM:
 
Hey, you guys cool it! You're all out of control..... Anyway, I run synthetic in my car, and in my Norelco! [Big Grin] The Norelco is far happier with it and in comparison to other DP-70's has alot quieter running mechanism.

Brad,
There are no differences in the bases of the DP-70's except for switching and wiring differences on the European units. The European bases are also much higher quality iron castings. They are much smoother.
Mark
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-06-2003, 07:51 PM:
 
My only comment to what has been said in defence of the DP-70 design is that it WAS NOT designed to have the exciter lamp on whilst the film was not moving. Brad, your DP-70, if the exciter lamp was always on, it was an installation error, not a design one. Think about it, the DP-70 had to be nitrate rated. Leaving the exciter lamp on to burn the film would have never flown.

As to the other comments, they are personal preferences and they are impossible to comment on (not right or wrong).

Steve
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 06-06-2003, 08:04 PM:
 
Brad:

PK60 ??? -It can't show ToddAO [evil] [evil]

Well - it sure looks, we got something started. -Maybe it's time to close it down again soon. It has been most interesting to read the pro and contra dialouge.

I don't know the name of the "wing", looking out between the lower spool box and the projector foot, but -sorry to say- it had to go on one of my machines to use the 6000 feet reels. On the other projector the reel (61 cms = 24 inch) just fit in.

Why would one wish to stop the projector with the exiter lamp turned on ? It sounds as wise as hold still with open lamp.
Original design would not allow either, -and yes: as soon as You move the handle of the door against Yourself - before opening, the microswitch will stop the motor. You would have to move very fast to damage shutter, gear and more.
Some days ago, one member talked here about using a Bauer U2 for travelling. I have no such fantasies, and find that in stationary use (as designed for) the weight of the DP70 is a plus.
Safety-stop device. Yeah - as i have allready mentioned earlier - the print should be very bad, before You need a thing like that, and even then my experience is that very few films tear after the intermittent sprocket - that is: if You have not been "sabotaging" You have a safety stop built-in over the upper loop, which in fact takes allmost every break, You may have.

Of course, You can buy a DP70 today - trouble is, noone wants to pay, what it costs to build: I was told, that a very large Cinema-chain in Europe asked for a load of projectors, and got the answer, that Kinoton has still all drawings, tools and molds for making a new generation - Order minimum 50 machines, and the price would (10 years ago, i think) be as low as 100.000 DM ( = about 57.000 $) a piece, lamphouse, soundheads/readers not included... Want a projector, You can use for fifty years, and then sell it to Mark ? - Just phone those nice Kinoton-people and See The Difference...
HAPPY THOUGHTS ARE HERE TO STAY ! [Wink]

The FP30D, coming to my screen 2 later this month, is listed to 12.600 Euro ( almost = US$ ), including lamphouse, reverse scan, 3-lens (manuel) turret. This price combined with the fact, that those 39 seats in screen two might live without 70mm, and the fact, that i don't know anyone to purchase the remaining 49 machines does, that not even P. Hauberg & Dog Ltd is going to order DP70 for the time being.

The Big secret, that i do not wish for Brad or any other member to experience life, is that if You first have tried having - i think he's called the bailiff over there - standing in Your booth with a couple of very big removal men with crowbars and carrying slings, wanting to take away Your princesses to cover Your unpaid taxbill. That was, what happened to me after "going down" with my Copenhagen theatre 22 years ago - a story too often told even here - and with my little village cinema as only active left to mortgage. Only a few minutes and a big check from outside prevented the disaster from happening.
THEN You'll get attached to, what other people may see as old iron !

And now, Gentlemen, I rest my case !

p.
 
Posted by Travis Hubrig (Member # 1745) on 06-06-2003, 08:57 PM:
 
I've got 7 ladies in my booth that work great for me and their last names are all Simplex...

I have never operated the DP70 but the few that I have seen, seem to big.

P.S. Does anyone know how to get projector oil out of my white shirt? [Wink]
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 06-06-2003, 09:01 PM:
 
quote:
The analog sound is godawful lousy! Of course this doesn't much matter anymore with the BACP reverse scan reader for the DP70, but back then it was a huge issue. Look at a pink noise loop on a scope. It's just plain terrible
.

-Also when altering soundhead brake roller - Cutting it into two and putting spring inside..? I believe that took away most of my troubles.

p.
 
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 06-06-2003, 11:14 PM:
 
"....I have never operated the DP70 but the few that I have seen, seem to big...."

Too big for what?
 
Posted by Travis Hubrig (Member # 1745) on 06-07-2003, 01:02 AM:
 
Greg,
Sorry... for the newer theaters It isn't a problem, but I have seen older theaters where the booth is extremely crowded, especially when going to a platter, and even upgrading sound takes space... pretty soon there isn't room for an operator.
In my booth they wouldn't work, I guess that doesn't make it a poor design or any different from the next projector.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-07-2003, 01:20 AM:
 
Travis,
You think they won't work in a small booth???? Take a look at the Hinsdale Theatre Photos in the picture warehouse. That booth is tiny, about 8 feet deep and 15 feet wide, but it has a pair of DP-70's,a Gladiator follow spot, two pedestal 16mm projectors and an array of other "junk" plus the sound system! The hardest part was getting them 4 stories up into the booth! Nor would the weight of them deter anyone fopmr installing them, older booths are built better in alot of cases.
Mark
 
Posted by Travis Hubrig (Member # 1745) on 06-07-2003, 01:35 AM:
 
Mark, Greg,
You are right... Size is not an issue.

