Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: strong platters

This is topic strong platters 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=004134

Posted by Daryl Lund (Member # 356) on 10-23-2002, 11:13 PM:

I think that strong platters are one of the best things you could buy. I have been in the biz over 15 years and always had strong platters. They run like that bunny on tv for ever and ever and ever. I own two theatres and the strong platters have made me a lot of money with no down time. My head teck Kenny Layton is like the maytag man with nothing to do.

Posted by Daryl Lund (Member # 356) on 10-23-2002, 11:20 PM:

I for got to thank the man that helped me get started with my first theatre in 1983. Pat Moore, He was with NW film service in portland,OR. He always had time to help a young kid who had all kind of questions. Pat made copies of manuals for everthing I had. He is a real super guy. I am so glad that He is with strong now. What a great company.

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 10-24-2002, 02:45 AM:

Given recent events, it may be interesting to read responses to this thread.

------------------
Find me online
AOL: Dexter Caldwell
yahoo!: dexter_caldwell

"It is the opinion of the entire staff the Dexter is criminally insane."

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-24-2002, 03:44 AM:

Uh huh. And I wonder just what could've possibly prompted this sudden praise of Strong platters and Mr. Moore.

Yeah, sure whatever.

quote:
"I have been in the biz over 15 years and always had strong platters."

I hate to burst your bubble, but you HAVE to work with different equipment in order to be able to form a valid opinion. In other words, you have no idea what you are comparing a Strong platter against when you praise it.

Believe me Daryl, I am holding it in and being VERY nice right now about the current Strong situation. Want to see some videos of my fabulous top-of-the-line Strong SCDC platters in operation? I am starting to amass a nice collection.

(PS, in the future please use the EDIT feature instead of doubling up your posts.)

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-24-2002, 04:14 AM:

Brad has sent me AVI videos of the SCDC platters dragging a full wrap around the brain and running that way continuously, as if it were designed to do that. I thought they were supposed to be self calibrating. If they are designed to run with a wrap then I guess nothing is wrong.

Posted by Shaun Flichel (Member # 1435) on 10-24-2002, 09:12 AM:

Hey Brad, how can I get these video's? I'm not much of a Strong fan and would like some laughs.

Shaun

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-24-2002, 12:00 PM:

At least up here Strong/Potts has the biggest installed base of platters almost to the level of exclusivity.
They are not elegant but are cost effective package. If that is what you got one just has to live with it but I have very few problems with them

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 10-24-2002, 12:37 PM:

Well... not to get too far off the subject, but I have 3 ORC CP302 platters that are still running, well... ok after 24 years of service. They're ready for retirement though... I think the Dodge distributor points are getting tired.

On the other hand, a couple of points in their favor are that on startup, the feed platter doesn't spin up fast enough to take the film a little off-center... then stops and wraps a turn or two (or three) while everything settles down. They also don't have that short trolley problem.

Now, if they could only do something about those horrible brains... the ones that CFS put in their "superplatter".

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-24-2002, 03:51 PM:

Jack- you can put ANY kind of microswitch style brain in the ORC as long as the plate is not bigger than the hole. I have Strong microswitch brains in a few of mine. Of course I had to modify the brains so they wouldn't be such a pain to thread like they are straight from the factory. I think you can even use phase control Strong brains in the ORC platters. Unfortunately they won't be removable unless you do quite a bit of conversion, but hardwiring them in is easy enough.

Posted by Carl King (Member # 398) on 10-24-2002, 06:36 PM:

I've used the Speco LP270 platter and the Strong A3 and AP3. Liked them both. My preferance is for the AP3. Nice simple 2 way switch.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 10-24-2002, 11:11 PM:

I have to side with Gordon on this issue.

Don't expect a Ford Taurus to do the job of a Lincoln Continental. Don't expect a Chevrolet Vega to do the job of a Cadillac. (Sorry - I have nothing to add about Chrysler products. )

Don't expect an A3 to do the job of a AW3.

You get what you pay for most of the time.....

Posted by Joseph D. Olson (Member # 1340) on 10-29-2002, 02:55 AM:

In my short career, I've worked with Strongs, Christie Autowind 3s, and some old model Drive-ins. My preferance is definitely the Christie. Never wrapped on me and any problem was easy to remedy.

Posted by Don Sneed (Member # 955) on 10-29-2002, 11:52 AM:

I have been installing & service Strong SCDC platters since they came out a few years ago, I never had a problem with these, I had more problems with Christie keeping in time & replacing the LED's...maybe I'm the lucky one with the Strong platters, but after installing hundreds of these & no problems...my vote would be the Strong SCDC platters....

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 10-29-2002, 07:03 PM:

Don,

Actually those old BEAT UP Christies at the Furneaux are still working, broken decks and all. Only have 1 burnt up motor (not Christie's fault).

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-29-2002, 08:32 PM:

You may regret saying that Don, for I might come kidnap you and force you to resolve all of the issues with my Strong platters!

Posted by Pat Moore (Member # 380) on 10-29-2002, 10:31 PM:

Seems reasonable to say that there are some good platter systems out there. People are satisfied with different types, and there are people that favor some over others. Seems fair to me.

