This is topic MiT platter design review 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=005751
Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 01-13-2004, 12:22 PM:
 
Hello everyone,

The ideas and suggestions on the console design were so relevant and helpful that we would like to take this opportunity to do the same with the platter. Again, not re-inventing the wheel here, going with what we know works and updating as the ideas and resources allows. We look forward to your comments and suggestions, and although we may not be able to implement everyone’s suggestions into the products, we certainly appreciate your participation and will consider them all.

-

-

-

Features

• Solid-state control circuit - Platter and make-up table drive electronics are compatible/pluggable cards
• IR/Photo-diode control sensors
• Independent, optimized payout and take-up control sensors – 180deg payout filter and 70 deg take-up filter for more precision and graduated acceleration.
• Integrated film payout 'over-tension' sensor and take-up 'not ready' sensors – contact closure interface to any automation.
• 52in [1.32m] scratch resistant decks with 'micro-groove' textured surfaces – single sided spun aluminum decks with a second disk bonded to the lower edge for support instead of the typical ribs. Advantage, no ‘head smacking’ or ‘fan effect’ from the ribs.
• Fixed roller clusters, no slide bar
• Bodine drive motors – natural rubber drive wheels.
• Self-aligning in-coming and out-going guide rollers
• ‘Over center spring’ motor release mechanism
• LED power indication and threading lights
• Standard film cleaner mounting provisions
• Recessed center feed plate - film aligns perfectly with protective keeper rollers
• Elevated payout rollers
• Large and small diameter take-up rings
• Bronze roller bearings/bushings on all rollers and keepers
• Packaging design to reduce on-site set-up time
• Vertical or horizontally configurable make-up table
• Colors – Column (Blue), Rollers (Grey), Deck (Grey), Brackets (Black).
 
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 01-13-2004, 12:28 PM:
 
The platter should not be rim-drivin so that we can use Brad's new Giant-Platter-Guard-Ring-Thingy.
 
Posted by Bob Peticolas (Member # 328) on 01-13-2004, 01:34 PM:
 
Could the drive motor be on the INSIDE of the rim? This would allow Brad's Platter Guard to fit.
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-13-2004, 02:00 PM:
 
I have always been a fan of the use of an edge rim drive as it gives the greatest speed differential between the motor and platter
What about putting the motor so it drives on the inside edge of the rim lip
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-13-2004, 02:05 PM:
 
If I'm not mistaken, it looks like the decks are driven internally. Hard to tell though, drawing two conflicts with drawings one and three.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-13-2004, 02:09 PM:
 
I am sending Bevan a "Safety Ring" (yes, that's what they are called), so he can play with one.

Let's see....
I would like to see drawings of the MUT. The motor DOES stay in contact with the platter during breakdown to provide backtension, right? Any platter that doesn't gets an "F" rating for poor film handling on shipout.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-13-2004, 02:15 PM:
 
Is that a film cleaner bracket near the top of the column? That's kind of high. There are a lot of short people in the booth. One should be able to operate the cleaner (rewind the media) without needing to stand on something or remove the cleaner from the column.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-13-2004, 02:22 PM:
 
I, too, would like to see the MUT. Since most platter damage seems to happen during makeup and breakdown, this is critical.

Agreed with Brad's comment about the keeper brackets that Christie uses on AW3s. They're the best that I have seen.

Is this platter designed for 35mm only or will there be a 70mm kit available? Any chance of a 16mm kit, too? What is the process for switching between formats?
 
Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 01-13-2004, 02:58 PM:
 
Mike, Gordon - Drive is internal pushing out on platter rim.

Adam - Film cleaner location not set yet, we may have two top/bottom.

Brad - Will raise the take-off rollers. Swivel of rollers is limited. Keeper brackets are tough, requires a VERY expensive 4-piece mold. Platter deck is solid - no film falling through it. We had planned on a dark grey roller with black keeper.

Still working on the MUT - any suggestions on favorite features?
 
Posted by Max Biela (Member # 1919) on 01-13-2004, 03:00 PM:
 
hi!

What about the Pay out unit? PLEASE put some Rollers around it!
The best Payout unit I've ever saw is from an Ernemann Platter. The platter is crap but check out the Payout!

-

You can also plug it in and out VERY easy without damaging rollers or the arm. Speaking of the arm, these "Guards" are also very helpful when dealing with sticking layers.

