Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Neumade Platters

This is topic Neumade 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=005788

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 01-23-2004, 09:12 PM:

(This is Will Kutler using Mike's account)

Well, I'm sitting here at Farrelli's Supper Club with Mike Heenan, and wanted to comment about these Neumade Platters.

I have seen these in operation at one other theatre, and in my opinion, are excellent machines that are by far better then other brands on the market!

First, these platters are running dead quiet. You literally cannot hear the motors run!

The entire take-up carriage assembly is by far more beefed up than other brands. A nice feature is that the adjustable carriage has a positive locking mechanism on the tree, it does not rest on pins like other units. A down side to the Neumade design is that the carriage can be a little difficult to thread, but this is easily solved by marking the rollers with decals (1-6)

I LOVE THE ROLLER VBEARING ROLLERS! They run dead quiet! Neither theatre where I have observed these units in operation have ever had problems with the roller bearing rollers dumping film on the ground due to over spinning.

Another nice feature about the Neumade roller design is it forces you to thread through the rollers. Also, the Neumade design definately helps to prevent film from jumping off the rollers, or riding on roller flange, resulting in a scratched print.

The payout heads are simple and straight forward. I do believe that this design is less likely to have some of the problems associated with other brands.

The platter center rings are also by far better than other brands. What is nice about these is that if the ring accidently comes off the print, it can, unlike other brands, be easily reinstalled, and the tension against the print can be adjusted.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-24-2004, 02:10 AM:

Oh yea, I can introduce you to quite a number of people that really dislike them.
Mark

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-24-2004, 03:16 AM:

Will ... what exactly prevented you from logging Mike out and logging yourself in to post that message?

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-24-2004, 09:39 AM:

Dept. of Homeland Security has been called!

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-24-2004, 02:33 PM:

I had to install many of them a few years ago and we called the the neurotic platter rather than the neutronic
They sucked. They throw prints have a painted deck that builds up static like anything (especially up here in the cold dry north)
The opitcal control had major problems with the deflector falling off and on and on
I think all of them are now in the skip RIP

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 01-24-2004, 04:28 PM:

I've never used any other brand of platters, but we've never had a brainwrap or any sort of static problems, etc with these platters. I like them and have no complaints. Perhaps if I've used other platters my opinion may be different, but these platters have been good to us.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-24-2004, 09:24 PM:

good enjoy them then I put them in the dumpster and replace them with the strongs automatically

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-24-2004, 11:56 PM:

I'm with Gord on this one for sure. I can't begin to tell you how many payout heads on the Neurotic platters I've had to upgrade(?) in the last year. Damn reed switchec [puke]

. A Potts or Strong Alpha is a far better choice.

Mark @ CLACO

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 01-25-2004, 12:52 AM:

Hi Adam....

Sorry about the mistake. I thought I had logged in under my own name.

I have to strongly disagree with Gord and Mark on this one!

These platter decks were not painted.

The overall structure is all heavy guage metal,and is much more beefed up and sturdy than a Strong or Christie!

These platters were running very smooth and dead quiet, unlike Christies!

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-25-2004, 01:48 AM:

I noticed problems with the little microswitches in the units upgraded from Reed switches (no relation [Razz]

). They weren't very "robust", as Gordon would say. And very difficult to replace. Once everything was in and aligned, though, I can't say they were that much trouble during operation. But the feed plates left much to be desired and were the unit's Achilles' heel (sorry, Bob [Frown]

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 01-25-2004, 01:16 PM:

As with any product, the Neumade platter has gone through changes. There are two basic designs. The older models have a takeup speed carriage on the side of the mast; the payout head had reed switches. The newer model has individual takeup arms under each deck and the payout heads use a optical reflective design to regulate payout speed.

I only used one of the old model, so I can't really comment on them, but the 120 (or so) of the new model we have operate well. They are structurally very strong (the newer model supports running 70mm film.) Each deck has it's own control electronics, so one failure won't take down the whole platter. In fairness, it should be noted that the design pre-dates polyester film: about 6-7 years ago, they reworked the payout head and stopped painting the decks to accommodate polyester film. It's easy to swap out motors or change control electronics. Neumade tried going with all-plastic (bearingless) rollers, but wisely returned to rollers with bearings.

