This is topic Potts Platter brain wrapping at end of show 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=003671
Posted by Mike Fitzgerald (Member # 1304) on 07-02-2002, 07:46 PM:
 
Iam looking for some thoughts on a Potts Platter problem we are having. The film runs fine until anywhere from 30 minutes to the end of the film. Then it slides off and brain wraps. I have replaced the round motor drive belts, reset the variac and the dancer setting. Timed the platters and reset the feed microswitch. I even took off the top platter and set it on the floor(after checking the floor for level)and releveling the deck. I have checked the level on the arm and the tower post all are level. I have checked the bearings on the decks and regreased them. The odd thing I noticed was that after checking the deck for level and putting it back on the arm, it then was hitting the drive motor only 50% of the time. We reset the deck to ride all the way around and it feeds much smoother but every 3 or 4 show we wind up with the brain wrap at the end of the movie. I also have tried to increase the humidity in the booth by placing a couple of pails of water in different places in the booth. Any suggestions would be great.

 
Posted by Wes Hughes (Member # 981) on 07-02-2002, 07:52 PM:
 
Are you actually having a wrap that causes the print to throw, or throwing the print which is causing the wrap???

Even if you have "properly" timed the platters, if you are throwing prints and that is the start of your wraps, then you probably need to slow the platter a little (which involves only moving the motor up a bit).


 

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 07-02-2002, 07:53 PM:
 
Hmmmm, sounds like you've covered everything mechanically. If the print is actually sliding across the platter, I would try some grip tape, or place 4 or 5 "stick-a-poos" around the print.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-02-2002, 09:14 PM:
 
You've checked everything, but have you replaced the microswitches? I'd bet they're bad. You could also have a bad wiper brush on the variac, these fail on occasion as well. I always replace micros every two years, or sooner if they fail earlier. The latest micros are no where near as good as the old ones from 10 to 15 years ago....... Another suggestion is to buy them from a local microswitch supplier instead of from Strong. You'll save about 150% on the price!!
Mark @ GTS
 
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 07-02-2002, 09:24 PM:
 
Mark brings up a good point. At the end or near the end of the show, watch the dancer (or carriage as some call it) and see if it starts "hunting". If it hunts excessively, this will have a drastic effect in pay-out, since the variac sets the operating level of the pay-out as well as the take-up deck. It could be a variac problem as Mark suggests.

By the way, which Potts platter do you have? The old orange ones that look like Cinema Film Systems, or the ones that look identical to Strong's A-3?


 

Posted by Steve Anderson (Member # 364) on 07-02-2002, 10:34 PM:
 
We had a Strong A-3 that was doing the same thing two weeks ago and it was the microswitch. Mark your right about the new switches...just does not seem as strong of a "click" as the old ones.
 
Posted by Don Sneed (Member # 955) on 07-02-2002, 10:37 PM:
 
Mark & Paul sugguestions about the variac is correct, a 1" movement is ok, more than that, then the Variac is bad & needs to be rebuilt, another thing to check is the microswitch, be sure there is no spring on the microswitch located behind the switch arm...if there is...remove it !! It will cause too much tension for the microswitch to work properly....one time I had the same problem, all checked out ok...the feed arm moved smooth, no bind at all when move by hand, after all checked good, I removed the feed arm bearings & oiled them, reinstall, & anything worked perfectly, even though no bind was felt with my hand when checking the feed arm, oiling the bearings did the trick !! I would make sure the take-up carriage does move more than an inch & oil the feed arm bearings...but be sure to oil both bearing, upper & lower by taking off the feed arm bolt....Good Luck !!
 
Posted by Don Sneed (Member # 955) on 07-02-2002, 10:40 PM:
 
Oppps... after re-reading my post...I left out a word....the carriage should NOT MOVE more than a inch, more than an inch is bad !!
 
Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 07-03-2002, 12:57 AM:
 
Also be sure that the platter decks are CLEAN! Oil from a print can leech down onto the deck making it slick. Clean out the bearings on the movable arm on the control plate with some Xekote.
 
Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 07-03-2002, 04:15 AM:
 
I would check the microswitch, also sometimes it helps if you use an allen wrench and tighten the screw that holds down the actuator if it gets loose it can cause the arm to rub on the plate of the brain. when the film is close to the center it can pull the arm over with more force but once it starts to get out to the edge of the deck it cant pull the arm as hard and it can wrap. if you tightn the allen screw untul you see it lift off of the plate a little it may help.

------------------
--Sean McKinnon
Manager
Loews Cineplex Entertainment
Liberty Tree Mall 20
Danvers, Mass
www.enjoytheshow.com
 

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-03-2002, 05:24 AM:
 
Did you check to make sure the word "Autowind 3" was at the top of the tree? Clearly that is the problem here. Your company bought the wrong product.

Ok so that didn't really help, but I couldn't resist. I have nothing but bad things to say about microswitch type Strong/Potts/CFS/ORC platters. Given the choice of running off of those, I'd choose reels and 20 minute manual changeovers. You might want to make a print belt and then get about 20 BevanPoos and stick them around your print. That probably won't be enough, but it may help a little bit until you can get rid of that thing. I have yet to see one of these run acceptably to me, regardless of who set it up.

In the meantime, it looks like all of the standard troubleshooting has been covered already in this thread. Good luck and remember to curse at the machine a lot.

(P.S. Don-you can edit your post instead of posting a second time. )


 

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 07-03-2002, 05:39 AM:
 
To amplify Don's post, the one-inch movement or less should be a slow gradual change, and not a wild one. A wild change will cause the pay-out platter to toss the remaining part of the print.


 

Posted by Wes Hughes (Member # 981) on 07-03-2002, 07:53 AM:
 
I have run Strong/Ballantyne/Potts platters for many years and have very few problems...and those few can usually be solved. I do not like phase control payout heads, but a NON self-programming Strong platter with microswitches is a great value.

I use them at my location now: One five-deck, one five-deck mini, two three-deck. I do not use any type of film retainer at all...just a tuck. The only issue I have ever had was a motor failure due to spent brushes.
 

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-03-2002, 08:33 AM:
 
Mike Fitzgerald said: "I also have tried to increase the humidity in the booth by placing a couple of pails of water in different places in the booth. Any suggestions would be great."

Since the introduction of KODAK VISION Color Print Film, "static cling" problems have been greatly reduced. Summer in North Carolina tends to have higher humidity, so I don't think that is the issue (but you should measure it with an accurate humidity gauge). If the relative humidity is indeed too low, use an evaporative humidifier to add moisture to the air --- "pails of water in different places in the booth" is ineffective in increasing humidity. The ideal range for film handling is 50 to 60 percent RH.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
 

Posted by Pat Moore (Member # 380) on 07-03-2002, 09:19 AM:
 
I have to step up a bit here and say that there are literally thousands of Strong (and Potts) Platters out there running on a daily basis, using microswitches in their payout assemblies, without any problems. Are they as elegant as a Strong SCDC or other electronic platters in terms of linear film feed out? Nope. But neither are they designed to be. Are they my first choice in my booth? No, probably not, depending on the budget. Catastrophic or serious problems are few and far between in my experience, and if properly operated and cared for they'll run an awful lot of film without fault. What's easier to troubleshoot than a microswitch?

It does sound like all the suggestions have been made and are good ones -- I'd lean towards the variac and/or the brush assembly for this problem, though, if the platter is 5 yrs old or more.

And yes, I'll readily admit that those switches are too expensive from us. I'm looking to remedy that, at least to reduce the "ouch".

Pat


 

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-03-2002, 11:16 AM:
 
Brad,
I agree totally with Wes, but there is one exception, and that is 70mm. Thats where the Christie shines, and the only place. There are by far many more downsides to Christie platters than Strong/Potts platters. Just having to deal wth Christie alone comes to mind first, then the parts prices are so extreme that even considering selling them comes to mind. Strong/Potts platters have been the least amount of problems for me in the last 20 years of this buisness. They even made it a "Digital" platter long before anyone else did..........in case you like the sound of that word "digital" . The digital platter works even better than the AW-3 and requires no calibration at all!! If you can hold a screwdriver you can repair a Strong/Potts platter but not a Christie. Too many trim pots, that big push button switch assy and its crappy pcb that develops solder cracks causing intermittent payout, or intermittent feed out, expensive bodine motors that you can't get rebuilt cause they are OEM only, Axels with bronze bushings rotating on them instead of Strong/Potts all ball bearing axel, cheesy lightweight thrust bearings that each deck sits on....etc, etc, etc. Even in the Strong/Potts motor the brushes are easily field replacable and are VERY reasonably priced. All in all they are a far better value and you get more bang for the buck, and far longer lifespan.
Mark @ GTS


 

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-03-2002, 02:31 PM:
 
Strong needs to redesign their brains. As they are right now, microswitch or not, the design is simply stupid. On the payout arm, why must you wrestle the film THROUGH the two rollers instead of just dropping it in there like a Christie payout arm? That is asinine. If Strong/Potts/whoever whould just simply place the big plastic piece of the arm on the BOTTOM instead of the TOP it would make threading so much easier, quicker, and more enjoyable. Seriously, why is it set up the way it is? Is this to stop the film from flying UP out of the brain? If that's an issue then there must be some real problems with the platter as a whole.