Max
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-13-2004, 03:05 PM:
 
Does anybody have a picture or technical drawing of these fancy keeper rollers?
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-13-2004, 03:06 PM:
 
Regarding the MUT: The vertical AW3 MUT is pretty good. As crazy as it sounds, I'd love to see a footpedal speed control in addition to the knob; this would make breakdowns faster and easier. It would also be nice to have an easier way to switch between 1/2" and 5/16" shafts without needing a screwdriver to remove the screw that holds the shaft. I'd personally prefer a MUT that is slightly larger than the AW3 version (to give more space for splicer, head and tail leaders, bands, etc.), but I'm sure that others will say that the AW3 MUT is too big.
 
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-13-2004, 03:39 PM:
 
Access panels so that hands can reach in and grab/hold things inside the column or support arms.

The AW MUT is great. Not sure about the foot pedal -- perhaps as an optional attachment?

I like the rollers around that payout head in the photo (above) but not the payout head itself. It's just plain ugly!

I agree with Brad's take on having all those rewind cluster rollers. The slider is the better solution but I have to wonder about how similar this "new" platter can be to an AW3R before it becomes a legal problem.
 
Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 01-13-2004, 03:52 PM:
 
What about the 5/16 shaft with a 1/2" sleeve to screw onto it?
 
Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 01-13-2004, 05:03 PM:
 
Here's a look at the center feed plate design.

-

I'm liking the Ernemann/Kinoton guide arm guards idea - we'll look at working that in.

Scott - 35mm only.
 
Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 01-13-2004, 06:08 PM:
 
On the MUT a light under the table with a translucent window is handy when making splices. But for the love of God. Put a switch accessable from top side of the MUT, so you don't have to crawl around on the floor to turn it on/off. [Big Grin]

I'm not crazy about the multiple roller clusters on take up.
Maybe a slide bar assembly, like the Speco platter with a spring loaded pin that locks into a hole in the slide bar? That seemed pretty durable.

Also make sure that the payout provides at least a SMALL amount of back tension on the film, so you don't have the platter paying out faster than the projector can take it up (read Brad's review of the original SPECO payout review). Also, please please, make sure that in the payout that you don't have to "thread" the film underneath anything, like the Strong or unmodified SPECO pay outs. I do like the idea of rollers instead of just posts around the payout though.
 
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 01-13-2004, 06:51 PM:
 
I am not a fan of the internal drive wheel because if for some reason the platter deck becomes warped it hits the top of the drive spindles as it turns.

Bring up the payout directional roller so it is not at the very bottom of the tree.
 
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 01-13-2004, 08:30 PM:
 
I don't see how the connection from the platter to the MUT is done, but I'd like to suggest NOT having to plug the MUT cable in at the motors, as is done for Neumade/Potts. Having that cable hang down could mess up the decks below. I would prefer a MUT that plugs in at one place below the decks, like Christie/Strong AP platters.
 
Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 01-13-2004, 08:35 PM:
 
MUT will plug in at the base of the column. Non-reversible, keyed AMP plug. The plug for the failsafe interlock will also be located there. All cover plates with plugs will be removable with screws (not rivets) for easier access.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-13-2004, 08:49 PM:
 
There's nothing to grab onto for moving the brain. I like Kinoton's IMAX brain with the "fence" instead of using posts or rollers. People misthread on those, but a 180 degree "fence" around the backside would not only prevent that from happening, but also give something to grab on to.
 
Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 01-13-2004, 08:53 PM:
 
We were thinking of under-cutting the block holding the rollers to give you a sort of handle, with your palm resting on the top of the rollers and fingers protruding into the undercut block. The perimeter fence would require two hands to lift it straight up.

Speaking of IMAX, what is the opinon on staggering the decks say 10-20 degrees side to side like an IMAX platter? It would give easier access to the feed plates/platter decks but increase the footprint.
 
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 01-13-2004, 09:16 PM:
 
Just out of curiosity Brad why do you want black rollers instead of grey? For those of us who don't filmgaurd all our prints (yes, we still exist) having the rollers a color other than black makes cleaning them much easier.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-13-2004, 09:27 PM:
 
Please don't stagger the decks. 52" decks are fine so long as you don't make the top deck any higher than an AW3.

Any color roller other than black over time, with or without FilmGuard, will discolor. Black doesn't. The rollers continue to look like new 20 years later. It's a cosmetic thing.
 