Pat

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-29-2002, 10:41 PM:

I'd have to side with Don Sneed though in looking back at my 20 years of platter experieinces. The Strong/Potts has been by far my least troublesome piece of equipment sold. Many nice things about this platter are that many critical electrical parts can be had locally for these. Includes the drive motor, Variac, microswitches. This makes it a practical platter system for the theatre thats out in the boon docks. In general parts are way less expensive than any other system out there.
I could list 10 common problems with at least the SPECO, Potts/Strong, and AW-3 systems. They all have their good and bad points.
mark

Posted by Pat Moore (Member # 380) on 10-30-2002, 08:25 AM:

Well, Mark, I was trying to be objective, of course...

I certainly have my preferences, as you might guess.

Pat

Posted by John T. Mellor (Member # 468) on 10-31-2002, 07:09 PM:

It seems to me that all equipment is manufactured to a design , to fit different needs price , ease of use and repair or just what the guy who orders and pays the bill wants. I have used and serviced almost all of the platters that have been discussed they all have good and bad points . All need to be set to the setting that the manufacture and engineer that designed the unit specify and most of the problems that occur will be minimal , I think that we all have our preferenses and thats OK but I don't belive in saying that someone equipment isn't any good when it was all designed for a purpose and if its suits your needs use it

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-31-2002, 08:44 PM:

Pat said:
>I certainly have my preferences, as you might guess.

Yes but you better keep them to yourself, I mean considering who you work for and all.

hahaha couldn't resist

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 10-31-2002, 10:04 PM:

quote:
all equipment is manufactured to a design , to fit different needs price , ease of use and repair

Let's not forget that piece of engineering known as the Eprad Simple Platter!

Just had to induce some nightmares for Halloween.

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 10-31-2002, 10:18 PM:

Jeeze, Tim.....Those were like a "slap in the face" to our industry.

Posted by Pat Moore (Member # 380) on 10-31-2002, 10:35 PM:

Steve -- you're right! At least I'm in a great position to like what I sell and work with some great people to do it.

The Eprad Simple Platter. I've never heard anything good about it. Holloween-appropriate for sure. I'll side with Paul & Tim on that one.

Happy Holloween to all...

Pat

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-01-2002, 12:34 AM:

If everyone would use 48" reels instead of platters it would eliminate the problem of not enough time to clean the auditoria!

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 11-01-2002, 01:19 AM:

How?

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-01-2002, 01:44 AM:

How you say? It's going to take about 20 minutes to rewind that sucker.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 11-01-2002, 02:10 AM:

Oh I get it...

I think ill stick with my platter systems. Heck, I make the showtimes for my theatre so I can leave as much time as I want

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-01-2002, 04:53 AM:

While I think statements such as "work with what you have" and "buy the proper tool for the job" are valid to a certain extent, in this industry there really is a little bit more to it.

Let me try and explain my general feeling here on why certain equipment is chosen over another. (I'm not sure how well this will actually translate into words, but here goes my best shot.)

I am going to make this completely non-vendor specific so no one thinks I am pointing the blame finger at them. Let's pretend that there is a company that makes a full line of cinema equipment called "Cinemaco". Let's also pretend that they make an outstanding projector, a pretty reliable lamphouse and a decent automation, but for the sake of this argument (since this thread is on platters) let's say 99% of people who have used their platter experience at least one print dump a week or scratching. Cinemaco's platter is worse than the Eprad spoken above. (Is that even possible?) For the sake of this example, we will ignore other things such as screens, sound equipment, etc.

Enter Bob at Movie Theater Chain of America, who is going to open up a new theater and is in the position of deciding what kind of equipment to install. The way I see it there are 3 ways to come to that conclusion.

#1 Put the BEST in. Buy the best tool for each job. This of course means that in all probability between the projector, lamphouse, platter and automation that at least 2 manufacturers will be involved to obtain this, but possibly 3 or 4. (Let's be serious here, there is no manufacturer that makes the best this and the best that. There is ALWAYS one something-or-other in their equipment line that is less than ideal for the job.) This option requires a lot of money and a lot of effort, but in the end provides the best presentation (from an equipment standpoint) and the best reliability. The techs who have to service this theater now will have to spend very little time there and the projectionists will hardly ever have to deal with equipment breakdowns, damaged prints or even less-than-ideal equipment designs. For the rest of that theater's life, everyone is in heaven and this theater will be very inexpensive to keep running.

#2 Bob knows he does not have an unlimited budget, so he has his list of "top 3" choices for each item he needs to purchase. He decides what is most important and gets the best of that, then perhaps also gets his first choice on the second item, but on the third and fourth item he has to take his second, or even third choice. What Bob has done here is assemble a system between different manufacturers that is cost-effective, but smart. Lots of intelligence and thought has gone into this booth. The tech's job isn't too hard, for the equipment chosen is pretty darned reliable, although this or that could've been better for one reason or another. While this is not the ideal situation, it is a good and fair one that shouldn't be frowned upon.

#3 Bob calls up a couple of dealers and says "I need booth equipment for my new awesome state-of-the-art theater. Quote me some packages!" The dealers all then return their bids, perhaps each dealer provides 2 or 3 different priced packages. Bob then takes a long hard look at each package, only paying attention to the last line where the dollar sign is and makes his decision. Bob buys the cheapest equipment he can for the job. Does it work? Yes. Does it get the job done? Yes. Could he have given his customers a better presentation had he spent just a little more money upfront? Of course. But he didn't. Bob's theater will now forever live with this cheap business decision and in all probability within a few years will have spent MORE money paying techs to come service it with labor and part costs. This is the situation I have a problem with.