Generally, I would say it is a sucessful product. Fault can always be found in anything if you look hard enough.

Posted by Gregory N. Jones (Member # 805) on 01-26-2004, 08:52 AM:

Usual "lovefest" from Gordon and Mark concerning Xetron/Neumade... [thumbsup]

Will, thank you for the favorable input on our Neutronic platters. As John has noted, over the years, the Neutronic platter has gone through a lot of changes from a major redesign of the payout head (1995)to switching to unpainted decks (1996). The "new decks" (1996 Gordon) actually are pre-scored to prevent film from flying off of them. (Brad commented favorably on this at SHOWEST last year). The reed switches Mark mentioned are actually from the old XNR platter (last made in mid 80's)which are no longer available. We have also upgraded the take-up control boards, slider bar assembly, the pin block assembly and motors over the last couple of years.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-26-2004, 09:46 AM:

Greg,
Hardly a "love fest" as you say if you look through some other posts where Gord and I are at each others throat.
Frankly, I can't even begin to tell some of the plain stupid woes I've experienced with your equipment,old and new. I do have some interesting photos and experiences though that document some of it. As Brad is aware I have even written reviews of some of your equipment for this forum that I've ultimately withheld since many would consider it equipment bashing. Perhaps though its time to post some of my photos/experieinces here while we're on the subject of Neumade.

Mark

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-26-2004, 01:56 PM:

I haven't had a chance to actually use a Neumade platter in a regular booth installation to comment very much, but having the decks grooved from the manufacturer is a major plus. ALL platters should come grooved, or at least be user-groovable such as the AW3.

(Greg, now if you can only make that deck 52 inches instead of 54 inches. [Wink]

)

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-26-2004, 03:42 PM:

I threaded a late-model Neumade once. It seemed like a nice design--very simple and efficient. I have no idea how they hold up over time or how easy/difficult they are to time.

Posted by Trevor Bailey (Member # 75) on 01-26-2004, 07:25 PM:

I have to agree with Tim on the feed plates. Both the XNR and NXP models use a locating pin to properly align the feed plate. I cannot keep up with the repairs due to the broken pins. Once the pin is broken, this usually leads to socket damage from the spinning feed plate...the twisting on the phone plug socket causes the wires to break free. Also, there are no spindles available for the XNR feed plates (correct me if I am wrong) and the NXP spindle does not fit. There are also two different models of the NXP feed plate...one has a single exit roller assy, the other has a double exit roller assy. This complicates ordering parts as I have never seen a diagram for the double exit roller type.

I have to wonder if some of these reasons are why I haven't seen a new NXP type platter system installed in New England since 1996.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-26-2004, 07:40 PM:

Mr Jones to be fair I do like the makeup table

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 01-27-2004, 08:09 AM:

I will repeat what I said earlier:

The structural make-up of the Neumade Platters that I have seen are by far more "beefed up" than other brands on the market.

Unlike other brands, the Neumade roller design is more likely to prevent accidental film damage. And neither theater has reported problems of roller-bearing equipped rollers over-spinning and dumping film on the floor.

The platter decks are unpainted metal, and seemed to be quite sturdy.

The machines were running very smoothly, and unlike other brands, they were dead-quiet...you literally could not hear them run.

The only major "down-side" that I could detect is that the Neumade is a little more complex to thread-up than other brands. This is easily solved by marking the rollers with numbered decals, which will indicate the threading path and sequence. But after threading the Neumades a few times, threading becomes second nature.

I will not comment about the electronics of these machines, as I have no experience. What I will say is that the two theatres where I have seen these machines in operation have not reported ongoing major malfunctions.

But if there are in-fact electronic issues, these can always be readdressed and redesigned.

Once again, in my opinion, the STRUCTURAL MAKE-UP of these machines is by far superior to other brands on the market.