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 01-13-2004, 10:30 PM:
 
Does the industry really need full 52" decks? I don't know about everyone else, but trailer placement has become a big issue with the distributors now, so it seems we're always changing trailers, sometimes simply rearranging the order because of a request by a distributor. Shorter people seem to have a tough time reaching in there. Could we measure "LOTR" and just add an inch? [Wink] I think I would rather be forced to have an intermission for the very rare 3 hour plus movie, but have it easier to reach in there to change/add trailers, snipes, etc.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-13-2004, 11:18 PM:
 
I prefer the extra capacity of a standard 52" deck myself over a 48" deck. Anything smaller wouldn't work on those long movies, and you're only saving 2 inches. At that point, tell the short projectionists to use the bottom two decks on trailer changing days. It's good to use that bottom deck from time to time anyway. [Wink]
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-13-2004, 11:36 PM:
 
the staggering of the decks would allow better access of each larger deck for trailer changes I kind of like that idea
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-13-2004, 11:58 PM:
 
Brad,
I have to chuckle as you keep asking for an AW-3 [Big Grin] . Why not just stick with the real thing in the first place. Its already proven, tested, modified and has an excellent track record and its your very favorite platter [thumbsup] . I for one don't need any more new equipment that hasn't been field proven and that I may have to waste time going out to make warranty repairs to.....
Mark
 
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 01-14-2004, 12:07 AM:
 
Since Mark brought it up, I like the brain on the AW-3 really well. Extreamely easy to thread. No "brainwork" required!
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-14-2004, 12:52 AM:
 
Mark, you are correct I am perfectly happy with the AW3 as it stands right now. However the guys at MIT have already made some improvements to their design over the AW3. I just don't want to see something done that will make me continue to prefer the AW3, when they are trying so hard to improve on something that is already an outstanding design. If these guys didn't truly care, they wouldn't be here asking everyone's opinions.

Not to steer this thread off-topic too far, but lets say you are a die-hard Simplex man. Are you saying that you would not consider the Apogee projector simply because it has not been field tested and proven for many years, even though we all know it is a great improvement to the Simplex on many levels? That's just nuts.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-14-2004, 02:44 AM:
 
Rollers should be conductive to provide a path to ground to help dissipate static.
 
Posted by Max Biela (Member # 1919) on 01-14-2004, 06:23 AM:
 
Why is the Ernemann-Payout crap???
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-14-2004, 08:42 AM:
 
I really don't like it when guard rollers are around the brain. It's easy for film to become wrapped around one of them the wrong way through normal film handling. Plus they just make the thing look cluttered with rollers and it doesn't really add to the functionality. A fence would be good, but even the old tall Christie posts were decent enough for me. The only problem there is that they would discolor over time.

Please make sure that the payout and takeup are independent of each other (I assume they already are). I can't stand how on Strongs and other platters the takeup determines how fast the payout will spin. Hell for interlocks if you want smooth payout. I do like the way the Christie take up is threaded.

Make sure the brain has enough tension in it so the film doesn't over feed and has enough tension for a media cleaner. Strongs are also notrious for this lack of tension as are ORC/Super platters as well as others. Make sure the brain has drop DOWN threading. From the looks of it, that is how it already is. Nothing is more annoying than trying to push the film through a little crack when threading the brain like on a Strong, and is even more annoying when you try to unthread them for any reason. By now I assume you've seen the Strong platter review here, so you know what I hate about it and why. No ball bearings, please!
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-14-2004, 08:56 AM:
 
Brad,
No, Since the original Simplex is still available I would probably not install the Apogee in a big job unless it was close to the office. I've been through that sort of experience both in Broadcast and in this industry way too many times and know better!! After a piece has been out for a couple of years then I would consider installing it. I guess after you've been in this field for 25 years and have been through as many first installations of some new piece of equipment then you'd understand. I feel a big responsablility to keep a customer reliably equipped, after all its my customers money I am usually spending.

Mark
 
Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 01-14-2004, 11:16 AM:
 
Good point Joe about the guard rollers being a possible misthread location, since the feed plate sits flush with the deck there is no possibility of film scratching until it hits the center support, we could move the rollers in to that point making it more difficult to mis-thread. Payout and take-up are completely independent, to the point of having their own filters and sensors. Drop down threading, yes. Center roller has a cleaver 'sealed' drag mechanism - no more messy spring that dries out.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-14-2004, 12:01 PM:
 
Is the amount of drag adjustable though?
 
Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 01-14-2004, 04:34 PM:
 
Yes, by changing the viscosity of the 'drag' agent - you would have to dig out the plug and re-seal it.
 
