This is topic The best 35mm projector 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=008203

---

Posted by Gunnar Asgeirsson (Member # 3882) on 08-16-2006, 04:53 PM:
 
I was wondering.. Is any type of projector´s better than other. If i would like to upgrade the cinema i work in and bou a new projectors what sute i buy? Now i have Cinemeccanica Vic5, very nice projectors.

Belive it or not, here in Iceland we have nowere Christie prjoectors. All cinema in reykjavik city have Cinemeccanica exept 4 hall´s in one cinema.

Is Christie any better than Cinemeccanica, i love Cinemeccanica and sometimes i would like to go to Milano Italy and visit the company.
 

---

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 08-16-2006, 05:10 PM:
 
I like Christies. I think their easy to work on. I don't think you'll get many people here agreeing that they are great projectors, but personally, I like them.
 

---

Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 08-16-2006, 05:29 PM:
 
'Best' projector really depends on where you are coming from. Are you looking at cost per hour to run. Are you looking at ease of maintenance. Or are you looking at the end result, picture on screen. etc etc.

There are many angles that you can approach such a question.

I would agree with you that currently the vic 5 is possibly the best all round soultion. It has very simple user maintenance and servicing. You can easily change every part of the projector with very little expertise.

The Cinemeccanica approach is very belt and braces with little or no advanced electronics in the projector control system.

Compare it with Kinoton systems, which are very advanced electronically on the newer system. The consumable parts are generally very expensive and do not have the same operating life as Cinemeccanica parts which are all metal.

Then you have the Century projectors, which are hibreds of earlier projectors, nothing really new in the projector world.

I would be more inclined to Cinemeccanica in all their guises. Basic electro mechanical in design and robust. Possibly not the 'very best' in all aspects of performance but very forgiving and robust.

But hey, others will argue equally in favour of their particular projector..... and who's really to say at the end of the day who is right.... or wrong!
 

---

Posted by Paer Hoegberg (Member # 3133) on 08-16-2006, 05:30 PM:
 
My first choice: Kinoton.
 

---

Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 08-16-2006, 05:41 PM:
 
Ok I'll vote...

1st Cinemeccanica Vic 4, 5, 8 & 9
Joint 2nd BTH with rotary stabalised sound head
Joint 2nd Kalee 18, 19 & 20 with projectomatic model 'O' and Drum versions
Joint 2nd FP20 but NOT the electronic dependant releatives.
3rd Westar (Century)

The Westar/Century loses out for the fact you could not easily change the intermittent sporket on earlier versions and they tended to be vey noisy in my experience.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-16-2006, 10:17 PM:
 
Oh, the Kinoton FP30D or PK60D (column versus just a head) are simply the cheapest and best machines to own and maintain. They have the best presentation too.

The main wearable in them are the skates/runner strips...whcih means that every year or two you essentially get a new gate for well under $100. Without a doubt, you will spend more on keeping an Cinemeccanica going. One Cinemeccanica shutter box failure and you could have bought decades worth of Kinoton wearables.

BTW...Kinoton does make metal runner strips and they also have a hard skate...but I prefer the delrin.

I have PK60Ds in service that have spent virtually nothing on them in 10,000 hours except one new skate (Film Guard makes them last very long).
 

---

Posted by Nick Scott (Member # 2850) on 08-16-2006, 10:30 PM:
 
Im with Steve here FP 30D or FP 50D are my favorites. I havent used a PK 60D. The FPs are so easy to run and maintain,and its a pleasure working on them.
 

---

Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 08-17-2006, 02:36 AM:
 
I've had some bad experiences with FP20's and did find them expensive to run. Vic's on the other hand have, without exception, been reliable and cheap to run.

The shutter gearbox problem with the vic 5 has pretty much been sorted in recent years especially if you have slow start motors that don't start at gut wrenching speeds.

It's all down to how people use, or abuse, a projector. I found Cinemeccanica to be more forgiving than Kinoton. None the less both are excellent projectors depending on your individual needs and preferences.
 

---

Posted by Marin Zorica (Member # 1716) on 08-17-2006, 08:50 AM:
 
I also love Kinoton machines, but indeed their electronic is expensive and more complex than other machines!

But if You're Vic 5 running good and if they are in good conmdition (or need repair to be) why you would change it?

Cinemeccanica's are very good machines, I love them also expecialy Vic 8r I worked lot, because is so quiet.....

