This is topic "Quickermittent" availability 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=005120

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 07-20-2003, 08:22 PM:
 
I remember reading about Kodak's "Quickermittent" a year ago, that used a new starwheel profile to increase acceleration leading to substantial improvement in light efficiency.

Can it now be ordered as an option from most projector manufacturers? Using this, coupled with faster lenses, must make three-bladed shutters more viable.

It's always good to see improvements in film technology
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-20-2003, 09:15 PM:
 
No one has adopted which is too bad
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-20-2003, 10:06 PM:
 
The Kodak "Quickermittent" is still available for licensing. Christopher DuMont led the Enhanced Theatrical Experience (ETE) team that developed and patented it, as well as the new, more efficient lamphouse with greatly improved uniformity. Kodak's Dave Kirkpatrick was the inventor of the "Quickermittent".

Addendum:

The Kodak paper "Design Improvements for Motion Picture Film Projectors" was published in the November 2001 SMPTE Journal (Volume 110, pages 785-791).

The Kodak patent for the "Quickermittent" is Patent No. 6,183,087 , issued on February 6, 2001. Enquiries for licensing opportunities are welcomed (Kodak is not currently in the business of making 35mm or 70mm film projectors or components).

[ 07-21-2003, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: John Pytlak ]
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 07-21-2003, 08:44 PM:
 
Thanks for the info! It's a shame there's been no take-up but I guess these things take time.

John, I'll locate a copy of that Journal - thanks for the details.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-26-2003, 11:56 AM:
 
So, I wonder how much it is to liscense it..... Any ideas or info on this John P.?
Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-26-2003, 03:57 PM:
 
No, as that's usually negotiated. But I can certainly forward any requests to license the technology to the appropriate people at Kodak.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-26-2003, 04:02 PM:
 
I am not surprised no one has taken up the idea. If they would give us ways to optimize the light output, then we could buy smaller >>>less expensive xenons. But that is where they make the money.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-28-2003, 04:17 PM:
 
Of course, you could always use the extra light to IMPROVE quality (better uniformity, three-blade shutter, more depth of focus, etc.).
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-28-2003, 07:34 PM:
 
John is right, and that's how I'd like to see it used. But I imagine that if any projectors offered the Quickermittent that it'd be known when the theater owner does the purchase. And he'll probably decide to purchase lower wattage lamphouses. Now retrofitting existing theaters would be an entirely different story.

Maybe it is the name "Quickermittent" that is turning manufacturers off. It sounds stupid. Of course here I am without a better sounding name so I guess I shouldn't speak.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-29-2003, 08:24 PM:
 
Gee.... American manufacturers can BARELY still make usable stars and cams.... How on earth could we turn out any decent quickermittents......?
Mark
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-30-2003, 04:04 PM:
 
Maybe different Americans are building the silly-named "Quickermittent".
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-30-2003, 04:18 PM:
 
If Kodak was still in the projector business (we made the fabled EASTMAN Model 25 and Model 30 professional 16mm projectors), we'd be tempted to tool up for making the "Quickermittent" parts.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-30-2003, 05:18 PM:
 
Actually I like the name "Quickermittent". It has a catchy ring to it like "Fruit Loops" and "Obsolete".

OH, Ummmm... with apologies to John, to paraphrase another post...

---Only "die-hards" claim 70+ year-old film technology is preferable to today's hard-disk readers and video projection. If so, let's go back to vacuum cathode ray tubes while we're at it.---

It is pretty archaic to mechanically pull plastic with pictures on it in a start & stop fashion so why invest in a dying technology?

It's worked great for all them years, why f*ck with it?

OBTW: I'm a film guy…with video tendencies.

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-30-2003, 06:08 PM:
 
Dr. Phil wrote about film:

quote:

---

It's worked great for all them years, why f*ck with it?

---

Because it can be made even better at much less cost than the alternatives.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-01-2003, 09:08 PM:
 
"If so, let's go back to vacuum cathode ray tubes while we're at it.---"
_________________________________________________________________
Actually the very highest resolution images are still made by high vacuum cathode ray tubes!!
Mark
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-01-2003, 09:27 PM:
 
True, but they sure ain't bright. I think you get the jist, bub.