Posted by Pete Wolla (Member # 1581) on 01-14-2004, 07:31 PM:
 
Carbon fiber bonded under the platter disk?I've seen carbon fiber bonded to both sides of aluminum it becomes unbendable. Don't know about one side though. just a thought
 
Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 01-14-2004, 08:18 PM:
 
Love the new MIT projector....a perfect copy of a Kinoton [Wink]
 
Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 01-14-2004, 08:56 PM:
 
Richard, as I said, "not re-inventing the wheel here, going with what we know works ....".
 
Posted by Peter Mork (Member # 1336) on 01-14-2004, 09:57 PM:
 
"Over center spring’ motor release mechanism" - means clutch? Must have one. I wish my Christies and Specos did.

The main thing I recommend is to test and see which ways you can run it with the film incorrectly threaded but it still works. That's where trouble arises. Remember that no operator is perfect, but a system that can be run incorrectly without anyone noticing until damage is done is not well designed.

For instance, if you can miss a roller and run with the film dragging over a bracket, that bracket should be padded or otherwise designed not to scratch the film. I call this Pappas Proofing (after a former fellow worker who had a knack for gouging prints). I did a lot of this to the systems we use, but would be delighted to see one that anticipated all the wrong ways it could be used, and took steps to ensure that goofs don't result in ruined prints.
 
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 01-14-2004, 10:01 PM:
 
Must the MUT plug be at the base of the tree? I hate having to get on my knees to plug the MUT into Chrsitie and Strong platters [Razz]

And I am probably the only one here that would like to see the MUT with horizontal reel(s) a la Strong/Potts...

-Aaron
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-14-2004, 10:43 PM:
 
"not re-inventing the wheel here, going with what we know works ....".
_________________________________________________________________

Hey, I love that line, it really ought to become the industry standard line [uhoh] !! That should be printed on the first batch of MiT T-Shirts [thumbsup] .

Mark
 
Posted by John Westlund (Member # 913) on 01-14-2004, 10:50 PM:
 
Having the MUT plug at the bottom keeps the cord out of the way of the film path should you be running a show and using the MUT.
 
Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 01-14-2004, 11:02 PM:
 
How about 'Not re-inventing the reel here....' - I'm sure Steve would go for it.
 
Posted by Max Biela (Member # 1919) on 01-15-2004, 12:33 AM:
 
Aaron, I would like a horizontal MUT too. As we get our Prints on cores, it is almost the only design that would work. But please put the MUT on the same height that you can directly Make Up or take down a print from the middle platter (No Rollers, only needed to use the upper or lower platter to make up/take down) The older Kinotons were like this (so no "re-inventing of the wheel") [Wink]

Max
 
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 01-15-2004, 02:31 PM:
 
Max, I can't tell from the diagram but it looks like the platter base has leveling pads. Depending on how plumb your booth floor is I think rollers would be required no matter what.
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-16-2004, 08:36 AM:
 
I like the staggered-disc idea, would make it easier for big guys like me to work on the centers.

Also, we'd considered the idea of putting a 6,000 ft. capacity reel arm somewhere on the platter tree, so you wouldn't need a MUT to makeup shows. Just put a reel up and wind it on (or, make the arm removable and just hook it on when you need it). With multiple changes every week, and only needing to lug a MUT to a platter for breakdowns, a "satellite" feature would likely speed booth workflow.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-16-2004, 08:39 AM:
 
To sort of go along with Tim's idea--how about putting a potentiometer on the tree which would allow one to run any deck at any speed when that deck is in make-up mode? This would speed up trailer changes significantly (versus winding trailers on by spinning the deck by hand or dragging a MUT around).
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-16-2004, 12:09 PM:
 
I would think the reel arm would stick out and be in the way, ala Strong MUTs. I do really like the idea of a potentiometer built into the column for "making up". It would substantially help with trailer work and other various things, like speed winding. It should be inexpensive to add as well.
 
Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 01-16-2004, 12:20 PM:
 
Scott, Brad - Great idea, consider it done.
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-16-2004, 02:03 PM:
 
quote:
I would think the reel arm would stick out and be in the way
Depends on where you mount it. If it's made to just lift off when you're not using it, no problems. Beats lugging a MUT over and working around that.
 
Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 01-16-2004, 02:14 PM:
 
Slave MUTs used for make-up only are used in Mexico a lot. Sounds like a great idea to me... we will look into making provisions for this.
 
