Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Max. film capacity on Super Platter?

This is topic Max. film capacity on Super Platter? 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=007082

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-06-2005, 02:12 PM:

Subject says it. Does anyone have an exact figure for the film capacity of the non-standard decks on the much-reviled CFS Super Platter?

Ideally, I'd like numbers for both acetate- and polyester-base film, as I will be running both types. The platter in question has a note on it that implies that "210 minutes" is the maximum capacity, but it isn't clear whether that applies to acetate or polyester or whether the "210 minutes" figure was actually correct in the first place.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-06-2005, 07:25 PM:

Interesting. Didn't know that "CrappyPlatters" held only 210 minutes of film. I thought the decks were the same size "55 inches" as with the Strong platters, which holds 300 minutes of film (acetate rate).

Unless, you have a "MiniCrappy" 42 inch diameter deck, then I can see the 210 minutes (acetate rate). I would add at least 4 percent for "poly" film to the total to be safe.

-Monte

Posted by John A. Parker Jr. (Member # 1719) on 04-06-2005, 07:37 PM:

I have put 10 reels of poly on mine with room to spare.
John A. Parker Jr.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-06-2005, 07:56 PM:

Anybody who ran "Gods and Generals" -the edited version-knows how much that 18 reel monstrosity filled their decks up. Came to almost 3inches from the end of the deck. I had to use a chunk of film to wrap around the edge of that roll, with the ends tied together with a clothespin, so the end of that monstrosity wouldn't flail loose.

-Monte

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-06-2005, 08:29 PM:

Just to be on the safe side and not be held liable for film damage I will say 0 feet [Big Grin]

.

Mark

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 04-07-2005, 01:59 AM:

Branaugh's 'Hamlet' (polyester) fit on a standard Super (48" decks) with about 1/2" of space on the edge.

'Das Boot: The Director's Cut' (acetate) which was half an hour shorter than 'Hamlet' took up almost the exact same space.

FWIW, there were a few Supers made with 52" (same as Strong and Christie) decks.

-Aaron

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-07-2005, 11:33 AM:

You can calculate it yourself for any reel or platter. 35mm triacetate print film had a nominal base thickness of 0.0056 inches (142 microns). Kodak VISION Color Print Film (ESTAR) base has a nominal thickness of 0.0047 inches (119 microns). Print film emulsion thickness is about 0.0006 inches (15 microns).
The roll diameter can be calculated from the following equation:

D = Squareroot [ ( (48 x L x t) / Pi) + (C x C) ]

Where:
D is roll diameter in inches
L is length of film roll in feet
t is film thickness in inches (about 0.0053 for Kodak VISION Color Print film on ESTAR base)
C is core/hub diameter in inches
Pi is 3.14159...

So for a shipping reel with a 4-inch core, and a film thickness of 0.0053 inches, 2000 feet of film will have the following diameter:

D = Squareroot [ ( (48 x 2000 x 0.0053) / Pi) + (4 x 4) ]

= 13.3 inches

Posted by Joshua Waaland (Member # 287) on 04-08-2005, 08:12 PM:

The maximum film capacity of a Super Platter should never exceed 1 frame of film. I got that right from their manual. Honest. [evil]

Posted by Peter Mork (Member # 1336) on 04-08-2005, 11:26 PM:

To all you Super Platter bashers: get over it. God loves all platters equally. I have done well by them; never had one throw a print. I've yet to see a platter design that didn't have flaws. A true professional knows how do the job with the tools provided. So quit bellyachin'. End of lecture.

Hey Scott, you must be running at Foxboro, funky but chic.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-08-2005, 11:36 PM:

Yes, Foxboro is doing a Monty Python festival this weekend. I still don't trust the bottom deck on that platter, so I'm juggling four prints with two usable decks. Fun! I ended up not needing to double-up two features on one deck, however.

That is the only Super Platter which I have ever used; I dearly hate the thing, but I haven't really had any issues with it.

Posted by Joshua Waaland (Member # 287) on 04-10-2005, 02:00 PM:

Peter,

Never said it didn't get the job done. Given the quality of it though I would have rather used an old hubcap for a platter than that sub-par piece of equipment. A true professional would just buy the right equipment the first time. [uhoh]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-10-2005, 07:42 PM:

quote: Joshua Waaland
A true professional would just buy the right equipment the first time.

...and when the StupidSupers came out, it makes one wonder if these were in that catagory, being released in the late 80's to the early 90's.

Shoot, Strong AP-3's didn't come out until a few years later, and that was a major improvement over the earlier Alpha A-3's.

Still, even the AW'2s wound circles around the StupidSupers. Then the Aw3's sent them to a watery grave.

-Monte

Posted by Peter Mork (Member # 1336) on 04-10-2005, 09:18 PM:

Seriously folks: time to hang it up. Most of us booth dogs don't get to choose what equipment we work with. My Supers were old when I got here, 18 years ago, and they still do the job reliably. I made a few custom modifications to fix the things I didn't like about them, as I have with my Specos and Christies. I guess if it makes you feel better to publicly vent, fine. But I won't join the lynch mob.