So let's take a closer look at Bob's third choice. What did he buy? Well, Bob is a supergenious and is super cheap. Without even batting an eye I can tell you that Bob now owns equipment made all at the same manufacturer. In this example, Bob's theater is now the proud owner of a complete Cinemaco booth. How do I know this? Had Bob purchased the Cinemaco projector, lamphouse and automation, but went elsewhere for the platter, Bob would have had to spend a LOT more of his precious money he likes to keep to himself. Buying all one brand of equipment is a decision made from cost alone, for most manufacturers would have damn near thrown that platter in for free after buying their projectors, lamphouses and automations. But enough about Bob. Bob has done his part and now no longer has to be bothered. This is now the tech's and the theater staff's problem.

Enter John the tech. John is now responsible for the upkeep of that booth's equipment, and is responsible any time something goes wrong and they lose a show. Yes that's right, John's job is relatively easy, but he has to deal with maintaining those damned Cinemaco platters!!! Needless to say, John is extremely frustrated. But what if it's worse? Let's say that Cinemaco has the worst customer service known to man and refuses to assist him? What is John to do? John is screwed because of a bad business decision and at this point only has 3 options.

#1 Beg and plead the corporate office to let him throw those Cinemaco platters in the dumpster and purchase good platters. (We can only hope John will videotape this event for download here.)

#2 Spend hour after hour and day after day making his own custom modifications and improvements to the horrible Cinemaco platter design. Lots of time and money is wasted here, but something has to be done because remember that Cinemaco has already got their money and has told John to stuff it that there is nothing wrong with their fabulous platters. John can not get support from the manufacturer and Bob will not support spending money on new platters. Eventually John will end up going with option #3.

#3 John throws his hands up in the air and says to the projectionist "if it throws a print, get a splicer and put it back together. If it scratches a print, just tell the customers that film gets that way." ...and he turns his back on the theater becoming that classic grumpy tech that everyone has had to work with at some time before. (Don't look surprised, everyone knows someone like this.)

Odds are John will start with #1 and after quickly being turned down proceed to #2. By the end of it all, he will find himself somewhere in between #2 and 3, or sitting firmly on #3.

Enter Frank the projectionist. Frank now has to deal with those damned contraptions and gets personally yelled at by the manager (who got yelled at by the angry customers) every time he loses a show or a print gets damaged. We don't even need to take this one further. Frank and the managers are definitely in hell!

So without wandering too far off topic, the problem I have with people saying to "work with what you have" and "buy the right tool for the job" is that the people who SHOULD be making these decisions DON'T. The people who SHOULD NOT be making the purchasing decisions DO...and they are usually based upon primarily or solely on cost. As such, and please pardon the expression, but those are bullshit sugar coated answers to a problem that lies elsewhere. In the end, more money is wasted because of a poor Cinemaco platter design and lack of support from the fine folks at Cinemaco.

So yes Bob is an idiot and made a bad purchasing decision. However in the end it all boils down to Cinemaco actually caring about their customers and assisting them any way they need AFTER the sale. This also includes making improvements to their product as issues turn up. Great manufacturers do this and I can name two specifically right off of the bat who I have seen first hand care to that extent: Christie and SPECO. (Check the re-review of Christie's projector and the review of SPECOs LP-280 for examples.) Both should be commended for their efforts and dedication to their products, and I recommend them highly. If you purchase equipment of theirs and a problem turns up, I can guarantee you that they will do whatever it takes and work through the problem with you until all is taken care of. That is professionalism at it's finest.

Unfortunately, this industry has their share of Cinemacos.

***************
By the way, I am finally starting to see a better performance out of my SCDCs after making some changes recommended by Rick at Strong and other field techs from this forum. There are still issues with them, but I will report more on this later.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-01-2002, 07:12 AM:

One flaw in the above is the business about getting a better deal by buying all one brand. I don't doubt that would be true if one was buying from the manufacturer who might have incentive to cut such a deal but one usually buys from a dealer who generally have dealership relationships with many vendors. Does "Cinemaco" give the dealer an incentive to sell his/her customer a fully "Cinemaco" booth? If not then there is no reason not to offer a package that includes items from different vendors. I think there is a lot of inertia involved and it's just easier for the dealer to quote from just a few suppliers. Plus with smaller dealers the desire to reach certain annual goals with each supplier.

Too bad the dealers don't offer something like the computer assembler's "configurator" where the customer could pick and choose--perhaps even click on links to objective reviews and discussions of each item's virtues and faults--and with explanations of what price changes might happen if buying more or less of one vendor's line if such a situation exists.

Posted by Pat Moore (Member # 380) on 11-01-2002, 01:34 PM:

This kind of goes along with that "Theatre Regionalism" thread elsewhere on the site. Everybody, from smaller chains to the larger ones and the dealers that service them, do things differently. The ideal might be a single source supplier, but other issues get in the way. The decision people may like projector and automation from A, the console from B and the platter from C. Others like the package and/or pricing and/or support getting everything from manufacturer A.

And yes, there certainly are incentives from manufacturers to have the purchase be a complete system.

We have customers that buy only projectors, or only platters, etc., as well as those that get everything they can through us. Just the nature of the business, I think, and that's changing as fast as the industry is right now.

Pat

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-01-2002, 05:01 PM:

quote:
I need booth equipment for my new awesome state-of-the-art theater. Quote me some packages!

Brad, don't forget the other part of this. The winning bid will be the one who does the best lunch.

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-01-2002, 07:06 PM:

quote:
Bob at Movie Theater Chain of America wrote:
I need booth equipment for my new awesome state-of-the-art theater. Quote me some packages!