Posted by Dino Panagiotopoulos (Member # 1579) on 01-16-2004, 02:35 PM:
 
Bevan,
These drawings look like they were produced in AutoCAD. If thats correct would you guys happen to have a .dwg file of the 3D model? That would be my favourite way to visualize something and get better feedback .
 
Posted by Max Biela (Member # 1919) on 01-16-2004, 03:42 PM:
 
Yeah, this Pot would be a great help for everyone [Smile] !

Does the MUT use ONE or TWO cables?

Max
 
Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 01-16-2004, 04:37 PM:
 
One cable, AMP plug.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-16-2004, 05:04 PM:
 
Lots of people use the Goldberg Platter Reel for building prints, which saves an incredible amount of time. Please keep this in mind when building the platter. (In other words, please make that "loading arm" an option, not a standard item.)
 
Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 01-16-2004, 05:19 PM:
 
Brad, absolutely, it will be an option.
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-16-2004, 05:46 PM:
 
Brad, I was thinking somewhere near the top of the tree and not in the way of the discs.

Bevan, it's commendable that you are getting input from others in the technical community. I would venture to say you will indeed arrive at the best combination of features and performance in your products. Good luck to you!

Mexico, eh? Shucks, I thought it was an original idea of mine... [Frown]

[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 01-24-2004, 10:19 PM:
 
What's everyones opinion on the Kinoton take-up arm configuration? Vertically oriented roller with arm extending beyond the deck.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-25-2004, 12:32 AM:
 
It presupposes that the deck turns exactly true without any hill and dales. Given the massive support mechanism of the Kinoton...that may be pretty reasonable.

I don't like having the film turned trying to defy gravity heading into the platter either. I don't know if this is something I would emulate.

Steve
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-25-2004, 01:59 AM:
 
I never cared much for that orientation, either. The arms were always getting bumped and bent, and it was easy for the film to fall off, even with a keeper. Christie had the right idea putting it under the deck, out of the way, but they did need to do some kind of a shock absorber for the tail out (as on the AW-2, but maybe not as primitive). The nylon finger inside that assembly, which keeps the feedout plate restricted during takeup, was always getting broken.
 
Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 01-25-2004, 06:40 AM:
 
Tim, we have simplified that mechanism quite a bit by using two optimized and independent filter/sensor assmeblies - one for payout and one for take-up. We've also added a bumper on the return arm stop rest.
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-25-2004, 09:04 AM:
 
Excellent! I should've figured as much. [Smile]

You guys are good.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-26-2004, 03:22 AM:
 
Please keep the arm under the deck for the reasons already listed here...and whatever you do don't copy that foolish "film must return at X number of inches off of the floor if you want to be able to takeup onto the bottom platter" Kinoton nonsense. Each platter should follow the same threading path as each other (like a Christie does). There shouldn't be a seperate roller to skip or go over to get to/from a specific deck.
 
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 01-26-2004, 08:40 AM:
 
Perhaps there could be some kind of external connection allowing someone to take DC ripple measurments across the shunt without opening the console door.
 
Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 01-26-2004, 09:27 AM:
 
Eh, it was a thought. Consider it dismissed.
 
Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 01-01-2005, 12:33 AM:
 
Bevan, from what I have seen, the three sections of takeup rollers should be able to be locked out of the way. I mean, there is already a spot to insert a pin or something to keep the unused rollers tucked around the back section, but a small divit or bump in the assy would make it faster or easier to swivel the right one in or out of place.

Also, it seems like the bottom takeup assy would cause an extreme twist in the film coming off the first return roller.
 
Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 01-01-2005, 05:13 PM:
 
Yes, we are adding a ball detent to hold those back.

It is a little closer that I would like as well, the swivel action does help quite a bit.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-01-2005, 05:58 PM:
 
Bevan, are the platters you are shipping right now essentially the same as what I saw at ShoWest, or did you fix the issues I pointed out?

I'd have to have one in front of me again to recall all of the design problems, and since you asked everyone for input and then the final product failed to incorporate all of the "don't do this" scenarios, I must now pick on you. A few off of the top of my head:

*Film cleaner mount only usable for giants. So MiT's opinion is that only tall people deserve to have good presentations, eh? Really now, put it waist high like the AW3 where it will actually get used. Don't pull any BS with the platter mount (BS=Big Sky of course).

*Lose the 9 rollers on the takeup side...yes NINE! Each platter deck does not need this, and it does not permit the rollers to be truly aligned with each other either. The takeup needs a simple and proven slide bar design of some sort with the required 3 rollers (AW3 or SPECO).