I don't like Christies due some expensive parts and often You must wait a long for them, I dont say this for US or other country, but in Country where You haven't Christie distributor You may wait a while to get part....
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-17-2006, 09:22 AM:
 
I have operated the following machines:

Simplex (Super, X-L, PR-1014, PR-2000)
Century (C, SA/MSA, JJ)
Cinemeccanica (V5)
Kinoton (FP-30D, PK-60D)
...maybe some others that I can't think of right now...

If you had asked me a year ago, I would have said that Centurys were my favorite. After spending some time with a pair of PK-60s, though, I would say that the current generation of Kinotons would get my vote now. The picture is just so much better than any other projector and everything that I didn't like about the older FP30s seems to have been fixed now (stuff like switching the lamp with the motor, "sticky" picture changeovers, etc.).

I never liked the V5, personally. I'm not a fan of the belt-drive concept and the whole thing just felt flimsy. I didn't like the picture, either.

I still like the simplicity of the Century design, but if I owned a theatre and were buying new equipment, I can't imagine going with anything other than Kinoton heads.
 

---

Posted by Marin Zorica (Member # 1716) on 08-17-2006, 10:19 AM:
 
Anybody use Meopta MEO5?

That gonna give You a big problems!
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 08-17-2006, 11:08 AM:
 
I consider Meopta 5 the worst projector (excluding some primitively designed 35mm portable machines).
IIRC, it is impossible to change lenses and formats without having to readjust focus. Even slightly warped or shrunken prints were big trouble to keep in focus, image steadiness was below average.

This summer I have seen two open air screenings using Meopta 5, both with terrible registration and endless focus problems. IMHO the only reason to get a Meopta is that you have no money even for a decent 30 year old projector.

That said, I would like to praise Meopta for the photo lab equipment they made over the years, very sturdy, well designed and reliable stuff that I still use now and then for medium format enlarging.
 

---

Posted by Gunnar Asgeirsson (Member # 3882) on 08-17-2006, 11:16 AM:
 
"Marin Zorica wrote
But if You're Vic 5 running good and if they are in good conmdition (or need repair to be) why you would change it?"

I dont want to change.. I love these macine so much and the are never whit problems. I was just wondering what people think:D

I think the best machine ever would be Cinemeccanica Vic5 CC7040H.
I would like to change from orginal Vic5 to Vic5 CC7040H:D Then i can control the macine by PC computer and dont need Eprad Ultimation
 

---

Posted by Ian Woloschin (Member # 3709) on 08-17-2006, 08:01 PM:
 

quote:

---

IMHO the only reason to get a Meopta is that you have no money even for a decent 30 year old projector. [Mad]

---

quote: Christian Appelt

---

This summer I have seen two open air screenings using Meopta 5, both with terrible registration and endless focus problems. IMHO the only reason to get a Meopta is that you have no money even for a decent 30 year old projector.

---

Yes, also picture problems, and focus...they have curved gates...but mine Iskra NP-21 which is made in 1958 and have normal gates got better picture steadiness and focus than that!

Also is it Meopta that cheap? I know it was half of price than Kinoton or Ernemann?
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 08-19-2006, 01:22 AM:
 
Naturally, everything comes down to a matter of opinion and personal preference, but I feel I can say, without reservation, that the best 35mm projector ever made was the:

DeVry Suitcase.
 

---

Posted by Tim Asten (Member # 4051) on 11-10-2006, 07:23 AM:
 
Hi Everybody,I am new to the forums.I am a projectionist in a 15 screen multiplex in West sussex,England.(Cineworld).There seems to be quite a love affair with Kinoton projectors on this site.Well we have a love/hate relationship with our 15 Kinoton FP40 machines.We have had problems with every single one of them although they may have inproved since we have had them. (They were installed 1998).Its not the mechanics-in this area they are quite good-its the electronics.As everybody that works with them will know,the turrets and aperture changers have mini computers with numerous infra-red sensors.they need constant ajustment for them to work properly.In some cases we've had to disconnect the aperture changers completely and leave them in scope position and mask of the ports with card.As i said though,mechanically they are good.They are easy to lace,gentle on the film,and put out a steady image.however i do take issue with the sound head design which i think is poor.In my opinion the sound drum is way to small which needs a pressure roller with two tiny rubber'o'rings to push the film against the drum.the pressure of this roller is critical because to much and the film rides up the roller,even a dodgy join can make it do this.Not enough pressure causes the sound to wow and flutter badly.Only yesterday we had to cancel a show due to this problem.we stipped down the pressure roller assembly and rebuilt it.It turned out that the spring loaded shaft needed a drop of oil on it.It seems ok now.We are also now having issues with the inverter drive which is making the machine stop in the middle of a film for no reason.Our techs are hopefully coming down soon to try and sort out these problems..So you can see the newer Kinoton machines are not exactly'nearly maintenance free'.When i was training a few years ago I worked on 70 mm VIC 8's which i thought were great.they were simple and reliable,with a good sound head design with a large sound drum where the film sits in channel-rock solid.Anyway sorry to waffle on.I would love to hear your comments.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-10-2006, 07:50 AM:
 