Bob forgot to include "stadium seating" in his comment above.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-02-2002, 01:08 AM:

But of course that's implied. How could it possibly be "state-of-the-art" without "stadium seating".

Posted by Peter Schoell (Member # 919) on 11-03-2002, 01:41 AM:

I bought my first theatre 12 years ago and it came with a couple of 80's vintage flat belt Potts. In this time I've replaced 2 micro switches and 2 resistors, and probably had 3 brain wraps from static. I've had many wraps from operator error.
My second theatre was a big old single screen barn I bought in 1994 I made into 3 screens. I bought a new Potts 3 tier Alpha and a used 5 tier flat belt Potts. The Alpha hasn't had any repairs yet. The 5 tier had it's share of problems at first, but nothing major, I doubt I've spent more than $60.00 on that platter.
The third theatre came in 1998 and had an AW2, a 5 tier CFS, and a Speco. This was my first experience in a non-Potts world, and that world was full of nightmares. The AW2 was interesting in concept, but wasn't designed for wear, as soon as I could afford it, I replaced it with a used CFS Super platter. I had a choice of an older 52" Potts or this newer smaller deck CFS, I made the wrong choice. The newer CFS's (cheaper design) are worst than the older ones, but much better than an AW2. I had lots of problems with the Speco at first until I figured out that the former owner had the payout pulleys set wrong, then I had to replace the variac, a diode, the controller board in the arm, and one of the drive spindles. I rebuilt the brains of the 5 tier CFS using the larger Potts style switches, and moved the stand off spindles to give the control arm more swing, this made that platter pretty reliable, but something about the brain design makes it too easy for the film to jump over the standoff rollers. Last spring I bought 3 used Strong platters to replace the two CFS and the Speco. Now I don't have platter problems.
Two years ago I bought a 3 plex that came with Strong platters, I thought this will be a breeze. Wrong. The bulbs in the lamphouses were black, and this level of care was carried throughout the whole booth. I replaced a bunch of pulleys and bearings and now the platters seem fine.
And now for the make up tables. The Christie = crapola. The Speco wobbly junk. CFS great for rewinding trailers, my favorite use for the CFS is in the garage where I can tie a stringer of fish to the mast and fillet away on the table. The Potts/Strong table has always been a dependable sturdy workhorse.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-03-2002, 03:54 AM:

F.Y.I. The Christie AW1 and AW2 are not real platters. You can NOT judge those to the AW3. The AW3 is the cadillac of platters.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-03-2002, 04:44 AM:

Are you telling me that the AW2 was an improvement upon something preceding it?!

Posted by Pat Moore (Member # 380) on 11-03-2002, 09:58 AM:

I guess that's why Ford makes Lincoln, a pretty good piece of work on its own.

Pat

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-03-2002, 10:26 AM:

The AW1 and AW2 were sold as platters and actually some are still running as such

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-03-2002, 01:11 PM:

quote:
The AW3 is the cadillac of platters.

Hear! Hear!

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-03-2002, 09:13 PM:

If the Christie AW3 is the Cadillac then what is the Kinoton? The Lamborghini? I've heard nothing but good things about them, but have never had the chance to use one myself. I'm sure I could find SOMETHING to whine about, though.

By the way, I am not a Cadillac kind of guy. I like Hondas. I want the Honda of platters. Or perhaps Acura.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-03-2002, 09:31 PM:

The AW 1 and 2 were definately sold as platters but one has to take into consideration their respective engineering time periods. Some of the later AW-2's are not so bad. It is also possible to utilize the old non-pluggable AW-3 comtrol plates(OK, brain)that we all have alot of laying around, to retrofit the AW-2 platter into an AW 2.5. This works out really nice for the small amount of time spent and puts some good usable parts back into service as well. Out in the Mountain States there are probably close to 50 AW-2's still running day in and day out. We see very little parts sales for them as well. Pretty much just an occasional drive motor rebuild.
Tim, The real Cadillac of platers is without a doubt the Kinoton. I would even place the older Kinoton in this league. There is one running on my service route that has only had 2 parts installed into it in 23 years!!
Mark @ CLACO here

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-03-2002, 09:36 PM:

quote:
" I'm sure I could find SOMETHING to whine about, though."

Picture this Joe, you have 6 Kinoton platters in your booth. Somehow you have to figure out a way to orient them in your cramped booth so that they are pointing towards the projector, as there is no adjustable feed roller. Adding to the aggravation there is the issue of how you have to have the film return precisely X number of inches off of the floor or you will damage the film. The platter also lacks a waist-high film cleaner mount, and I do not think it is capable of running an "outward bulge" center drop without the possibility of the film coming out of the track (which could become a non-issue with a flip around cover, sort of like what Christie now does with their center rings), and those are the only issues I see with this platter. Past that, they seem to be nothing short of magnificent, but those are a few simple, yet important design flaws to take into consideration. If you were wondering if you would find something "wrong" with them, I'm sure that those would be at the top of your list.

Here are pictures to show what I mean...

A shows how you cannot pivot the payout roller to point toward a projector positioned at any angle from the platter. Instead this platter forces for it to be positioned to point towards the projector.

B shows the receiving roller. Yes, this means you have to have the film travel from the projector back to the platter at exactly this height.

Imagine an outward center drop flying right out of this slit. A simple latch that could be flipped around to cover this opening any time an outward drop is performed would be nice. For normal use this is of course completely unnecessary.