*The brain doesn't need to weigh 80 pounds. If it gets dropped, sure the plate won't break, but the rollers on it will. This needs to be knocked down to AW3 brain weight, or a couple pounds more.

*Lose 3 cheezy rollers around the brain that film can get tangled in and replace with preferred "fence" (Kinoton IMAX brain) or the second best option would be to use "posts" (AW3 brain). The fence would be 180 degrees around the back side of the brain and would offer the ultimate in film protection during a wrap as well as provide a super easy something to grab onto for removal and carrying of the brain. Plus it would make it IMPOSSIBLE for the film to get caught on the wrong side of those stupid "protection" rollers (ala Strong) which would then initiate a brain wrap.

*Upper and lower rollers (to and from projector) must be able to pivot at least 200 degrees (in the same direction) like the AW3, SPECO, Strong and most all other platters. The design at ShoWest FORCED you to turn the platter so that it pointed at the projector. Not well thought out at all. Remember, not every booth has the kind of space available that the designers would like. (Don't feel too bad though, Kinoton still hasn't been able to properly reengineer their platter either. Their last attempt permitted the upper roller to pivot 180 degrees in one direction, but the lower roller pivots 180 degrees in the OTHER direction. Well that's just great that they now can advertise "pivoting rollers", but even though the rollers do technically pivot, they mine as well not since they pivot in different directions. USELESS!!!)

*Make rollers black. Really, that's an easy one. Why oh why was this not done?

Come on Bevan, the platter shows promise, but right now it warrants a failing grade. Show us how much you care and fix it. [Smile]

Where's the MUT? You never posted pics or drawings. Hopefully the boys at MiT were smart enough to mimick the Christie MUT and not some of the shitty ones (like Strong, since it is the biggest piece of shit design of them all).
 
Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 01-02-2005, 06:53 AM:
 
Brad, platters have changed since ShoWest (ShowEast had most of the latest changes), we implemented as many of the changes as we could and some smaller refinements are still in the works.

Cleaner mount, one is still in the 5ft location another optional bracket can be fit in the middle - 3ft location.

Feed plate has been reduced from 9lbs to 4.8lbs.

Take-up clusters were made to swing out of the way (I'll post a picture).

Guide rollers on the feed plate were reduce to two (Joes idea I think) at 180 deg around the back.

Incoming and outgoing rollers can swivel at least 180deg.

Rollers are still dark grey, done to provide some contrast against the black brackets so you can see them in a dark booth.

MUT, we made it so that anyones MUT can be used with our platter. Some only require a harness others a pot and a harness to convert. Take your pick. Our standard MUT is similar to Strongs, this was required for some south-of-the-border customers who don't get their prints on reels (or even cores) and like the ability to rewind on the MUT. We know everyone has their own likes and dislikes on the MUT that is why we provide the coversion kit options - this also allows people to re-use existing tables... I've been in a lot of booths with extra or scavanged MUTs.

As with any product, refinements will be forthcoming as we find the needs and the time.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-02-2005, 07:04 AM:
 
So it will even power the Christie MUT? That's one of the things I hated about Strong MUTs is that I'd have to plug it into the tree as well as the wall. I'm sure someone has suggested this but it would be nice to have an AC outlet right by the MUT hookup on the tree so you don't have wires going every which way when a MUT like the Strong is hooked up. Plus everyone loves AC outlets and it would be a great place to plug in the camcorder when bootlegging movies (the computers recording and compressing would already be plugged into the lamphouse). [Smile]
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-02-2005, 07:07 AM:
 
I'll have to swing by Denton at some point and take a look at the new modifications. It sounds like some improvements have been made, and others ignored.

That junker horizontal Strong MUT design will forever prevent me and many others from ever considering your platters for an install though. That's a dealbreaker any way you slice it! I know you are offering conversion kits for "leftover MUTs", but what about brand new theater installs? Do you actually think someone would buy the MiT platter and then go to Christie to buy their MUT? Nope. In the end AW3s would be installed. You should seriously rethink that decision.

I also don't think I ever got an answer regarding backtension during breakdown. Does the MiT platter require the motor to be physically disengaged from the platter deck (like Strong, and other junk platters), or does it remain in position to provide back-drag (ala AW3 and SPECO)?
 
Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 01-02-2005, 08:34 AM:
 
A vertical MUT is on the 'to do' list. [Joe, with the kit it will power the Christie mut. Ours is powered from the platter as well.] Suggestions were all evaluated and some trade-offs had to be made.