I guess it is because these things are never designed by actual projectionists who have to work with them, but engineers who know little about film and say "Oh well, it spins and that's what it's supposed to do". I would never consider purchasing a Strong platter until this error is fixed.

And while they're at it, they should get rid of all those little rollers around the brain. If the platter is working well, then they are unnecessary. Having those rollers there is like an the designers admitting that the platter wraps.

Also, get rid of those itty bitty tiny rollers and replace them with something bigger (and quieter). The whole platter with vacuum cleaner motors is louder than any projector, so get better (and quieter) motors as well. It's like having 12 vacuum cleaners run simultaneously in a 6 screen booth! The projectionists need good hearing to troubleshoot their sound systems, and they don't need the constant barrage of platter motor noise destroying their ears in small booths.

And I won't even get started on what is probably the second worst MUT in the world (ORC's take the cake for the worst with their Super Platter MUTs).

PS Mark--- Any platter with a microswitch is "digital". It's either on or off!



 

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-03-2002, 03:20 PM:
 
Joe,
Say what you want to but Strong/Potts has many things over the AW-3. Like balls to begin with. In all the rollers and on the deck axels, so yes you may hear them as ball bearings typically generate some noise of their own. However, they never freeze up like the bearingless rollers on the AW-3's. In fact I just replaced quite a large number of AW-3 roller shafts and rollers cause you could hear em squeeking downstairs!! Also, film will never jump out of a Strong/Potts payout head like I've seen it do on a Christie Control plate. The design is the way it is for very good reasons........ Also there are rollers around the entire perimiter of the Strong/Potts control plate to help protect the film if it wraps, Christies do not have this....just some stupid nylon rods sticking up and nothing else to keep the film from rubbing on the angled metal plate. Say what you want about the micros but Kinoton also used them for years and quite sucessfully! The digital platter requires no timming or other adjustments. Just install the control plate and go....thats all there is to it. I've also never seen a Strong/Potts torow a print either . Also, the digital platters are almost noisless in operation.....so whats the complaint? What you need is more experience with more platters out there to understand all the whys.
Mark @ GTS


 

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-03-2002, 03:54 PM:
 
I don't like the older Kinoton with the dual microswitches either. Again, I have had lots of print tossing problems with any platter with microswitch feed. I have also yet to see a microswitch based platter that had a good base design in the first place. A Christie has REAL timing controls, not ridiculous "timing" such as "just move the motor higher up on the mount" nonsense. Well, I tried doing that many a times and the motor was so high that the film was scraping up OVER the edge of the platter deck, and the damned things were still running too fast for me! There is simply no reason to ever allow a payout to run faster than 25RPM...EVER! Any platter that allows that is junk and is just begging to throw a print. Yes I know the speed is controlled by the takeup variac, but that still doesn't prevent the payout motor from ramping up to a speed much, much faster than it needs to be.

I've gone over these design faults before, but a refresher seems in order. In addition to the payout issues above, you cannot groove the decks on anything but a Christie and Neumade platter. Those of you who haven't grooved your decks have no idea how much gripping power that has on a sliding print! Those Strong-type units use bearing based rollers, which is stupid. I don't like having to put the platter 4 feet from the projector! The last Strong platter installation I did we found that with a mere 6 feet of distance, the payout would just feed the film right onto the floor because of those free-spinning bearing based rollers! The rollers themselves are teeny tiny, which adds more stress to the film during high tension transport (takeup and breakdown). There is no reason not to put standard sized 2 inch rollers like Christie and SPECO uses...at least on the MUT! Why is the takeup elevator only 10 inches (or something like that) tall? The design should permit the projectionist to tug on the film and NOT have the elevator go flying through your ceiling! Then again, why is the takeup elevator way down at the ground, when the film STILL has to travel to the top of the tree anyway? Why not put it higher? What's with the double threading pattern? If the projectionist is running to the top deck, you have to run over this extra jumper roller at the top of the tree. I've seen many a prints scratched because the second roller confuses the projectionist and they will takeup on the lower two decks running over that roller. Likewise I've seen the last part of a long movie scratched because the projectionist skipped that jumper roller when taking up onto the top deck! Also, there is no reason to have the final roller in the chain so damned low. The film should not come into contact with the surface of the platter deck until it is fully standing upright. It should NOT drag one edge across the deck on it's way to the film roll. Why is there no adjustment for the placement of this roller? Why is the feed arm upside down in the brain like Joe mentioned? Why does the one brain roller with the two keepers have the bracket on TOP? This needs to be on the underside so the film may be "placed" into the track and not "threaded through" the track. Gravity works on this planet pretty good folks, there is no reason for the brain to have been designed in this manner. Why are there little protective rollers around the brain like Joe mentioned? An admission of guilt in faulty designing, I agree. Where is the film cleaner mount? Does film never get dirty on one of these platters??? With all of the digital penthouses these days, placing the cleaner on top of the projector is simply not desirable. Look at the breakdown, you have to hold the backtension by hand, and it is impossible to truly do this with even tension! I see LOTS of film damage from Strong's MUT/hand backtension design on breakdown, ranging from cinch mark scratches because of varying backtension to laps of film that protrude from the film roll, which damages the sprockets during shipment back to the depot. But who cares about ruining the print anyway? It's only on breakdown and you'll never have to run that print again, right? Yes indeedy, "to hell with the next guy". Be careful when you are breaking down though! The wind current from those "fin" supports underneath the platter decks will cause the payout to go crazy and toss a print while you are trying to break down another! Then there's that horrid horizontal MUT with no convenient place to put the splicer, and a bizarre array of rollers with an unnecessary spring. Oh no wait, humans are having to apply the backtension, I guess the spring IS a requirement to keep from totally butchering the film on breakdown. If by now you still think the platter is a quality product, why not break a film down on a deck underneath one that is spinning. Just wait until you get the shit knocked out of your head by the deck braces!!! You won't think it is a good design then.

There are just too many things wrong with these units even in the base design alone. Add the microswitch and you've got a horrible platter. Anyone who is satisfied with a mere "for the most part these platters run well", then fine, go ahead and buy them. Anyone who doesn't want to have film damage, get a Christie! A very good alternative for people who cannot handle timing a Christie is a SPECO, which runs very smoothly, handles the film nicely and has a well designed MUT. This is also a quality platter overall. Just don't get the brain design with the clusterfuck of rollers and make sure you get the new center rings and you'll be set. (See the review on the SPECO LP-280)

I am also quite impressed with Kinoton's new payout design. Once they do something about their roller placement, they'll have one heck of a platter.

Now in defense of Pat Moore, I DO like their latest generation of SCDC payouts. They are smooth and don't take off like a bat out of hell. Unfortunately that doesn't fix the rest of the design faults. Will these items ever be addressed Pat?

As it stands today, the Christie can not be topped. Anyone who is actually seeing print tossing or brain wrapping with one of these needs a new tech who can properly set them up. Once set up properly, they run flawlessly and handle film more gentle than anything else.

And Mark, I have never seen a Christie roller freeze up! I'm betting some well-intended projectionist lubed them with the free Lubriplate that Christie provides when the platters were new. As for film jumping out of the brain, that again is a problem that is not a problem. I've only seen that happen one time and that was because the film being ran was old, warped and had been "trimmed" at the edge, supposedly to allow a section with broken sprockets to run (without an edge at all). This is not an issue. Next time the power goes out in a Strong booth and you don't have the time to speed-wind before the next show, why don't you go and unthread the brains so the films can be center dropped? What a pain in the butt the Strong brain design is for unthreading!!! Finally, in Joe's defense, I know he has ran Strong, Christie and ORC (early Super) platters. With him having worked with properly set up Christies, I think that makes him more than qualified to point out foolish design errors in a Strong and ORC/Super. Since a Potts is basically the same thing, that gives him plenty of qualifications there too.