Last I heard Kinoton US was considering a roller change to aleviate this issue. Once that is done, a suitable film cleaner mount is added to it (this would require for the film to travel downwards in a U turn like most platters instead of straight up the tree) and some form of preventing an outward bulge from coming off of the track is added to the brain, then the Kinoton will in all probability be the platter that cannot be beat. Until then, I feel my comment regarding the Christie (AW3) being the Cadillac of platters is right on the money. There is no better designed platter currently around.

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 11-04-2002, 10:07 AM:

Hey now.... I've got one of those old AW-1's out in my garage. Yes, it's ugly, runs loud, and it way out of date, but when I bought it it was still in service, and still runs well. I doubt I'll be using it at my place when we open in the Spring, but it'll make a decent "emergency back-up" if I ever need it.

With the help of some fellow film-techer's, I've been able to re-wire the column, replace all of the "Jones Plugs & Sockets", was able to buff the fiberglass decks back to an "almost white" color, and repainted the column a nice "Ford Engine" blue.

Here's the beast in the booth of it's former location.

Another one of our fellow film-techer's just reopened a drive-in this past summer with an AW-2 in the booth. It was in great shape and ran flawlessly.

------------------
Barry Floyd
Floyd Entertainment Group
Lebanon, Tennessee

Stardust Drive-In Theatre
Watertown, Tennessee

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-04-2002, 11:17 AM:

What is the point of that huge metal plate over the Kinoton brain? Is it there for the sole purpose of getting in the way? Don't people who work in projection actually design this stuff? They should, no exceptions allowed. Also I don't know if I like that big roller not having a keeper.

Posted by Wes Hughes (Member # 981) on 11-06-2002, 04:18 PM:

I have a AW-1 running at our one screen theatre now that we don't do changeovers there anymore. I redesigned the rollers of the takeout side a little, and it runs flawlessly. It is a little loud, but the theatre has a soundproof concrete booth and noise isn't an issue. Only problems I ever had: One burned out motor (commutator worn out) one burned out control board (because of the burned out motor). Before we bought it it was in full-time use at another theatre since the early or mid seventies. The only thing I worry about are that the other three motors have severly worn commutators and will soon fail. I now have two backups that I got for a steal so I will just replace them.

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 11-06-2002, 04:30 PM:

Wes said, regarding the AW-1 platter.........
"The only thing I worry about are that the other three motors have severly worn commutators and will soon fail."

Are we talking about the same platter? Mine is a three deck, and only has 3 motors. With my unit, the make-up table must remain plugged into the column the entire time, as the MUT provides the electrical power for the entire thing. The MUT is a really ugly molded fiberglass thing, with a horizontal rewind-plate (look's alot like a turntable).

Unless yours is a five-deck... I can figure out where your 4th motor would be?

------------------
Barry Floyd
Floyd Entertainment Group
Lebanon, Tennessee

Stardust Drive-In Theatre
Watertown, Tennessee

Posted by Wes Hughes (Member # 981) on 11-06-2002, 09:46 PM:

It is a FOUR deck AW-2 ! I'm sorry. I just wasn't paying attention when I posted earlier

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 11-13-2002, 04:44 PM:

Brad,

New production of the Kinoton platter will have adjustable angle rollers top and bottom.

A Kelmar cleaner bracket is being considered, but as these can easily be mounted atop the projector it is not a priority.

The idea of a latch at the inlet to the IR sensor is mysterious. I don't know what you mean by a "outward center drop". Please explain, as I've never heard of this request, or any other platter with such a feature. That said, creating such a thing would be really easy on our design.

------------------
Larry Shaw
Kinoton America
[Exclusive North American Distributor of Kinoton GmbH]
8 Goodenough Street
Boston, MA 02135-1903
Tel: 617-562-0003 x104 Fax: 617-787-4253
E-Mail: larry@kinotonamerica.com
Website:http://www.kinotonamerica.com

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-13-2002, 04:51 PM:

quote:
"New production of the Kinoton platter will have adjustable angle rollers top and bottom."

EXCELLENT!!!

I'll take a picture of an outward drop and send to you. Implementing a latch would indeed be effortless and would make changing trailers on a Kinoton just as easy as on a Christie.

On the film cleaner, I suppose I could always purchase an extra roller and shaft for each platter and mount it in myself to permit the use of a platter mounted film cleaner, but it sure would be nice if Kinoton would do it during manufacture. Not all booths have that much spare room atop the projector and not all of us running them are tall enough to make a projector mounted cleaner anything but aggravating. (If you do implement the two mounting holes, please do put them in the same location as the Christie platter. )

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-13-2002, 06:42 PM:

Another good reason to have a platter mounted film cleaner is because some techs like to install the film cleaner bracket BELOW the SDDS or other digital units on top of the projector. That means there is no way to run digital sound AND the film cleaner at the same time. Even if you have a cleaner for each projector, run it every show and have the digital offsets set to compensate, there is still a chance that the cleaner will be removed for a show for changing out of the media pads or some other reason. And the sound would be way out of sync if that happened. Plus the cleaners on the platter are just easier to deal with, in my opinion.

Posted by Phil Radosevich (Member # 508) on 11-14-2002, 08:38 AM:

Just woundering Who makes Balco platters and are they any good

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 11-14-2002, 08:53 AM:

Balco platters are the same as Strong/Potts platters---they came from the same manufacturing plant: Design & Manufacturing. The main difference is Balco (as originally equipped) had a "brake cable" activated variac box. There is a retrofit kit that converts it to the current "Alpha" style variac.