Teardown can be accomplished either way.

Kinda early for you Brad on a Sunday morning (or is it reeeally late).
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-02-2005, 05:00 PM:
 
I dunno Brad...it seems like you want MIT to make nearly exact duplicates of Christie equipment. Whats the point...just buy the Christie if you feel that is "THE" way to make the stuff.

Personally, I can't stand the Chrisite use of the 6-pin JONES plug for power and MUT control. the 6-pin JONES is distinquished by the ability to force the plug in upside down.

I've yet to get a complaint about the MUT needing a separate power cord.

I have found that some customers prefer the vertical reel (my preference too) and some like the horizontal reel.

Do what Kinoton did (and for a while SPECO and Christie)...offer two MUTs...have it your way.

Ah screw it...you'd be better off running changeovers anyway! [Wink]

Steve
 
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 01-02-2005, 06:47 PM:
 
Bevan:

Just make sure you incorporate safeguards (Fuses) in the MUT circuits to prevent the meltdown discussed in the thread "Bad Judgement = Damaged Equipment = Destroyed Print = Cancelled Show"

And thank you for getting rid of that stupid Jones connector!!
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-03-2005, 01:03 AM:
 
Steveo, you're missing the point. Bevan has the opportunity to take the best aspects of all the platters on the market and incorporate it into one. The AW3 is not perfect, but it's awful close. MiT could've outdone it without too much effort, but they haven't and I was hoping they would produce the platter to purchase. Oh well.

So does anyone know if the motor have to be disengaged for breakdown or not?
 
Posted by David Yauch (Member # 2754) on 01-03-2005, 03:33 AM:
 
Brad from the looks of it, the only suggestions of yours that haven't been implemented 100% have been the black rollers, vertical MUT(which is on the "to-do" list), and the lessening of the take-up rollers(which have been modified to swing out of the way, though we have yet to see a pic).

Other than that a LOT of improvements have been made over the AW3. If MIT provides a vertical MUT, would they then be the platter of choice in your opinion? It seems that that is just about the only thing left.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-03-2005, 04:38 AM:
 
Nope, there's the flimsy center rings that I pointed out at ShoWest, the brain perimeter rollers, and I don't know if I like the idea of rollers swinging out of the way or not. I'd need to see it's implementation.

But yes, it *could* be the platter to have...we'll see once they get the bugs worked out of it.
 
Posted by David Yauch (Member # 2754) on 01-03-2005, 04:44 AM:
 
Fair enough, although the brain is sounding better than the AW3, especially since it seems like it will be easier to avoid dumbass projectionists threading on the inside of one of the posts like we get with AW3s.

Bevan, post the damn picture already, I'm growing impatient!

Just kidding.

But seriously, my curiosity is getting the best of me.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-03-2005, 04:59 AM:
 
Anytime there are rollers (or posts) around the brain, misthreads can and will happen. I have also seen a movie jump over a roller on a Strong platter and cause a brain-wrap in the last part of a movie (no way it could have run that long). At least the Christie posts are pretty tall and that can only happen during threading. The MiT rollers are short and until they implement the "fence" idea like in Kinoton's IMAX platter brains, it can happen.

-

-
 
Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 01-03-2005, 09:22 AM:
 
-

-
Clusters swing 270deg out of the way against the back of the column.

-
Shows the round MUT plug, resetable breaker and two pin interlock for failsafes.
 
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 01-03-2005, 11:21 AM:
 
That 'arm' under the deck is ala a Christie unit, correct?

Pardon my ignorance.. it's been YEARS since I've seen, or worked with, a Christie platter... and, for the life of me, I can't recall what function it serves... [Confused]

And, as others have said, that's a TON off rollers on the tree... I see the potential for misthreads with such a large number of rollers..
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-03-2005, 04:10 PM:
 
I can tell from the picture I don't like that "swing-away" concept at all. That is just a film damage incident waiting to happen. It's no different than the early SPECO LP270s where you had to make sure the rollers were turned a certain way so they would be "out of the way" of the film path...but people scratched tons and tons of film on them anyway. Bad, bad idea.

Also the lower roller that receives film from the projector is too high. That's a major twist going on there, and not very gentle on the film.

quote: Bevan Wright
Shows the round MUT plug, resetable breaker and two pin interlock for failsafes.
On the flip side, these items are well thought out. [Smile]
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-03-2005, 06:35 PM:
 
I have some customers that can't stand the take up roller slider concept (anyones) so separate rollers are a plus for them.