 

Posted by Wes Hughes (Member # 981) on 07-03-2002, 04:51 PM:
 
Some of the newer payout controls can be unthreaded. You just slide the film out from under the payout control arm, and out from around the two keepers on the angled roller. Some of the older models did have a metal bar across both keepers and the roller, but some don't.

Never needed to groove a STRONG. Never even used the suction cups except on a few odd occasions.

If your operators are having trouble with all those rollers, then train them better.

I don't like the fact there isn't a good place for a splicer during breakdown, but I LOVE the horizontal tables and the minimal backtension. An experienced platter operator can kick serious butt with that table...without damaging a foot of film.

I choose STRONG because I have operated projection rooms for nearly 19 years, so I have used many makes and models of equipment. At this point in my life it is my job to purchase equipment for my theatres that is reliable, fairly easy to use and repair, and that FITS IN MY BUDGET for both purchase and UPKEEP. STRONG cannot be undersold by a better unit.
 

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-03-2002, 04:55 PM:
 
My operators are well trained and that is a ridiculous statement on your part. I guess I am not trained enough to operate my Windows computer because it crashes on me from time to time, right? The problem IS the platters. (You are tempting me to set up a video camera in front of one of these beasts and put up downloadable videos to prove my point.) I don't care that *most* shows will run without problems. That is not good enough. ALL shows must run without problems!

Cheap! Cheap! Cheap! Wes, you should consider that a platter will generally run for 10, 15, maybe 20 years or more. Why penny pinch to save $1000 or whatever amount when you do the math showing how much extra money it costs in the big picture to get a better machine? That makes NO sense. Let's say the platter only runs for 10 years before being taken out of service, and let's assume the price difference is $1000. That's only about a quarter a day! You will more than make up for that in refund money. Penny pinch in an area of the theater that you will end up re-doing at somepoint down the road regardless. Rarely are new platters ever installed in an existing theater. The first purchase is generally permanent. Do it right.

Also, if you are "kicking butt with the breakdown", you ARE damaging your film!!!


 

Posted by Pat Moore (Member # 380) on 07-03-2002, 05:01 PM:
 
Hi Brad;

I do appreciate your opinions on the platter. I have to say quite a bit of this has not been considered "design faults" over the years. For every lover of a film roller with a bearing, you'll find others that can't stand them; experience probably determines which one is thought to be "troublefree" or easier to troubleshoot; etc., etc.

It's also hard to compare a variac-based platter to an all-electronic version. There are economics to consider and when the economy version does what you want -- namely, handle film reliably and without damage -- that's not a bad deal.

Properly threaded and maintained, a Strong Platter is no more going to damage a print than is a Christie. Conversely, improperly handled a Christie (or any other) Platter can real easily trash a print.

One point I will agree with is the low film tension on the payout side. I don't think the platter needs to be 4ft away to minimize film slack, but there is pretty good sag just from the weight of the film on a 6 or 8ft stretch. Ordinarily this won't cause much of a problem but I do know of exceptions. We have looked at something similar to a pinch roller setup, but we found edge wear on the film increased quite a bit.

We have also looked at making the payout assembly accept film dropped in from the top. There I have no good explanation other than the engineering guys didn't like the reason for the change. I still think there's merit to it and bring it up at our meetings now and again...

Have a great and safe Fourth, everybody.
 

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-03-2002, 05:13 PM:
 
quote:
"Properly threaded and maintained, a Strong Platter is no more going to damage a print than is a Christie. Conversely, improperly handled a Christie (or any other) Platter can real easily trash a print."

Sorry Pat, but I see LOTS of damaged film coming out of Strong platter booths, in some instances with the SAME operators that run a Christie platter booth. So if a print gets thrown from a platter deck, is that not considered "trashing a print"? I ask because that is THE primary problem I have with Strong/Potts/CFS and such microswitch-based platters. Strong simply must address some of these design problems, most notably the "human backtension" on breakdown. There also needs to be a limit on how fast the MUT can spin, to prevent people from going crazy trying to get home a couple of minutes earlier. This is not in the best interest of the film.

I might also note that I have sold exactly one microswitch platter (Strong Alpha) and have regretted it every day since. That thing on a good week would only throw a print 3 times. There were times it would throw a print once a day! I had every local (and no-so-local) tech that I could pursuade to come over and look at it. Everything checked out fine and all the microswitches were replaced along with the variac, but it was just too damn jumpy. I still catch hell from that company about it. Other microswitch platters around town are the same way. Only the SCDC units run smoothly. How many Christie platters that I service have thrown a print in the last 5 years? Not a one.

Just re-read my complaints above. Yes some of the things in there are personal preferences (like the way the brain threads or having the takeup elevator higher on the tree), but there are also serious design flaws in that post above that will "trash a print" as well. These items really need to be addressed and re-engineered. There is no reason why a microswitch platter can not by default be a quality product. It just isn't yet, at least not to a level of quality I feel appropriate for proper film handling. Therein lies the biggest problem with designing a product, it is impossible to please everyone all the time. All a manufacturer can do is listen to feedback from the field and incorporate everything that they feel will not deter the current quantity of sales and will improve the product without degrading another aspect of it. Most of my complaints about the microswitch platter as the design stands today would be easily implemented without taking away from the other aspects.

This is not to say that a Christie platter can not ever damage film, but as Wes so elegantly puts it, if the tech or projectionist is trained to calibrate it right, it will run perfectly.


 

Posted by Mike Fitzgerald (Member # 1304) on 07-03-2002, 06:42 PM:
 
Thanks for all the advice. I have taken the control arm on the brain apart and changed out the bearings wih another set I had on hand. Iam going to order new bearings for all of the decks. One thing I found was the feed arm in the brain was lightly touching the brain base. After changing out the bearings it rides higher. I readjusted the microswitch until I can find some new ones here locally. I notice it is very inconsistant. Some time it picks up right away and other times it wraps almost all the way around the brain and then picks up.
One other question or 2. We are using Hoover vaccum cleaner belts on the drive motors, could that be causing a problem. Any suggestion on the type of switches you all use. (type)
Thanks
 
Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 07-03-2002, 07:14 PM:
 
Mike:

For the microswitch use Grainger # 6X284 which is the same as OMRON # Z15GW-B7-K which sells for $6.18 at Grainger. Be sure to remove the spring at the pivot point on the switch as it's not necessary for this application.

Pat Moore:

As you probably know there are quite a few theaters here in western Washington state equipped with Strong/Potts platters (many of those theaters are Tom Moyer/Act3/Regal) and they wouldn't use anything else! We bought a used Alpha 3 deck in 1994 (the platter was made in 1992) at the Skyline drive-in theater in Shelton, Wash. and it has worked very reliably day in and day out ever since with the only service needed was to replace ONE microswitch that had gone bad (open). The platter design is fine the way it is---don't change a thing! However, the only improvement I would like to see on the makeup table is a place to put the splicer when breaking down a print. Tell the crew at Design and Manufacturing to keep up the good work.


 

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 07-03-2002, 08:21 PM:
 
And don't forget about the carriage (dancer) pin....

It needs a grove to stay in place while you waltz around the platter while threading.
 

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-03-2002, 09:24 PM:
 
Actually both the Christie and Strong/Potts are easily topped by the present Kinoton platter system.
All I can do is chuckle at this point about all the writing about nothing that has gone on today , hehehehe. Also, I have many, many Strong/Potts platters that are 20 plus years old that still run perfeectly today, all of these have had only minor upkeep done to them to keep them in top shape, probably less than 100.00 per system!! These platters have far outlasted all of their early AW-3 Christie counterparts by 2X so far. Geez, you can't even get parts for a 20 year old AW-3 anymore.........
Paul, You need to refine how you thread up. All theatres that I service have pretty much removed their pins all together. Its un-necessary unless you need to run the platter for timming purposes.
Mark @ GTS


 

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 07-03-2002, 10:08 PM:
 
Mark, I use the "threading hole" so I can thread through the tree, down past the operating side of the projector, then reach down and thread the bitter end of the film through the lower guidance roller, (without the film touching the floor), back to the platter tree, through the lower roller, through the carrage (dancer) through the return path rollers, and onto the platter in one nice clean even smooth sweep while the pay-out head gives me all the film I want. Then, if I have a long leader, I can turn on the take-up motor and expend the excessive leader. Then I waltz back to the projector and thread it up. (without film dangling all over the floor). Then I just give the film a gentle tug, which releases the pin. Then I verify threading, and waltz back to the platter, turn on the take up, scratch my butt, and I am now ready to start my show.

I have used this procedure for 22 years, and it is by the far and fastest way possible for a 2-minute turn-around.