The Vic 8 as well as all of the other Vics are well noted for their out-of-round drums and shafts...I'm sure playing a 1KHz tone on them is where Dolby got the idea of the Dolby tone warble!

As to the Kinotons....I can't speak to the turrets as I don't generally sell or use them and if we do, they were manual ones and would not exhibit the problems you describe (and I have heard similar reports from others).

You are very much mistaken on their soundheads though...they are probably the best out there right now. The pressure on the pinch roller is not as critical as you make it out...there are other factors at play that probably have not been addressed. First off, there is a stop on the pinch roler arm...this should prevent the pinch roller from compressing the o-ring excessively. A common problem I've found is the bearings need to be cleaned/lubricated...Kinoton uses open bearings for some odd reason. Another but related issue is the collar on the sound drum shaft is applying excessive pressure to the bearings. Prop the pinch roller off the drum, remove the drum flywheel and then spin the drum shaft. It should turn free and not feel like it is binding anywhere. If it does have a hint of binding, loosen the coller and see if that frees it up...if it does then find the point where there is no binding on the shaft but it has no lateral play either...reassemble and all will work phenominally well.

As for the inverters...I have not had any issues but they can certainly fail like all electronics.

While Kinotons are not maintainence free...they are the closest thing to it at the moment (auto turrets aside).
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 11-10-2006, 09:56 AM:
 
On the Vic's with "fixed channel" design, warble is present if end bells are switched between machines, mating surfaces not clean, screws not seated, faulty "brute force" pressure roller all contribute.....I have installed and serviced more than my share
 

---

Posted by Tim Asten (Member # 4051) on 11-10-2006, 11:19 AM:
 
In the cinema where I first received training,we had three screens with twin 35/70mm Vic 8's in each,except in one screen were we had twin Vic 4's.I believe it was one of the first cinemas in the UK to have platters(philips,now Kinoton of course)but the Vics as far as I can remember ran without fault apart from minor oil leaks here and there.We had CP50 processors in two screens and only mono in the screen with the Vic 4's.I remember the Chief setting dolby levels but i dont remember any warbling or any sound issues at all.I remember one time when the outer bell on the drum got knocked on one machine and was miss-aligned,but we ran the other machine till a tech came and re-aligned it.Mind you this was in the eighties where there were only ever 3 shows a day and they did'nt take the hammering the machines in modern multiplex's do.Also I was only paid as an usher at the time and had to train in my spare time,so I was'nt in the booth all the time and there may have been more problems that I was'nt aware off.The best thing that I remember from that cinema was being shown how to run 70mm on change overs.We used to have friday night late shows where we ran films like Pink Floyd-The Wall,Poltergeist,Brainstorm(remember that?).It's something newer projectionists will probably never experience.The multiplex I now work at is just not the same .
 

---

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 11-10-2006, 03:19 PM:
 
Point of view.
Favourite all time projector Cinemeccanica V5, I grew up with these babies and maybe that is why I am so attached to them. I know every inside out on them. Then comes Kinoton projectors. I have only experienced the FP30E version and it has great results. The most amazing thing on these projectors is the light output they give even in 1600W bulbs. The most common undying projector is the V4 which was one of the most reliable projector of all time and we have several in Cyprus giving great shows in festivals, summer open air cinemas, and even town cinemas. I would love to see a new version of the V4 to match the new A series of the Kinoton range. Kinotons are by far the best, as long as they work! Cinemeccanicas though will never ever let you down unless you are a real idiot and don't keep the minor maintenance schedule you are supposed to. The main "fight" in Europe is between the V5s and the Kinotons FP30E or D projectors. Its a matter of choice really. Both are EXCELLENT choices so it's up to you. I personally wouldn't though go changing the V5 projectors with new V5s or Kinoton. Juct change the main parts to refurbish them (shutter box & intermittent block), perhaps a new sound bell and new sprockets and you don't need anything else. That is my personal opinion.
Best Regards
Demetris
 

---

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 11-11-2006, 02:21 PM:
 

quote: Ken McFall

---

Ok I'll vote...