Posted by Pat Moore (Member # 380) on 11-14-2002, 09:25 AM:

Ken's pretty much right on, if I may add a bit. Strong International / Ballantyne of Omaha owns Design Manufacturing, which now makes both the Strong Platters and the Potts. The Strong version has evolved a bit more with the AP and SCDC versions. Ballantyne's relationship goes back into the late 70's or early 80's when Design made the original Balco Platter (with the cable-type variac control)for the company.

Diversification is important nowadays. Design also does quite a bit of specialty machining and manufacturing for other companies up in their area, from floor wax machines to government contracted parts.

Pat

Posted by Daryl Lund (Member # 356) on 11-21-2002, 01:04 AM:

You can not beat those Dodge points!!!!

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 11-22-2002, 06:09 PM:

quote:
from Daryl:
You can not beat those Dodge points!!!!

I've got them on my old ORC's... still running, though the end is in sight.

Did other brands use points???

Posted by Pat Moore (Member # 380) on 11-22-2002, 07:09 PM:

Film Systems and Rentec's Super Platters used points for a while, I think, before going to a microswitch.

Pat

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 142) on 11-26-2002, 06:20 AM:

Kinoton platters for me, hands down. Others are competent, CNR 335, LP 270, AW3, some very ordinary ORC, Eprad.

The original Philips platter won an Oscar and now the Kinoton range (who took over manufacture from Philips) is very little changed, because it was right the first time. Simple, tough, yet built with precision and a make-up table that sits solid, is made of steel and winds film with confidence.

David

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 06-13-2004, 02:04 AM:

It has been 564 days since the last post.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 06-13-2004, 02:04 AM:

I had a microswitch fail today in an A-3. Big deal. They will fail. However, I think they fail for several basic reasons:

1. There is no shunt resistor across the microswitch contacts like the old CFS platters had. The old CFS platters used a Radio Shack microswith, and the switches lasted for years - as long as the resistors didn't burn out.

2. Insufficient inattention to insignificant minor details, like raising the elevator before turning off the platter mode switches, especially the pay-out. If the pay-out arm happens to be sitting in the "on" position like you might see in a severly off-level platter, kiss that switch good buy in a very short time especially if there is no ballast resistor like CFS used.

3. There is no bypass capacitor around the switch contacts. OK - what does that do? It supresses the arc on the switch when it opens. If the capacitive reactance is equal to inductive reactance of the motor, under normal conditions it will not arc, or if it did the arcing would me very slight. Nothing is perfect.

It is like a condenser in an old car distributor. It tunes the system to a series resonant circuit, and the circuit is then resistive - not inductive or capacitive. In the present microswitch setup like the A-3 has, the circuit is inductive.

Another comparison is if the buffer capacitors were shot in your old vacuum tube car radio, that radio will go through vibrators like crap through a goose. That's also why you may have seen some premature breaker point failures in automotive igintion systems. The condenser flaked out and ruined the points.

OK - if there is a arc-off build up on the points (or in this case the micro switch contacts), the build up will occur on one point, and a depression will occur on the other. Now which one is responsibe for what? That's what I forgot.

But I do know....if the circuit is inductive, the build up and depression will be on the opposite contact of the points than it would if the circuit is capacitive. Initially, what contact the build-up is depends on the polarity applied to the contacts. As most of you know, the platter drive motors of the A-3 run on unfiltered DC.

So, if Capacitive Reactance is equal to Inductive Reactance, the circuit will appear resistive and the points will last much longer than running them without some kind of arc suppression.

I smashed that microswitch with a hammer to inspect the points. here is what I saw:

This microswitch has seen an inductive load too often.

Notice the build-up on the contact circled in red. The surface of the contact circled in green does not show this type of build-up.

If the two wires were switched, the build-up would have been on the bottom contact instead of the top.

Some fixes are:

1. RTFM before you attempt to run your machine.
2. Put a ballast resistor across the contacts. The size (if I recall correctly) is 2 ohms 10-watt wire wound. That'll really increase the life of your micros. There is plenty of room to stuff a barrier strip and a resistor in the platter arm.
3. Experminent with various sizes of capacitors and an alligator clip or something to see what spark is minimal under normal conditions. BUT BE CAREFUL....THAT VOLTAGE WITH REFERENCE TO GROUND CAN GET UPWARDS TO 80 VOLTS OR BETTER, AND THAT IS SUFFICIENT TO KNOCK YOU ON YOUR BUTT!!!!

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 06-13-2004, 03:13 AM:

I'm still at a total loss as to why so many people on this forum dislike the phase controls. I can't question their competency because many of them are well respected. That being said, I six platters equiped with phase control boxes. They've been running great for four years running now, no (or very little) drifting. All that I can think of is that my phase controls are the retrofit kits and perhaps the bad experiences some have had were with platters that came with the phase controls installed; perhaps there was a bad batch or perhaps something in the manufacturing process was shoddy.

In any event I have six platter with micros and six with phase controls and I prefer the phase controls hands down.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-13-2004, 10:00 AM:

When they work they work great when they give grief well then they are a pain in the .........

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-13-2004, 11:19 AM:

Paul,
I appreciate your rundown as to why the switches fail and I somewhat agree with you but....