I thread the AW-3's basically the same way. Only thing is, I don't have to worry about switches to throw. When I thread trough the failsafe, and lower take-up roller on the guidance arm, then I bar the machine through by hand to verify threading. Then, I tug the the film to insure the Christie swing-arm is seen by the platter to initiate the tension.

Probably the rest of you might disagree with my next step. That being, I manual motor the excessive leader through. That does not seem to be too much of a problem for the Christie projectors, or any projector for that matter, as long as the motor is allowed to come up to full speed before it is shut down.

If some of you tell me to use a shorter leader, I say "BAH!" I like long leaders. I have a basic pre-determined area on the leader where I want to start my show from. Nothing pisses me off more than to see a short leader where the system "times in" in the middle of a Dolby or DTS logo. One leader fits all......no matter which house I move the film to.

Like I have said, I have been doing this method for 22 years now, and I am totally amused by the way the less-experienced operators fight the equipment to make a half-assed attempt to get on the screen.

My method also eliminates the accidental raising of the carrage (dancer) with a motor switches being in the wrong position other than OFF.

Switches being in the wrong position raise hell with the variac as well as with phase controls because of the current surge, not to mention the possibility of tossing the whole print on the floor or the take-up carriage (dancer) hitting the stop and causing gross mis-alignment with the film guidance hardware nobody seems to really care about. Sometimes I wonder if the surge current is the chief cause of phase control failures.

I see no need to change my procedures...


 

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 07-03-2002, 10:23 PM:
 
I have used all the platters discussed above. I think the AW3 can be made to run well, and it is VERY ergonomic. I can thread one up faster than almost any other platter without any dramas.

When I worked with them, we were going through a bunch of bad LEDs. From memory, the green ones at one point were inferior. This had an unfortunate effect upon reliability. I understand that with quality LEDS, these things run beautifully. Since Brad is the unchallenged Christie master, I have no doubt I would become a huge fan with the ones he's in charge of (Grooved decks, large center rings, correctly timed, etc. would make all the difference).

Strong and SPECO are both decent, and I have seen both being pretty reliable. I have not seen the electronic Strongs. The microswitch ones went open circuit a few times, but after replacement switches were installed they chugged along pretty well. It is an inexpensive unit. However, my preference for an inexpensive unit would be SPECO. I think they may be more gentle on film, but that's just my opinion/observation. The only platter I've used which I thought was categorically disgusting was the CFS super platter. There is nothing super about it except that it is super junk. What a waste of space.

My favourite platters overall are the Cinemeccanica and the Kinoton, but moreso the Kinoton. The new IR payout units are gorgeous! Very little can be improved there. Not having any swinging arm whatsoever is so very, very choice! And you should see the sheer finesse and precision with which these things payout film. Wow.

The latest Kinoton makeup tables, as I've said to John W many times, are the finest makeup tables I've seen to date by a wide margin. Back tension is perfectly and automatically controlled (both platter deck and M/U table 'talk' to each other). It will not start winding on before it corrects any slack that may exist (it must sense correct tension before starting), and to stop winding, you simply rotate the speed control. It is not necessary to assist the deck and/or spool, and no tension will be lost, even if you just whip it off. Both deck and spool will smoothly coast to a halt in unison. Alright! At the end of winding a spool to the deck, or vice versa, the system will stop automatically when the film runs out. Of course you should still be there anyway, but still a great feature. The wind on is so even and smooth, after you're done you can just pick up the print. Awesome.

Another thing I love about Kinoton platters is that after the payout, the film just goes up and out, rather than payout - down - up, then out. Simply threading up and out saves time and your back (yes, I know you should bend the knees!). 'nuff said!



 

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 07-03-2002, 10:29 PM:
 
Speco platters are smoother than a spanked baby's butt as long as you keep the WD-40 away from them, especially its twist and guide rod.

One thing I have not tried, but I better give it a shot....that is running my platters with the MUT in event I have a variac failure. That can be done very easy with the LP-270's, and the old Potts/CFS machines, as well as the Xetron XNR series.

But I am not sure sure I can do that with the AW3's, or the Potts/Strong A3's.

I'll have to look at that possibility Saturday when I run Anacortes.



 

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-04-2002, 12:30 AM:
 
Mark, the new Kinoton platter does indeed look like a solid performer, and one I would definitely like to spend some time with. However there are 3 things that need to be corrected before I would consider it to be better than a Christie.

#1 The brain needs a swinging arm/latch of some sort for outward bulge center drops. On a Christie, you can drop in trailers with an inward bulge, or an outward bulge and it is happy. Other platters do not handle outward bulge drops very well. Kinoton could make a latch on their brain (where the film enters) similar to the latch that Christie is now putting on their center rings to cover the top of the slit. For 99% of the time the latch could be swung and left out of the way. For those times where an outward center drop is needed (as in adding more film to the inside of the roll than there is really room for), after threading through the slit, the latch could be swung around to block the opening which would prevent the film from flopping out. This would cost probably a whopping buck or two to the cost.

#2 I fail to understand why designers cannot put two threaded holes in the side of the tree for a film cleaner bracket like Christie does. Again, we're talking maybe another buck to the manufacturing cost. This is definitely needed, for not everyone likes having the cleaners mounted on the projectors.

#3 Roller positioning. This one goes hand in hand with #2. I know Michael likes the current threading, but I do not. Most platters use the standard out of the brain, over a roller down the tree, under a roller and back up to the top of the tree threading pattern. Kinoton does not, and this besides making threading a bit *different*, does not provide for a place to mount a film cleaner on the tree (near waist level of course, not like Big Sky's poor location). I see no reason why Kinoton cannot follow the typical threading path of a conventional platter. This would also eliminate the running of the film over the keeper rollers, of which most projectionists have pre-drilled into their brains that "if the film touches the keeper, you have misthreaded" mentality. Finally, the enter and exit rollers of the platter simply MUST have a swivel bracket of some sort. I very much hate the idea that I have to aim the entire platter system at the projector because Kinoton did not put an adjustable roller at the top and bottom of the tree. While this is being incorporated into the design, it would allow Kinoton to rid themselves of the foolish "the film must return to the platter at this exact height from the floor" nonsense. This should cost hardly anything to implement, if anything at all and at that point Kinoton would probably be the best platter on the market. Until that time, Christie is the clear winner, for these faults cannot be overlooked.

As for the SPECO, I must agree with Paul that if someone is on a tight budget and/or the installation tech doesn't ever want to have to deal with service calls for retiming (which is why I believe many techs prefer microswitch platters), a SPECO LP-270 is pretty much THE way to go. Although not quite as operator friendly as a Christie and having a couple of issues ("fins" underneath the deck and weak roller shafts on the elevator come immediately to mind), this is definitely the best second choice out there and is light years ahead of the Strong/Potts type of microswitch platter. You've got proper breakdown backtension, a quality MUT design, large rollers, super easy to thread (except for that recent model of brain) and it does indeed run as smooth as a baby's butt! There is so much sluggishness when the motors fire that it is extremely difficult to throw a print, yet it is pretty much the same theory as the Strong/Potts microswitch. You've got OFF, speed of the takeup platter AND full on in your payout, meaning you can interlock without having to prop up the takeup elevator and you can thread without having to prop it up too. Plus you can initiate takeup tension with a gentle tug.
 

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-04-2002, 10:27 AM:
 
Paul, The Stong/Potts can be easily run with the MUT, don't try it with an AW-3 though as it is EXTREMELY touchy. I also dislike SPECO's complete disregard for using keepers on their rollers. I've sold a few of them, but overall the pushbutton assy is a joke and difficult to replace. It does fail more often than not. Also, the SPECO is quite a bit more expensive than the Strong/Potts, so how does it fit in to economics of things? Also microswitch platters DO reqire timming to operate properly but require timming adjustments far less frequently then other platters do. The advantage with microswitch platters is timming is less critical and slight drifting of the timming is meaningless. If your microswitch platter is throwing film or running to fast on startup it needs to be timmed.

I'll be sticking with the Strong/Potts units as they have BY FAR given me the best results of all platters in the field. The Kinoton is an exception to that but is not nearly economically feasible in the normal world.

As far as overall noise level in a booth goes the Strong/Potts platter is but a small part of it. The smallish whirr it makes when properly timmed as the micro turns on is very minimal. If you want to really complain to Pat tell him to get rid of the whinning fans they use in their rectifiers. The noise they make is alot more bothersome to all operators I work with!!

Gee where is Steve G.? Should we start a thread on reels for him so we can get him to magically appear??