I agree, though...the potential for misthread or rubbing the film over somthing increases the chance of film damage dramatically.

Steve
 
Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 01-03-2005, 07:59 PM:
 
I think we've all seen (or heard about) operators missing pins on slidebars, pins coming out or slidebars working loose. It is pretty difficult to misthread our design .... fact is that you can only do so much to equipment then you need to have some level of competence in an operator. (I have yet to see an automobile that someone cannot crash. [Razz] ) Steve also made the point that there is no sense in duplicating 100% something that already exists... we took the top 15 or so issues/complaints and are addressing them in our design with the input from the industry. We appreciate all in the constructive input.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-03-2005, 08:19 PM:
 
Bevan, you can get your point across better if you don't conceal it in pretty verbage. Please allow me to assist.

quote: Bevan Wright
we took the top 15 or so issues/complaints and are addressing them in our design with the input from the industry
Translation = "screw it, it's good enough".

-----

I've seen FAR more damage to film ran on platters with permanently mounted takeup rollers due to misthreads than I have seen problems regarding a pin on a sliding track design. Besides a misthread = $3000 print. A replacement sliding bar of some sort is (or should be) under $100. And even if you had to replace the slide bar every 15 years, how many times a year will a print get damaged because one of the candy counter kids got confused as to which rollers he was supposed to run the film over or not??? Do the math. (Heck, for the savings in 6 extra rollers, you could toss in a spare slide bar with every new platter.) Sure you can only idiot-proof a piece of machinery so far, but the idea is to idiot-proof it as much as you can, which has not been done here. This should have been one of the "top 15". [Roll Eyes]

By the way, your "swing away" design prevents a top feed on takeup. Not every theater has the return film running next to the floor. The two rollers that have been swung out of the way are now in the way.

I have asked this a couple of times now...on breakdown are the motors pulled away from the platter deck or not? Please answer this.

There are enough crappy platter designs on the market right now as it is. Please don't go adding another one, further giving platters a bad name. [thumbsdown]
 
Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 01-03-2005, 08:35 PM:
 
That is not what I meant, we are very open to suggestions and are keeping an open mind - a slide bar design was just discussed today as a matter of fact.

Teardown can be accomplished either way with the motor engaged or disengaged, I did respond to this in an earlier post.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-03-2005, 08:43 PM:
 
Ok, good to know. I must've missed your first response on that. (Hopefully the manual recommends against pulling the motor away to prevent film damage from occuring.) I presume the backdrag is the same as on an AW3 or SPECO?

What about the rubber center rings? When will these be made sturdy like Christie's or SPECO's new rings? Those bendable rings cause cinch scratches during print moves and breakdown, you know. ...and don't forget the latch. [Wink]
 
Posted by Andrew McCrea (Member # 674) on 05-15-2005, 02:13 PM:
 
With that top picture that Bevan posted of the platter with no discs on it... What are those arms to the right, that would be directly under the disc, for?

Has anyone used MiT equipment yet, and what do you think?
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-15-2005, 02:20 PM:
 
They are the takeup speed control
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-15-2005, 05:19 PM:
 
I don't know of any large installations as of yet. Perhaps Bevan can enlighten us on that. For us its a wait and see sort of thing. Will they still be around in another year or two??? These things have to sell eventually or the seed money will run out and thats it. Overall its not a bad design and it should be selling. The real problem is that its yet another platter. And we have been selling the present three manufacturers platters since they've been out... I just don't know if we need another?

Mark @ CLACO
 
Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 07-09-2008, 02:56 PM:
 

It has been 1150 days since the last post.


 
Posted by Thomas Dieter (Member # 2507) on 07-09-2008, 02:56 PM:
 
I know there was another thread somewhere that was better to put this, but I can't find it.

Bevan, are your rollers interchangeable with the Christie AW3? Our supplier called you up the other day and someone said they are not interchangeable. I could have sworn that you said everything was interchangeable at ShowEast last year when I spoke with you.

--Tom
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-09-2008, 08:12 PM:
 
The shaft sizes are different, so no they are not directly changeable.

MiT does make a brain modification kit for the AW3, to use their roller in place of the center "spring tension" roller of the AW3. It's a great idea, because their drag system is superior to the basic spring that the AW3 uses...but it will only work for about a year, 18 months tops. Then you start scratching everything you run through it!!!

Sadly this is no joke. I'll post pics.
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2