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Edward Jurich (Member # 1787) on 08-02-2003, 04:52 PM:
 
-------Only "die-hards" claim 70+ year-old film technology
is preferable to today's hard-disk readers and video projection. If so, let's go back to vacuum cathode ray tubes while we're at it.-------

Funny how the video shot stuff for theater release is processed to look like film. Ever notice that even though Live video on TV looks sharper and more live than film, filmed movies look better on TV. And, take a film and scratch it, now take a DVD and scratch it (or have a hard drive crash) and guess which one won't play anymore. You can't say one system is better than the other, they both have their good and bad points.
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 08-02-2003, 11:05 PM:
 

quote:

---

filmed movies look better on TV.

---

What you smokin' boy?
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-03-2003, 12:29 AM:
 
Daryl, I think films, especially those of the newer film stocks, look way better on HDTV than orignal HDTV material. And in many cases so does the older films...even on SDTV.

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-03-2003, 02:28 PM:
 
Thats cause there is far greater contrast range on the film than present day live cameras are capable of.
Mark
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-03-2003, 03:11 PM:
 
Just out of curiosity...which is the quicker puller downer (or upper)...the Kodak Quickermittent or the Kinoton Electronic intermittent? This isn't a smartass question...I really don't know. The Kinoton electronic intermittent sure is fast though.

Steve
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 08-03-2003, 06:41 PM:
 
What does Kinoton claim?

According to the Kodak patent, the recommended application of the Quickermittant gets you from the traditional 10.5ms index time to 7.67ms (73% of the original time). But there are complex engineering tradeoffs -- they propose 3 designs that achieve 50%, 40%, and 33.33% of 10.5ms (for 5.25ms, 4.20ms, and 3.50ms respectively), but all of those produce significantly higher forces on the cam and star wheel, so might not be viable.

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-03-2003, 07:32 PM:
 
I don't know what they claim, in that regard. Perhaps Larry will pipe in. Their intermittent sprocket on the "E" projectors is as big as the feed sprockets (32-teeth, I would guess...never counted that either) so they will get an increase in linear velocity from the larger radius.

Steve
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-03-2003, 09:36 PM:
 
The "Quickermittent" was part of the Kodak "Enhanced Theatrical Experience" (ETE) project. The intent was to explore and develop technologies that could significantly improve presentation quality with as little change as possible to existing equipment and procedures. As such, the "Quickermittent" was intended as a RETROFIT to existing projectors. Indeed, the prototypes (starwheels and cams) were installed in EXISTING intermittents. Demos were shown to projector and component manufacturers on the huge screen in the Kodak Building-28 "Theater on the Ridge", and members of the team traveled worldwide to discuss the technology.

I can only surmise that the uncertainty of digital cinema and the souring world economy and theatre circuit reorganizations made some companies afraid to invest in licensing and tooling up for a technology that offered something as esoteric as greater efficiency and more light on the screen. Maybe we should have called it a "Digi-mittent"?
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-03-2003, 09:42 PM:
 
Close, John. But "Digital Intermittent" would have sold more. When asked what is digital, you can say "The Johnson Rod is now digital" and that'll be good enough for most people.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-03-2003, 10:18 PM:
 
The Kinoton electronic intermittent is retrofittable too...it just comes in its own special "carrying case" Just order a PK-60E, FP-30E or FP-50E and they'll include the "upgraded" intermittent.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-03-2003, 10:51 PM:
 
Yes, the Kinoton E sprocket has 32 teeth. We used it on many projectors with a three-blade shutter. The image is flicker free. The transportation phase is less than 7 ms.
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 08-03-2003, 10:54 PM:
 
I asked Larry what the electonic intermittent's dwell time was a few months ago. He said he didn't know how fast the pull down was other than that they configured the shutter to 'wait' longer than it had to, to increase on screen steadiness.

quote:

---

Daryl, I think films, especially those of the newer film stocks, look way better on HDTV than orignal HDTV material. And in many cases so does the older films...even on SDTV.

---

Am I confused? Are we saying that movies, that you go see in movie theatres, look better on televisions than when shown from actual film in a theatre? That's the way I interpret "filmed movies look better on tv".
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-04-2003, 12:35 AM:
 
Of course that's what is being said, Daryl! Who the hell would want to watch a movie on film in a big theater? I can't think of anybody. Just kidding. What he means is that film looks better on TV than stuff that was shot on video does.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-04-2003, 08:00 AM:
 
Phil Hill wrote:

quote:

---

I think films, especially those of the newer film stocks, look way better on HDTV than orignal HDTV material. And in many cases so does the older films...even on SDTV.

---