In conclusion It would appear to me that several people here do not know how to properly time, or set the variac on a Strong Potts to be able to get the best performance out of them.
MArk @ GTS


 

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 07-04-2002, 11:08 AM:
 
I agree - being able to drop in more film than what you've removed (ie. outward bulge) is a major asset and can get you out of trouble.

I have personally done this with SPECO and Cinemeccanica platters, both of which are extremely forgiving with outward bulges. I never had a problem with this technique with these platters! However, this is not possible with a Kinoton due to the acute angle of the exit roller from the payout unit (either design). I know that with a Christie, you can even payout a second print which is lying on top of another print without problems. Likewise, this is something you can't do with Kinoton. Maybe with a modification you might be able to get away with it, but certainly not straight from the factory.

John Wilson found a way to attach our Kelmar cleaners to the platter tree, however. We tapped holes on the post just beside the roller leading out from the top plate. I'll ask him to post some pictures here.

Also, one of our platters is not lined up directly with the projector. We used a few extra rollers to get around this. We'll get some pictures together of this as well.

On the 'outward bulge' issue, well...we have to plan around this a bit. If we look at our trailer list and see that there is going to be more going in than coming out, we take up the film onto a larger centre ring or use foam padding to increase the diameter first. Of course, if we forget to do this, we are snookered. We have to then drop in half this session and the rest next session, or something like that.

A couple of places I've worked have not enjoyed the outward bulge method whenever I've done it. Personally, I've never had a problem with it and think it's a great 'get out of jail' card if ever there was one, and the film itself doesn't seem to mind at all.

One guy (who shall remain nameless) didn't want me to do it because he was paranoid that something would go wrong. Of course, it never did. Another time, I was doing relief work at another place and the tech dropped by (who shall remain nameless). He saw the outward bulge and said that anyone who cared about film would never do anything like that to it. Well, they were brand new trailers and when they hit the screen they didn't have a single mark on them...as opposed to the trailers that had been running there for a while already. Hmmm!


 

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 07-04-2002, 11:13 AM:
 
Mark, I certainly agree with you about the selector switches on the SPECO machine. George Higgenbothem, (pardon the spelling) please do something about that. Changing that switch assembly is a dreaded task, and I would rather stand on my head in a toilet than to change that switch. .

Also, the slight "Whhhhrrrrrrrrrr" emitted from the newer cross-hatched belts you can buy from the local Kirby Vacuum Sweeper shop for the older CFS/Potts platters is cool. Don't use the Hoover belts. I have had bad luck with those. They must have been made from recycled rubber.

If you REALLY want to hear a noisy platter, just listen to that old air-drive Simplex platter. Ear protectors are needed around that thing!!!!!! It goes "WOOOOOooooooooo" and the compressor sounds like an old MG set with worn brushes and square bearings filled with Poly-Grip denture paste.

I had the mis-fortune of servicing one of those, I think it was in West Bend, Wisconsin. That was the only one I ever seen. It reminded me of a Ford commercial....Ford has a better idea. (turn on the light bulb) but unfortunately, when Simplex turned on the light bulb, it immediately burned out.

How many of you have seen or worked on those machines?


 

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 07-04-2002, 11:45 AM:
 
I have worked with Potts Alpha Platters, Christie AW-3 Platters, ORC 5-Deck super (or drive-in not quite sure) platter, and Strong SCDMC PLatters. The Christie is very good never had any problems, and so are the potts and strong I have never had a problem with either of them. As I read this thread I cant help but think that some people are exagerating to prove thier point and I dont believe that that really benefits anyone. I have never seen a strong or potts perform as badly as claimed be some people. I think we should make an effort to be fair and factual.

------------------
--Sean McKinnon
Manager
Loews Cineplex Entertainment
Liberty Tree Mall 20
Danvers, Mass
<A HREF="http://www.enjoytheshow.com" TARGET=_blank>www.enjoytheshow.com</A>


 

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 07-04-2002, 11:50 AM:
 
Time for me to add my $.02.

First of all, I have never used a Christie platter, so I cannont compare the Christie to the Strong. I have no doubt that these are exceptional platters, I just have no first-hand experience.

But I can defend Strong. I think it is necessary to have rollers around the brain. The only brain I have ever seen that doesn't is the supposedly brainwrap-free Big Sky. Well, they are not wrap free. In the two months my theater has been open, we have had at least 3 wraps that I can think of. Does the brain have rollers to protect the film? No. Does the film get damaged? Sure does. So having those rollers is a must.

As far as the double threading pattern, I have never seen a properly trained operator screw that one up. Of course everyone makes mistakes the first week, but that's why you have someone check your work before you start the show.

Why does everyone see the need to mount a cleaner on the platter? I have no problem with putting it on the projector. Most platters don't have holes for mounting a cleaner, but they are not too hard to modify.

I don't ever recall the platters running too loud. The noise from the projector by far overpowers any noise the platter makes.

Yes, I suppose it would be a little more convenient if the top of the payout arm were open so you could just drop film in, but it is hardly worth making a big deal about.

I love the MUT. I much prefer the horizontal design to the vertical, but that's just me. I do agree that you shouldn't have to apply back tension while breaking down, but this feature is hardly unique to Strong. Every platter I've come across requires you to disengage the motor to break down. Same thing with the "fins" underneat the platter. Actually, Big Sky doesn't have those fins, but they're the only ones I've seen...

Like I said, I'm not arguiing that Christies are better. I just have no first-hand experience with them.
 

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-04-2002, 03:13 PM:
 
quote:
Why does everyone see the need to mount a cleaner on the platter? I have no problem with putting it on the projector. Most platters don't have holes for mounting a cleaner, but they are not too hard to modify.

Please take the time to read Brad's posts, and that will answer your question. He said very clearly "why" that is the preferred method.

Also, are Brad and I the only ones who would rather drop the film into a Strong brain payout head from the top rather than wrestle it through? It would make threading easier and quicker, and possible with only one hand. Well I guess you could do the current brain with only one hand, but what a pain in the anus. And in order for the film to come flying up and out of the payout arm, it would first have to come flying up and out of the 3-angled-rollers thingy and I have never seen that happen. If it is coming out of the top of the payout head first, then that probably means your print is in the process of being tossed. The brain in these platters is my biggest beef. My second biggest would be the takeup variac which no matter how it is set takes off like a bat out of hell when you give it a tug to take up your film. Then the teeny rollers putting too much stress on the film. Why wouldn't bigger rollers be preferred? Please answer that Mark.

Sean McKinnon, please show me where I have exaggerated and am not being truthful. Thanks.


 

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-04-2002, 03:15 PM:
 
Well I am not one to exaggerate, thats for sure. What follows is fact!! In thousands of service calls in the past 20 years, I've had to make what I feel is a larger than normal number of repairs to AW-3's. These repairs have included poor solder connections on the push button selector assembly causing erratic feed out and take up, bad motors, bad drive cards, replace worn out axels, replace decks due to worn out bushings, replace rollers and their shafts cause they squeek, replace variable speed module in MUT several times at least. In my 20 ears I've worked with around 30 AW-3's and literally hundreds of Strong/Potts(in fact, I've sold hundreds of Strong/Potts myself). With all those hundreds of Strong/Potts platters there have been far less spent on them dollar wise than on the parts for the 30 or so AW-3's. That alone says enough for me.
Mark @ GTS


 

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-04-2002, 03:48 PM:
 
Mark, like I said I got every tech I could from all around to come attempt to make this Strong Alpha run smoothly. NO ONE could do it! I guess you have some special technique that is not in the manual and no one around here has heard of.

Sean, I don't know about the rest of everyone here, but I am not exaggerating. Also, I would rate the AW2 as crap. (When people say "Christie platter", you can take it for granted that they are speaking of the AW3, as I know of no one who consideres the AW1 or AW2 to be anything but junk these days.) I feel it is you who is not being fair for comparison's sake, as you have not worked with an AW3. Remember, most people are pleased with whatever the first set of equipment they use is...until they move on to something better and then realize the difference. Even at that, there will always be a certain amount of *loyalty* so to say toward what we learned on. (And no I did not learn on a Christie.)

Ken, if you need those rollers around the brain, there is something going wrong! The film should never ever wrap. Also, when you work at a theater that has constant power outages, you will see just how important being able to easily un-thread the brain really is. It also saves time in threading. Maybe it's only a few seconds, but in a large multiplex that gives more time to be paying attention to the presentation and not fiddling around with poorly thought out roller placement. This is a very simple design modification for a manufacturer to change. It's not asking a lot and couldn't possibly anger the people who have not complained, for the only difference in the design would be having the bracket on the bottom side of the rollers, but it would please the people who do complain.