1st Cinemeccanica Vic 4, 5, 8 & 9
Joint 2nd BTH with rotary stabalised sound head...

---

I did my training on the BTH model KB projector, so it was my favourite for sometime. For an open machine they ran very quietly, film absolutely purred through, as the fibre front gate runners were always left soaked in oil overnight. Super Simplex and Philips (Kinoton) FP20 also DP70, later became my favourite projectors.

Most worked on projector was the ever reliable workhorse Westar 2001 single and double shutter with water cooled gate. Present relief projection: Century with turrets and Christie AW3 platters.
 

---

Posted by Jarrad Salmon (Member # 3818) on 11-17-2006, 05:30 PM:
 
Hi Gunnar,

I have worked on the Cinemeccanica Vic5's and to be honest with you I think they are very reliable. Very easy to maintain and repair if needed.

I have also worked on the Kinoton FP30D and also the electronic intermittent model(I think it is the FP30E), and find these projectors fantastic also.

However in your post you mentioned that most cinemas near you have Cinemeccanica projectors. Maybe it is my being an Australian and therefore geographically distant from supply... but I'd stay with the Cinemeccanica for the extra availability of parts and qualified operators.

There is nothing wrong with a Cinemeccanica.
 

---

Posted by Gilles Elbhar (Member # 3719) on 12-19-2006, 01:20 PM:
 
I have work with V4, V5, V8, V9, DP70, DP75, FP20, FP30, FP30E, FP30D,... Old or new; I never find one projector was better another. Depanding from the maintenance !!!
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-19-2006, 06:24 PM:
 
I can agree totally with above on the Cinemeccanica's since I've worked with V5's and V8r's - esp the V8r's in which I totally enjoy working with.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 12-19-2006, 07:31 PM:
 
Monte, you need a kitty litter box for that oil slick under that machine
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-19-2006, 10:14 PM:
 
Yea, we did that along with sealing up a lot of those oily 'runny noses' from this one machine - this pic was taken over 15yrs ago with I started here. Since then, in 2001, these units were pulled out of this theatre and were sold off when the theatre was closed down. But, sure did enjoy running these V8r (V-18) units.
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 12-20-2006, 01:20 AM:
 
The cinema I work in has 2 x vic 18's (its a twin) complete with the oil on the floor
 

---

Posted by Floyd Justin Newton (Member # 1316) on 12-20-2006, 08:15 AM:
 
At the orignal Cine Capri in Phoenix I had two JJ2s which
didn't leak oil at all....period.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-20-2006, 07:44 PM:
 

quote: Floyd Justin Newton

---

I had two JJ2s which
didn't leak oil at all....period.

---

They musta been rebuilt by Louis "no leak" Bornwasser.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Floyd Justin Newton (Member # 1316) on 12-20-2006, 08:37 PM:
 
Nope....they were maintained and operated by professional
projectionists.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-21-2006, 09:21 AM:
 
In the pre_Ultra lens era, I aligned and cut plates for that theatre. (Cine Capri). Flat originally was oval with no corners. Scope was little better. This was about 1976. When I left, you no longer had to move the projector up/down, etc. between formats. The machines were excellent even then. They were the best Centurys I had ever seen at the time, so I KNEW it was possible for them to be really good.

I never worked on the mechanics, though. Nice older gentleman operator was probebly 80 or so in 1976. Louis
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-21-2006, 09:33 AM:
 
Are there any limitations as to which brands of lens systems can be installed on these various makes of projectors? It would seem the type of lens system being used is just as critical (if not more so) than the make of the projector head.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-21-2006, 10:02 AM:
 
Certain machines have issues with lens sliding far enough in to focus or vigneting on the mount
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-21-2006, 03:19 PM:
 
In general anything with a 4" mount is OK (Old Westars, any Century C, and any projector with a recessed lens like Kinotons may well have problems) Problems usually are limited to shorter focal lengths. Louis
 

---

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 12-22-2006, 04:02 AM:
 
The early Simplexes (Standards, Supers and E-7s) were all wonderful machines that, when run by a professional projectionist put some of the best pictures on the screen!