Unless....

You need room for other things [sex]
[sleep]
[Wink]
 
Posted by John Westlund (Member # 913) on 06-07-2003, 01:44 AM:
 
I just thought this was interesting. If you look at the pictures of the Bob Leader Private Screening Room it says...
"Custom designed Norelco AA2 projectors for 36 inch reel capacity, or approximately 12,000 feet of film!
(The Norelco AA2 unmodified only has a 22 inch reel capacity.)" [Wink]
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 06-07-2003, 03:52 AM:
 
In the Bob Leader case You may call the DP70 B I G - but again, that has nothing to do with design - that's a joke...

BTW, The Malling Bio pictures shows, that size is not a problem: my booth is about 8 x 10 feet, holding two Philips DP70 with Cinemec CX900 lamphouses, one Hasso Spool tower, a sound rack (picture missing, sorry) and a 5 feet hole in the wall gives space for the Kinoton ST 200 platter half way into the consession stand, -and Yours truly, for whom putting on weight is not an option.

Having one or more DP70 projector(s) is a human right. -Will fit into every humble household anytime a bring You lots of lots of HAPPY HOURS AND THOUGHTS. Just beware: Number of available machines is limited. Call Mr Gulbrandsen to reserve Your projector now !! [Big Grin]

P.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-13-2003, 04:15 PM:
 
Quote:
"Cannot use short throw lenses in the DP70. The picture hits the side of the projector."
_________________________________________________________________
Just to snuff out another wrong statement, we have 2 screens running 35mm focal length lenses for 1:85 in DP-70's at the new installation........
Mark @ CLACO
 
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 06-13-2003, 05:24 PM:
 
".....Custom designed Norelco AA2 projectors for 36 inch reel capacity, or approximately 12,000 feet of film!...."

Actually 35-3/4"

"....(The Norelco AA2 unmodified only has a 22 inch reel capacity.)...."

That's with the original magazines in place
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-14-2003, 08:47 AM:
 
OK Mark, I'll do you one better...I've done 33.1mm 1.85:1 lenses on the DP-70 and I suspect the new Schneider super short lenses (19mm) will also work.

Steve
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-14-2003, 09:34 AM:
 
Steve,

You're right! I was making this post only to alleviate another of Brads wrong ideas about the DP-70.... I think we've pretty much eliminated them all by now. Without modifying the front though I think 33.5 is about as short as one can go without removing part of the front edge of the lens mount itself.... right above the focus knob.....thats where the cone of light will hit. Then of course there is the Kelmar Turrett which would be way easy to install on the DP-70.
Mark
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-14-2003, 10:14 AM:
 
I have used 21 mm for 1.85 but try to get below 50mm with an anamorphic not likely
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-14-2003, 11:42 AM:
 
Am curious as to how much of the lens mount you had to remove.....a 35mm clears it by only about 1/4 inch.
Mark
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-14-2003, 11:53 PM:
 
Mark,

The ISCO 33.1mm and the Schneider 19mm shouldn't require ANY projector modification.

Steve
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-15-2003, 08:29 AM:
 
Not sure how that can be as the 35mm Schneider we installed barely clears the front edge of the mount......... Go Shorter than about the 33mm that you mentioned and you will have a shadow of the front edge of the mount in the picture on screen...... Assumming that we're talking 70.6mm barrels here......not the wide angle lens series.......
Mark
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-15-2003, 11:01 AM:
 
On the ISCO, naturally I'm talking about the ones with the .52X magnifier as part of the lens assembly (it's exiting diameter is greater than 4"). It is still available from ISCO, is multicoated and looks GREAT.

The Schneider lenses (there are two of them now) also have a magnifier made by Century Precison so it too should clear the lens support.

As always, scope is the tough one. 50mm clears everything, 47.5 clears the projector but not the focus rack and 45 vignetts in the projector. I've tried ISCO and Schneider of various vintages. I've even tried Schneider's focal point extenders.

Steve
 
Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 12-07-2008, 05:05 AM:
 

It has been 2001 days since the last post.


 
Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 12-07-2008, 05:05 AM:
 
quote:
Having one or more DP70 projector(s) is a human right. -Will fit into every humble household anytime a bring You lots of lots of HAPPY HOURS AND THOUGHTS. Just beware: Number of available machines is limited. Call Mr Gulbrandsen to reserve Your projector now !!
Just found this old posting and wondered if anyone has purchased any DP70's from Mr Gulbrandsen? [Smile]

And Yes you can use them at home in the Living and can even put one on Wheels and design them Plug & Play with out the need to hard wire them installation.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-07-2008, 08:22 AM:
 
Yes, We still sell DP-70's and there were two recently sold that are going through restoration/customization in the shop. We also still sell gobs of parts... mainly to Hollywood.

Mark
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2