Mark, fact is fact and I certainly will not dispute your findings in the post right above this one. I'm sure there are plenty of other techs who would say similar things that you have just reported. However, I am also speaking from fact. Most of the platters I have serviced are AW3s and only a few of them are Strongs. Those Christies run magnificently day in and day out. The Strongs are always giving grief and damaging film. If by your logic I am not getting excellent reliability from the Strongs because I am not setting them up properly, then by that same logic you are not getting excellent reliability from the Christies because you are not setting those up properly. Next time we are together around equipment, let's trade setup tips and see how each other's experiences continue. I for one would love to be able to see a microswitch platter run reliable comparatively speaking to an AW3.


 

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 07-04-2002, 06:00 PM:
 
As far as parameter rollers are concerned, I think they are more of a "precaution" added by the manufacturers. If the platter runs like it is supposed to on paper, chances are you'll never need them. But, anything will fail. Especially if it is electronic controlled. That's when those rollers will save your butt. In addition to what I just said, the morons who sometimes operate the equipment can't consistantly thread the pay-out properly. Pay-out heads WILL NOT WORK properly if they are mis-threaded. Thank God for the rollers....

Christie can get by with their plastic pegs, just by the way it is designed. But many other pay-out heads need those rollers to keep the film away from parts that could scratch the film in event of pay-out "hunting."

As a passing thought....we had some bashing here on all popular brands of platters, but we forgot one. Remember the old Eprad platter? This thing will surely add fuel to the fire.

Anyone who purchased one of those would just probably worship any other brand. With the Eprad, they also provided you with the shaft.

The shaft came in a form of a long rod that went right from the bottom to the top,and the shaft was driven by a common motor. The shaft was included in the price tag.

It was impossible to switch film around from one screen to another.


 

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 07-04-2002, 06:18 PM:
 
The Eprad platter was basically a clutch drive system; almost like a horizontal takeup reel in concept. The motor was from a washing machine. Usually after a year or two of operation part of the "maintinance" of the platter was to have a person on standby to manually spin the disk by hand or go to the back up makeup table which was a version of the double mut for emergency...the late Al Bourduis was an inventor, tinker type of guy ( and cinema owner ) who was always available with an option....some good, some bad. He offered me a job 27 years ago but Ohio was too cold, my boss raised my salary and I was ( am ) used to the tropics.
As for the Potts / Christie debate....I have loved Potts for the numerous sales and Christie for the equal amount of service calls due to people "adjusting" the platter
Richard Fowler
TVP-Theatre & Video Products Inc. www.tvpmiami.com
 
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 07-04-2002, 06:22 PM:
 
Richard, maybe the Eprad was the "Maytag" of the industry...
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-04-2002, 07:39 PM:
 
Well Paul, I'm afraid I cannot comment on the Eprad, as I've never worked with one. However I have seen pictures of one and the question "how do you move prints" has always been in the back of my mind. Now that I know those braces are not moveable, I must change my current #1 most hated platter (the Super Platter) to the Eprad. That sort of design flaw, depite the fact that I've never used one, just can not be overlooked.

But Richard, if the projectionists were trained properly then there would be no tweeking of the controls going on...or they would be done properly. There goes the "train people better" argument.

I think Gordon actually has tamper proof labels he puts on equipment to see if anyone has tampered with it. An interesting idea.


 

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 07-04-2002, 08:31 PM:
 
Regarding Christie.....most of my calls where early a.m with service reports left behind ( detailed )....usually the return calls where caused by a shift charge, new hires, absentee owner visiting et cetera. We did the anti-tamper by using a black sticker ( phone number and other who to contact ) which could not be reapplied if removed...and nail polish in basket case situations.
Eprad kept the Maytag repairman busy since his brand was soo reliable , he could "moonlight". A feature was a soleniod under each platter disk for braking and speed control purposes...so CLACK, CLACK, CLACK and the groaning of the motor and clutches, plus an occaisional hand push of the disk where normal routine. The platter also very very critical regarding level, which id not perfect, drove the motor crazy...we had one in a twin with a wood floor which would shift due to weight...after a few extra boards of plywood to stiffen the floor, no problems.
Simplex Aero platter handled film very nice due to the air hydralics of the beast. We had to located the air turbines outside a booth at a 3 plex when the operators refused to work in the booth due to the whining noise.
Richard Fowler
TVP-Theatre & Video Products Inc. www.tvpmiami.com
 
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 07-04-2002, 09:00 PM:
 
Richard, you said that so well about the Simplex and Eprad platters. I came back to add some of what you said, but you beat me to it!


 

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-04-2002, 11:08 PM:
 
Hmm? Huh?....did someone say reels?

I've only read the posts for today (Indepenance Day 2002) so I don't know what others have said prior...

Despite my reel-to-reel upbringing and preference, I actually am rather good with platters as well and have operated, installed and serviced them for decades.

The ones I'm familiar with are the Christie (AW-1, AW-2 and AW-3 in all it's incarnations)

SPECO LP-270

Strong/Potts with MANY, MANY different types of centerfeeds.

Other brands I've had a more passing aquantence with.

As to which platters I prefer (again based on the ones I've personally used at length) depends based on if it is for me or if it is for a customer.

If it is for me, I'll take an AW-3, SPECO LP-270 or Strong SCDC in about equal preference. They all have many strengths and all have glaring weaknesses.

Out of the crate, the Strong SCDC is the most ready to go...just assemble, plug it in and you are done. Service also tends to go to the Strong SCDC...keep the drive tires on the motors fresh and there is little else to worry about (again, based on my experience)...they have required the least service.

From a longevity standpoint, SPECO so far is my winner. An occasional payout module and a rare motor failure is about all I've had. In abusive situations, pushbutton switch failure. And it is ALWAYS the middle deck (the hardest to change). But mostly, the SPECO requires very little attention. Mark, SPECO now has keeper rollers all over it. Plus Gene and George are wonderful people!

Personally, I don't care for the Microswitch, phase control, Magnatronic, forms of the Strong/Potts platter. While I can certainly set up the platter with very good timing, the timing rarely is long lived since the motor drive tires wear. Furthermore, if none of the booth personel are short, the bottom deck never gets used until two titles are on the same screen...when that happens, wham, the bottom deck is way off from the other two.

I have also had a large number of Potts/Strong centerfeed connectors get destroyed. The booth people seem rather abusive to them. When the connectors get beat up, they start becoming flakey.

The Christie can certainly be made to perform quite well. However, you are subject to the whims of Christie's engineers and their suppliers for the performance of the various replacement parts you WILL consume. The thing isn't fused and a shorted work lamp or socket WILL take your transformer down and your platter with it. I wonder how UL approved this thing. Christie has gone through various motor incarnations, LED colors and styles, motor cards, density discs, roller styles, switch banks and every batch of drive tires are DIFFERENT. Sometimes they're soft, sometimes they are harder, the older ones are small diameter, the newer ones are larger. Every tech has their magic formula for setting the speeds.

One big thing Christie has over the others I've mentioned is three independant decks...if one deck goes does for any reason, the other two will be unaffected. Both SPECO and POTTS/STRONG use a common take up.

So, in conclusion, I'll back up Mark's claim about having to service Christie's more than all others but it is still a worthy piece and in the right hands, it can certainly be a great performer.

Steve

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


 

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 07-05-2002, 02:06 AM:
 
I HAVE worked with a Christie AW-3 and the 5 deck version. and I think it is a very good platter system, I loved working with this platter. All I am saying is that I have never seen a Potts Alpha or a strong perform the way you say they do, they may not be the greatest but Ive always had excellent luck with them. I did not mean to offend you Joe or say that you were bieng untruthful I just dont think that the Strong/Potts type platter is as bad as some people make it out to be. It's not perfect but neither is the AW-3. everyone has thier opinion and has the right to thier opinion, I just feel that some of the claims made of the Strong/Potts are exagerated, they are a good platter system, so is the AW-3. They both have thier place. It just seemed like some people were saying that the AW-3 was absolutley perfect and the strong was 100% bad and would damage any film within 100 yards evein if it was still in the cans on reels.

------------------
--Sean McKinnon
Manager
Loews Cineplex Entertainment
Liberty Tree Mall 20
Danvers, Mass
www.enjoytheshow.com
 

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-05-2002, 02:54 AM:
 
Yes Steve, I referred to reels right on the first page of this thread.

Sean, oh no I agree, every piece of equipment ever made has some defects. However there is always some that have more than others. I did not realize you HAD worked with an AW3. Your post did not say that.