Posted by Gregory N. Jones (Member # 805) on 01-27-2004, 10:10 AM:

Trevor, good point you bring up on the feed out plate pin. It was designed to snap off if a wrap occurred to prevent gears from stripping in the projector. In theory great idea, $.50 to replace a pin, in the real world from day-to-day operations of taking the payout head in and out weakens the pin and eventually snaps it off=annoying. We do offer hardened pins or I know a lot of techs just replace the pin with a screw. This is on the list for the redesign.

Regarding the XNR payout heads, the NXP phone socket spindle (plugs into deck arm) can be used, the only difference is the mounting holes are threaded in the old XNR design. Part number 110106110.

We had two different designs for the NXP payout head, the original design incorporated a teardrop shaped plate with a single exit roller. When polyester film came out we redesigned the head to help alleviate the problem with static build-up and brain wraps. This design had a more elliptical plate and two exit rollers, which works well with the polyester film. We do offer kits to upgrade the old style NXP heads to the new polyester style, part number POHKITP.

Gordon, thanks for the positive comment on our Make-up tables. Mark, a lot of the products you spoke of are at least 10 years old. As most of you know we had a bit of a shake up here 7 or so years ago so much has changed for the better. As John has stated if you look at any companies product, you can find fault. What I don't understand is that when there is a problem with a product, TELL THE MANUFACTURER, don't just bash it and let it be. How are we, as manufacturers, supposed to fix a problem if we don't hear about it? I'm not being sarcastic or condesending, I would just like to see a little bit more communication between the field techs and the manufacturers. I do understand that you get frustrated when you do tell and they don't do anything about it but problems don't fix themselves.

Just a brainstorm, sorry to rant guys!!

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-27-2004, 02:47 PM:

I guess the biggest beef I had with xetron was for years I worked foryour canadian rep and was always haveing to rewire something to meet CSA electrical code or be compatable with the same model that you had built a few years earlier and when we complained about it was told that was the way it is so be it and at that time working for Carbon Lorraine left us little options of who's equipment we installed so one tends to get a little shall we say jaded and skeptical with time [Smile]

The original xetron platter with the micro switch I liked but the neutronic was back then a nightmare as were the problems with the 1st solid state automations we delt with
Also the modifications that were made to cinemecanica and prevost machines that made factory original parts not fit when they required servicing long after xetron( carbons inc) no longer was the distributor

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-27-2004, 09:48 PM:

Greg,
Actually the reviews, photos, etc., I talked about were from an install I did about three years ago. Consoles, automation, if ya want to call it automation, I call it a rats nest.... Consoles miswired at the factory.... Anyway, I just pretty much stay away from even the new stuff. Yes, the platters I talked about were at least 10 years old but the retrofit kits were new and the small micros are just as crappy as the reed switches. Oh yes, and the 8 perf LF platter that went through motors, etc. The operators hated it for many reasons, the MUT was also never complete. The film keepers are nice though.

Years back when Neumade bought out Xetron the first thing I noticed was alot lighter weight construction of the lamphouses, the second thing I noticed was the smashed in corner on one of them. The pre Neumade Xetrons were definately of heavier gauge construction.

Gord,
In reality you should have worked all those hours to get CSA changed. Just think you would have been a hero of sorts in both countries!
Mark

Posted by Trevor Bailey (Member # 75) on 01-27-2004, 10:29 PM:

Thanks for the feedback Gregory...something that is often lacking in our industry.

To clarify, using the NXP spindle in the XNR...you would advocate tapping the holes to make it compatible with XNR f.p.? Is this something others have done? I have one customer with three XNR 5-tiers, so I don't want to get into re-inventing the wheel. But if that has worked for others...

I often use screws or nails as pins but they don't seem to hold up for very long. It doesn't help that many theater workers spin the plates as they insert them to "get it lined up". Talk about frustration...try convincing someone who doesn't care about their job, to do a task differently, or with more care!

I just rebuilt two XNR feed plates this morning...pins (nails) and switches!