If one just relace them every 18 months, or three service visits for most places, then you will never see a failure. Sure the old switches lasted longer.. I can remember when the Honeywell micros lasted in excess of 5 years!! These days things are made cheaply and the only cure to end any problems is regular replacement of them. Airplanes are serviced in much the same way.

Dustin,

As for Phase control the platter timming is way to critical for them to stay in a set range. Strong/Potts platters simply cannot hold timming at all and if you check one on different days you will find it different on each day. Line voltage fluctuations also affect timming on these platters to a great extent.

Mark @ CLACO

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 06-13-2004, 07:46 PM:

Mark,

As I've said before I'm just at a loss as to our differing experiences with the strong phase controls. I'll see if I can get a decent image from my digital camera (its capable of limited video recording) to show you one of my phase control equiped Alpha's in action. The platter I'm thinking of has not been timed in at least five years, has not had motor brushes changed, and the phase control boxes have not been adjusted in the four years they've been in there; yet the payout is perfectly smooth.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 06-13-2004, 09:26 PM:

It is hard telling, Dustin. Maybe they had a bad run on them in the earlier days. In 1986, we purchased 5 new A-3's by Strong and one A-3 with the Potts name. (Same platter - built by the same company). Within two years, every phase control unit on all six failed. Maybe that is why I don't like them instead of sitting on their dead butts.

When they failed, we did not lose any shows because we knew how to over-ride the things with the MUT. All my operators were taught how to do it. The booth was manned anyway, and all my operators were on their toes and made their walk-arounds like they were supposed to.

Within the last three years or so, I have not heard very many complaints about the phase controls. Seems as most who have them now really like them.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-13-2004, 10:34 PM:

I prefer the phase controls to the SCDC, and I prefer the SCDC to the microswitch. And I prefer the Christie AW3 to the Phase control. And I'd probably prefer the Kinoton to the AW3 if they got rid of that giant piece of metal that hovers over the centerpiece for no reason, added a keeper to that giant roller that the film barely touches, and make it so I can have layers and layers of film stacked and still run through the brain.[av=k]

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 06-13-2004, 11:03 PM:

Mark, I agree with you, but:

You know as well as I do that some theaters cannot afford the luxury of a tech that will keep them out of trouble.

Also, there are many theaters that are barely keeping their heads above water. Unfortunately, the first place those theaters cut expenses is the booth and preventative maintenance.

Many of those theater owners just don't seem to understand that the booth is NOT the first place to cut expenses. That little hole in the wall is what is keeping them in business. But, they "Just don't get the message"

Now, I wish Strong International will get off their dead butts and see what they can do to make their platters "more desirable" to own. Personally, I like the Srong Platters. I know how the damn things work as what warning signs to look for. I know their limits. It is not a bad machine at all. You get what you pay for. I think some of you guys are giving Strong a bad rap. Strong products have been, for the most part, very good to me. My platters are equipped with those damned Christie wrap detectors. Those are nothing short of a POS. The design is OK, but they should have used a ball bearing instead of that plastic shit on a steel shaft.

I believe the biggest problem with Strong Platters are the buttholes who are running them. Seldom do the Strong platters ever give me problems. I am extremely confident with their products. (Sorry, Brad. Sorry, Josh. Sorry, dudes in general), and I know how the damned things work. So, [fu]

I have been running this shit in a booth for 35 years now, and I can think of much junkier junk to be in place that what there is now.

But they are kind of nerve racking to watch! (Everyone will probably agree with that.) So, sometimes "out of sight-out of mind" philosophy might be prudent.

I have to admit - I never seen a Strong platter scratch a or damage a print unless of course, some dildohead was not paying attention to what they were doing or an electrical or mechanical failure that just sometimes will occur with any good product on the market.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-13-2004, 11:20 PM:

I've seen a Strong platter severely scratch a print. They can be misthread just like any other platter.[av=n]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 06-13-2004, 11:35 PM:

quote: Paul G. Thompson
Sorry, Josh...

????

So Paul, How the f*ck did poor ol' Josh get dragged into this? Ya really need to just slam Brad (he deserves it) and the other "dudes" that you speak about. Leave that guy alone.

>>> Phil

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 06-13-2004, 11:42 PM:

Joe, that's what I said...any dildohead not paying attention to what they are doing.

Phil, that's none of your business.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 06-13-2004, 11:47 PM:

quote: Paul G. Thompson
Phil, that's none of your business.

Hmmm... well I guess you told me, huh? Then perhaps you should NOT make such public statements...

>>> Phil

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-14-2004, 12:50 AM:

So from the sound of it the reason Paul likes Strong platters is because he knows how to fix them. An all too common issue with many techs. Rather than learn something better, the preference is to continue working with crap just because "I know how to fix it when it breaks"...and it WILL break! Is that what you are saying Paul? Or did I misread your comments? I do know you are a big CFS "Super platter" fan too. Do I see a pattern? [Razz]

(BTW, Paul knows I'm just teasing.)

Put a Strong platter (any variation) up against an AW3 with the current keeper brackets. Believe me, the Strong platter is EASILY misthreaded in a variety of ways that can cause some nasty scratches. The AW3 is damn near impossible to scratch a print on. I would also like to add that I see horizontal and diagonal scratches at Strong/Potts platter theaters very frequently. I've NEVER seen this in an AW3 booth...ever!

Phil, the big secret that is not a secret is that Josh is working at a multiplex with Strong platters and I think he may actually hate the damn things more than I do (which is saying a lot).