Let's be fair. Things wrong with the AW3, current and past:

Did I leave anything out? Past that there really isn't anything wrong with the AW3. My comments regarding my possessed Strong Alpha were NOT exaggerated in the least bit. That thing threw prints as if that was what it was built to do. When you get burned on something really bad and no other tech can make it work right either, you tend to hold a bit of a grudge. I will believe there are people who don't have any major problem with the microswitch type of platter not throwing prints. I'll buy that this particular machine was simply possessed, but that doesn't answer why other microswitch units around town still toss prints occasionally (once a month type of thing) and that is also no excuse for all of the other design errors I listed in an earlier page of this thread. When compared to the AW3, this is a no contest situation...unless the person making the purchasing decisions is just being cheap.


 

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 07-05-2002, 04:02 AM:
 
Brad,

Thank you for your reply, your story of that alpha just seemed exttreme but i know you to be a very good tech and a reliable person. I have only had positive experiences with these types of systems. I think those rollers around the brain are there as a just in case i think it is easier to fix a wrap because of those than on a christie just my opinion. it makes it wrap nice and even unlike a christie where it can be a real mess. if I was to install my own booth I might very well choose an AW-3 but I would not rule out a strong, the SCDC platters are really nice. the table can be a pain but its what i learned on so it feels natural to me. I think the argument that someone can run a christie platter and not mess-up a print and then run a strong and mess it up it kind of foolish, I dont doubt it happens but a good film-handler should be able to work with whatever system is in place and provide a good presentation regardless of the equipment. Ive been able to operate 4 different platter systems without trouble, Christie AW-3 3 and 5 decks, Potts Alpha 3 and 5 decks, ORC 5 deck, and another type potts platter 3 deck with out error. To me its like saying that someone can thread a simplex XL ok but if they try to thread a century theyll trash the print. I think that just like in the discussion on platters vs reels we should all agree to disagree and keep peace and harmony amongst all film-techers
 

Posted by Wes Hughes (Member # 981) on 07-05-2002, 11:16 PM:
 
Hate to revive this thread, but something that I do on a regular basis with Strong/Potts/Ballantyne platters just occured to me:

I time them slow.

I set the timing more or less as is the "proper" way to do it, then I slow them down a bit.

Set up this way the platters wrap about 3/4 of the way around the centerfeed (sometimes more if the print is over 1.75 hours) before they start to catch up. I have NEVER seen this cause even the slightest bit of film damage. The rollers around the brain assure this.

Perhaps this is why I never have any thrown prints...even without any film retainers of any kind.


 

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-05-2002, 11:28 PM:
 
Wes, for the benefit of everyone, please post your detailed timing instructions. I am interested in knowing how to slow down these platters after timing them. Since you have such excellent results, I am very interested in following your instructions.

Please post the instructions from start to finish for clarify. I will definitely follow them step by step next time I am in a booth with microswitch platters and see how it works.
 

Posted by Mike Fitzgerald (Member # 1304) on 07-06-2002, 09:04 AM:
 
I agree I would like to see your detailed step by step for timing these platters. I had never worked with Potts platters until this cinema, and at first I wanted to get them changed out, but after reading all the input I am making progress in harnessing these beast. I mainly had the one deck that was causing the most problem. I have now changed out the Microswitch and bought new ones for the other decks. I have cleaned the bearings and we are watching the results this weekend. If it it works as we think it will I will proceed to rebuilding the other 5 decks I have left. Thanks to all for the excellant advice

 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-06-2002, 10:13 AM:
 
Brad--on older AW-3s, how does one misthread the black rollers to scratch the entire print? Thankfully, I've never managed to do this, but I'm curious.

I've personally only worked with AW-3s (and reel-to-reel booths) and haven't really had any problem with them (other than the occasional dead motor cards and a fried transformer which, as Steve said, kills the whole platter and is not a simple plug-in replacement).
 

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 07-06-2002, 10:40 AM:
 
quote:
Personally, I don't care for the Microswitch, phase control, Magnatronic, forms of the Strong/Potts platter.

What is Magnatronic? And are the Weenie Man and I the only ones who like the microswitch version? Why is that? What's wrong with them? Nothing, as far as I'm concerned.

quote:
Furthermore, if none of the booth personel are short, the bottom deck never gets used until two titles are on the same screen...when that happens, wham, the bottom deck is way off from the other two.

Like so many other issues, this goes back to training. I always use all three platters in rotation. In fact, at my last theater, it was company policy to do so, for that exact reason. (That doesn't mean anyone but me ever did it )

quote:
I have also had a large number of Potts/Strong centerfeed connectors get destroyed. The booth people seem rather abusive to them. When the connectors get beat up, they start becoming flakey.

The only way I've seen these get destroyed is from the brain getting dropped. I make it a habbit to never leave a brain just sitting on the platter, just like a splicer.

While we're on the subject of Strong platters, I have a question. Do you think it would be a good idea to disengage the motors at night so the tires don't develop flat spots from the weight of the print, or is overnight not long enough to affect them?



 

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-06-2002, 11:03 AM:
 
The Magnatronic was Potts' big solution of what to do after the carbon-pile version went out of existance....It pretty much sucked...there was this "D" shaped thing that rode the feed-fingers. When all was said and done, it funtioned basically like a microswitch so why pay more? Potts now also has the phase-control as their high-end controller.

As to the connectors on the centerfeeds coming from being dropped...yup got plenty of splicer repairs from those being dropped/thrown-off-the-platter as well!

Steve

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

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-06-2002, 11:21 AM:
 
I don't mind the microswitch version at all. Its an economical way to get a good piece of film handling equipment into the booth. And yes, the microswitch platters are a wee bit better off when timmed slower which amounts to raising the motors a bit more. In Aspen I assembled 5 Digital Control platters that had been completely dismantled. Mounted the motors raised about 1/4", put everything back on and they ran perfectly, no adjustments what so ever. Pretty cool!
Mark @ GTS


 

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 07-06-2002, 11:27 AM:
 
Do the DMC and SCDC platters require timing by moving the motors?
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-06-2002, 03:37 PM:
 
Not "timing" Ken, but "timming"!
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-06-2002, 05:12 PM:
 
Scott, it can only be done with the older black rollers and the white keeper pegs. Basically a sloppy projectionist who is in a hurry slams the film into the roller and the film does not sit down flat between the flanges. Those keepers can actually catch one edge of the film in the corner where they mount to the bracket, then the other edge of the film rides in the first groove about 1/4 inch away from the flange. This causes the film to curl pretty substantially and rub against the bracket, leaving scratches that are quite nasty. I will say that whenever I try and show people what "not to do" on these older platters, most of the time I end up saying "well it CAN happen like that" because I am hardly ever able to get things just perfect enough so that the film will stay in that position. Even with a sloppy threader, it's a one in 1,000 shot of hitting things just perfect to make the scratch, but it CAN happen. However, the new green rollers with the "L" bracket can not be misthreded at all. It is also pretty much impossible for the film to come out.
 
Posted by Mike Fitzgerald (Member # 1304) on 07-06-2002, 10:21 PM:
 
I want to thank Ken for the information on the microswitch. Do you happen to know the bearing number for the arm bearings. Have you ever seen where the metal holding the bearings in rounds out and the bearings ride a little loose in the housing. I am going to start on Monday to rebuild all the decks and replace the drive belts with kirby belts.Then I will reset the variac again and time the platters, and hope this will take care of the problems.
 
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 07-07-2002, 12:38 AM:
 
The bearings are generic for the spindles. The A-3 Potts/Strong use a Timkin bearing. Just remove the bearing and the race, get the number off the bearing, and go to any good automotive parts store or bearing distributer and they will be able to match it up.

The spindle bearings on the old Orange Potts and Blue CFS platters are automotive rear axle bearings that were pressed on to the axles back in the '50's, '60's, and '70's. Again, take one out, get the number from it, and match it up.

If you have excessive slop in the bearings, do not condemn the bearings until you have checked the following:

On the Xetron platters, chances are the weld on the spindle to the bracket has broken. It was a flimsy weld. People have a tendency to use the platter disks as a step ladder, and the weld on the spindles can't handle that. I call that the "Step Ladder Syndrome"

On the A-3's, more than likely, the spindle is loose. Take the bottom cover off the arm, get a BIG wrench, and tighten it down. The socket you need is at least 1 inch, but I forgot the size. I *think* you can get it tight enough with a combination wrench if you don't want to fiddle with the wiring. Again, the "Step Ladder Syndrome" probably caused them to work loose.

On orange and blue Potts/CFS platters, the bearing might be just plain worn out, but I doubt it. Check the spindle mounting for broken welds like the Xetron.

I have only seen one CFS spindle go goofy. They can take 10 times more abuse than any other platter when it comes to the Step Ladder Syndrome.