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 06-14-2004, 12:52 AM:

BFD! It was NOT mentioned in this thread.

>>> Phil

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 06-14-2004, 01:26 AM:

Brad, don't get me wrong, please. The AW3 is a very good machine. No question about it. Probably the best. But there are some improvements that could be had - right along with Strong. But you have to agree...I don't care how good a machine might be...if the operator does not maintain them or does not know how to operate them, major problems will always happen.

The reason I never approved the purchase of Christie in the new theater was because of two things...The cost was the major factor and secondly, their MUT is a hunk of garbage. Maybe not by many people's standards....but mine. I do not like a MUT you cannot rewind on in a timely manner or one that is so damned slow on MU and tear-down. If Christie would take a look at that the design of their table and make a few mods, I think Christie would be at the top of the mark in all aspects.

Seems kind of odd that most of the circuited prints that came to me that had major film damage came from a Christie Platter house. (Ours, on top of that).

Sometime ago, I posted some of the problems I observed in that Christie house. And again, I say, it was because someone was not paying attention it insignicant minor details that may or may not have been spelled out in the operator's manual.

I don't care who built what....as long as the operators could care less or refuse to read (or at least scan) the operator's manuals, you will have nothing short of a total disaster.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-14-2004, 01:33 AM:

In order to avoid the "diagonal scratches" that can occur on the bottom deck of an AW3 if the cluster rollers are lower than the deck, you can simply lengthen the pin that the roller assembly sits on for the bottom deck, so it can't go any lower. Why Christie does not do this is beyond me. I have even seen AMCs that have modified this so it is IMPOSSIBLE to scratch a print on. Even AMC! Yet Christie is not smart enough to figure it out? WTF?[av=x]

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 06-14-2004, 01:48 AM:

Early phase control Revision 1 and Revision 2 payouts had some problems. Revision 3 (marked on the circuit board as "R3") and up made changes to the circuitry for improved operation. When I encounter bad R2 and earlier phase controls I update them to R3 revision and it seems to work fine.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 06-14-2004, 02:15 AM:

Kinda looks like Brad, Joe, and Ken are the only ones that have a constructive comments and suggestions in the last several posts. [Big Grin]

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 06-14-2004, 02:22 AM:

I have the Strongs at my indoor house. I don't at all care for the vacuum cleaner motors. By the time they catch up with what the projector's feeding them on startup, they're going so damned fast they barely slow down before they hit the top of the rail. However, if timed properly, they do work OK (I have one of Brad's platter rings for emergencies). Seems keeping them in good shape demands more attention than it should though. I like their MUT because you can get film on and off the platters in good time.

We did find out that you can wrap the film around that set pin on the control rail. Running the print over a stationary plastic button will play hell with a print, something we learned the hard way.

I've got 3 old ORC CP302 platters at my drive-in. They're the ones with the orange trees, rim-drives and Dodge distributor points in the brains. They're old and clunky, but they treat film fine and have enough torque to keep up with the fastest projector starts and stops. Their MUT has a gear reduction motor I swiped from an old Sword, and it'll handle 14,000 ft reels. Unfortunately, the rimdrive advantage that makes it's operaton so sweet during presentations prevents it from running very fast in makeup mode... so it loads a print really slow! Otherwise, I'm keeping these things going as long as I can. They're the best product ORC ever made, as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 06-14-2004, 02:31 AM:

Jack, if you so desire, I'll drop in and take a peek at them this week when I come into you area. Besides, I have a can of glass cleaner to compare notes with when I get there. [Smile]

Is the coffee pot gonna be on? [Smile]

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 06-14-2004, 02:47 AM:

Great to have you down this way, Paul.
Got a day in mind?

Coffee is a critical staple here.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 06-14-2004, 02:49 AM:

How does Thursday sound? I'll probably have to ride that damned ferry, but that's OK. I can spend some time in the engineering spaces with the 645 or 710 V-16's. I miss them. [Smile]

I'll give you a call soon to firm that up.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 06-14-2004, 02:51 AM:

Sounds good. If you still have my cell # (360-340-XXXX) give that a call. If not, I'll email it to you.

It's been years since I got a tour below decks. It amazed me how willing they were to show me around... given all those "no trespassing, crew only, death to all who knock" signs.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-14-2004, 06:52 AM:

Ironically, I like the Christie MUT. I prefer a vertical reel for build up over a horizontal one...gravity is working for you, not against.

As to the rewinding aspect...get a rewinder or rewind table. With the Christie MUT, you have a good splicing area too.

As to scratches...BY FAR Christie houses take the cake in my area...they do it before the first show and as they tear the film down...since the MUT roller is not fixed...it leaves it to the operator to decide...for some reason, the big spinning platter deck riding on the film surface doesn't scare them one bit.

As platters go, I have no particular problem with Strong/Potts offerings.

Steve

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-14-2004, 06:59 AM:

Ummmmm Steve, the last time I checked Strong platters had a user-adjustable roller for buildup/breakdown as well.

I know it doesn't affect breakdown, but who is still in the stone ages of print buildup with MUTs? No theater should be deprived of at least one Goldberg platter reel.

Steve already said what I would have regarding the vertical MUT vs. the horizontal MUT. Horizontal MUTs are stupid. [thumbsdown]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-14-2004, 09:26 PM:

Brad,

YEs the Strongs are adjustable but don't need to be adjusted for each use.

Now one can mark lines on the Christie pole to help the booth-idiot but that won't stop them from setting it wrong anyway.

Steve