What the rest of the manufacturers use, I really don't know, and I really don't care. But I'll bet you can find them in a bearing supply house without any trouble.

Don't forget to get new seals!


 

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-07-2002, 01:46 AM:
 
So a lot of people here are microswitch fanatics, eh? So what do y'all think of the ORC/CFS Super Platters? They use microswitch controls. So they MUST be good. Right? They have rollers around the brain, so they MUST rock. Right? They use super high torque vacuum cleaner motors. So they MUST be reliable platters. Right? They have a single variac that simultaneously controls the speed of all 3 decks. So they MUST kick ass. Right? They require that you thread over an extra roller when going to the top deck. So the design MUST be flawless. Right? They have fins (fan blades) underneath each spinning deck. So these platters MUST be fabulous. Right? They use a horizontal make up table. So they MUST rule. Right? No way a Christie could ever be as good as a Super Platter. Right?


 

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 07-07-2002, 01:57 AM:
 
I have the impression that Joe is trying to tell us something, but I am not sure what it is. Is he trying to tell us they are ? I wonder how I got that impression.

Yeah, Joe. The vacuum sweeper motors have anough suction to draw the north end of a southbound skunk through its south end. Check out the Suk-O-Lux vacuum sweeper in the movie "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" - that should prove it. I'll bet it was powered by an Strong A-3 or a CFS Platter Motor.


The Christie motor doesn't have enough "oomph" to toss the print on the floor and sheer off the payout head slicker than elephant snot on a brass doorknob like the Strongs, CFS, Potts, Xetrons, AW-1's, AW-2's, and the LP-270's are perfectly capable of doing. Those platters have balls. When these were manufactured, the design factor of "job security for the projectionist" comes to mind. The manufacturers were just looking out for us poor slobs running this shit, right?

Now a real good point of the Eprad platters is that they require a projectionist at all times to give it a push when the selonoids, clutches, or the Maytag washing machine motor takes a dump. Again, Eprad was thinking of us - Job security.

Not only that, but the "shaft" up the middle keeps the print on the platter.

Then, along came the AW-3R. It is so sleek, so smooth, and so reliable that nobody needs to pay attention to them. The projectionist feels like a Maytag repairman with nothing to do. He/she jazzes around in the projection booth getting lazy, watches TV, the movies themselves, gets in the way of the rest of the employees so they can't do their job, and corporate sees this as a chance to strike. And, they do. They replace all the qualified operators with popcorn salespeople (some of which cannot even operate a broom) and expect to have a top-notched quality presentation.

After several years, the AW-3 starts to get a little upset because of the lack of attention, and changes a few internal settings like the robot in "Short Circuit." By then, it is too late. The AW-3 will wait for a chance to strike back, and it will - during a full house of a blockbuster movie when the platter is being used as a take-up device with three or more houses interlocked to it, and a popcorn salesman/manager with the intellegience of a Granite rock is at the helm.

Ooooo, goodie! I went to work for a theatre when I quit MTS and came back to Washington State in March of 1983. The theatre I went to work for fit the above criteria. It was so bad, the owner of that little Tri-Plex was told by the film companies "you better get someone who knows what the hell they are doing in the booth, or we won't let you have any more of our films to shread on the first night."

Enter the Weenie Man...

In other words, ladies and gentlemen, all platters have their good points and bad points. Some swear by a particular brand, and some swear at them. If you look at the number of Potts, CFS, Christie, LP Asscociates, Xetrons, and others as well, they have obvoiusly earned the respect of those in the industry, namely us.

Most machines, if properly maintained, will run for years without too much of a problem. On the other side of the same token, you can take the best there is, neglect it, abuse it, and ignore it, it will not perform as expected for very long.

Personally, I will accept any of the platters I have mentioned above in my booth, with the exception of the Eprad, the AW-1 or AW-2. You get what you pay for.

Paul



 

Posted by Wes Hughes (Member # 981) on 07-08-2002, 06:14 PM:
 
To time a 3-deck Potts/Strong/Ballantyne, follow the instructions. Ideally all platters should have motors with new or similarly aged brushes and armatures, and new drive wheel tires. The variacs moving parts should be cleaned.

Time according to the manual.

Then move the motors up 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch. The platters will run a bit slow, and the film will fall behind...sometimes a full wrap or two (especially during the first roll of a long, heavy print), but I have never seen any film damage.

A five-deck's middle platter takes a bit more tweaking, but I have got three 5-decks that have never given me any trouble with timing issues (one microswitch, two phase-control).

It is odd that I hardly ever had the trouble of a Strong running too fast...ESPECIALLY with those somewhat crappy phase-control things. When I bought the phase control modules I could hardly get them to keep up...had to order a larger drive hub for the motor spindle...no more problems. Strong told me to adjust the LED brightness inside the modules...didn't work.
 

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 07-09-2002, 10:36 PM:
 
OK, who knows...what is the biggest cause of the phase control's failures? I have heard lots of those fail, but nobody seems to have addressed the cause.

LED failure? Too much current through the SCR/Triac? (or whatever they use)

If it is a current related issue, that can be easily fixed by using a ballast resistor across the SCR/Triac - just like CFS and the older Potts used. I have to agree...adjustment of the LED brightness has very little (if any) effect.
 

Posted by Brooks M. Davies (Member # 1349) on 07-10-2002, 12:14 AM:
 
just thought id throw in my 2 cents here ive used both models and currently have an all strong booth, the only time a print is moved, thrown, etc is when the timing is out, other than that its upkeep on the strongs to make them work well, all the time, much more than the christies. all the little rollers is what (to me) damages the film, those little bugers have to be cleaned and checked regularly, with the brain, the control arm bearings are a monthly cleaning chore that has to be done, along with the contact point of the relay or switch in the brain, yes they are loud and the motors are loud, but ive found you take care of them, they take care of you, well alot of care that is. Way more than the cristies i feel. I am not a fan of the breakdown tables though, wish i had my old set up but.... hey what about strong brain wrap detectors nothing like having 3 more little rollers to deal with!
 
Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 07-10-2002, 01:11 AM:
 
Paul:

The most common failures of the phase control is the SCR gets shorted or else someone takes the cover off and tries to 'adjust' the LED or the pot. In all the phase controls I have repaired I have never had the LED go bad. Usually the SCR shorts or goes open or the 10 amp soldered in pico fuse blows.

 

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 07-10-2002, 01:15 AM:
 
Ken, it sure sounds like surge current failures to me.....like raising the dancer with the motor switches on. What is your opinion?
 
Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 07-10-2002, 01:37 AM:
 
Paul:

I use an S6020L scr as a replacement (600 volt, 20 amp, isolated tab) and I buy mine from Mouser (part number 519-S6020L) for about $2.25 each. I have never had any of the replacements I use fail. I would agree surge current kills the originals. The original scr is a S4015L which you can just about guess it's specs by it's part number.

I also convert the earlier # 001-0037-R2 boards into the -R3 version for more reliability. It's easy just change the value of 3 parts:
Change the 1N4750a (27 volt 1 watt) zener to 1N4745a (16 volt 1 watt).
Change the 33 ohm 1/4 watt to 10 ohm 1/4 watt.
Change the 330 ohm 1/4 watt to 470 ohm 1/4 watt.

 

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 07-10-2002, 03:29 AM:
 
Thanks, Ken. This may breath new hope in those controls. Unfortunately, I don't have any to try. I threw them all out.
 
Posted by Mike Fitzgerald (Member # 1304) on 07-10-2002, 10:54 PM:
 
Ok all I have replaced all the microswitches in the platter. I was now going to time them. I noticed that the top deck does not hit the drive tires all the way around only about 50% of the time. I have a extra deck so thinking it was warped I changed it out,no help at all. I also have looked in the books I downloaded and the one Potts sent me that there are 2 different ways they say to time the platter. The first way says to lift the dancer arm and push the pin in the hole then put your deck in takeup. If you do this the deck runs at least 1 rev every 2 seconds and there is no way to slow it down from there. The other way is to hook up the makeup table to the platter and set it to turn about 20 rpm or 3-4 seconds per rev. But is it a random speed or is there a set position to turn the control up to. Any help out there. Thanks
 
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 07-10-2002, 11:01 PM:
 
Mike, if you have the A3 Strong or Potts, the mast has two holes. The upper hole is the timing hole, and the lower is the threading hole. Use the timing hole. The two holes are roughly about 2 inches apart.

You will have to re-position the motors so the rubber tires come in contact with the platter. If memory serves me correctly, the motor is bolted to the platter with two screws. The rear one can be a problem to get to.


 





Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2