Unfortunately the early Simplexes did not use bronze bushings on the sprocket shafts. So you had precision ground shafts running directly against the cast-iron mainframe casting. I have serviced several early Simplexes where those shafts have been madly scored and worn. However, you can use an India stone to clean off any burrs, clean-up the main frame casting, reassemble and they'll still run like champs with minimal slop between the shafts and casting! A real testemant the the quality of manufacture in those bygone days!

Also with the early Simplexes was the ability to fine-tune shutter ghosting while the machine was operating.

The main complaints that I had about those early Simplexes is that they could be difficult to clean and they were "cramped" as compared to a Century. Also with the early Simplexes if one needed to replace a intermittent sprocket then one had to open-up the intermittent and pull the star/sprocket shaft.

But like I said, in the hands of a professional projectionist, what wonderful machines!

Centurys are simple, spacious and built like a tank.

Bevan Wright is very customer orinetated and a first-class gentleman. I spent a substantial amount of time on the telephone with him ironing out and resolving customer problems when I was regularily doing independant tech-work, as well as when I was working as a projectionist for a particular theatre chain. I am not sure of the full extent of Bevan's involvement with the development of the Christie P35 GP projector. But my hats off to Bevan for really going all out to resolve the many problems that pleagued this machine.

Kutler
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-22-2006, 06:39 AM:
 

quote: Will Kutler

---

Also with the early Simplexes was the ability to fine-tune shutter ghosting while the machine was operating.

---

quote: Will Kutler

---

Unfortunately the early Simplexes did not use bronze bushings on the sprocket shafts. So you had precision ground shafts running directly against the cast-iron mainframe casting.

---

Will,

Why would you say "Unfortunately"? In fact cast iron is one of the very best bearing materials around. Steel shafts in cast iron are capable of many times more service life than bronze is. It is the simple main reason why so many of these projectors are still running today. Worn shaft bores were no problem in the old days where that out of round bore was reamed out and an oversized shaft installed and the projector returned to service for another 20 years of use. Later Simplex's and the later LaVezzi "upgrade kits" for the Super utilized shafts that were secured in the existing rotating shaft bores but the gears that rotated on the new fixed shafts were cast iron.... I'm glad they didn't use bronze or they'd all have dissappeared a long time ago!
 

---

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 12-22-2006, 08:56 AM:
 
Even the newest Century projectors have shutter adjustment that can be set with the machine projecting. You have to watch your fingers as it's behind the back cover though. From what I've heard the front knob was removed as "booth ushers" were turning it by mistake so it was decided to make the adjustment internal.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-22-2006, 09:46 AM:
 
Dave: the latest Centurys have a fixed shutter bracket with no adjustment possible. This is OK by me as they are very stable unless broken. Louis
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-22-2006, 09:57 AM:
 
That's too bad. I liked having the fine adjustment capability. Especially today, since I've been having difficulty seeing up-close in my old age.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-22-2006, 01:43 PM:
 

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Steel shafts in cast iron are capable of many times more service life than bronze is.

---

quote: Will Kutler

---

It would have been interesting to test the service life and performance of oil-lite bearings on these machines.

---

They didn't have to worry about lean manufacturing back then, they just did things the right way instead! I've never been at all impressed by the service life of any oilite bushings in anything that I've had to work with over the years. The oil always seems to evaporate out sometimes even before the actual bishing is at the end of its life from a wear standpoint. Most intermittent movements use an outboard oilite bushing and an inner cast iron bushing... the cast iron inner bushings always outlasts the oilite outer bushing. another good example of a no wear cast iron/steel assembly are the sprocket assemblies in the DP-70 which show no wear al all after 50 years of use. I think if given the chance the DP-70 mechanism could easily do 100 years of failtless service with normal film path and electrical replacements. So absolutely, I'd take steel running in cast iron any day over brass, bronze or oilite.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Nathan Powers (Member # 3715) on 12-23-2006, 11:25 AM:
 
Best 35mm Projector I Have Ever Used... Prevost P93 ! Most Stable Picture I've Ever Seen, Very Solid Construction, Easy To Repair And Rebuild....Unless You Have A Cinema Tech That Decides Century Oil Is A Good Idea For It...Then You Have A Problem. The 35/70mm Combo Is A Nice One As Well...But A Little Big!
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-23-2006, 12:03 PM:
 
Which P93 do you have? There are three different versions I know of starting about 25 years ago and they still use the model number on current production but is is a very different machine.

I made a red reader for the earliest ones imported to the US.
 

---

Posted by Nathan Powers (Member # 3715) on 12-23-2006, 12:15 PM:
 
I owned 4 Prevosts that were rescued from a dumpster 3 P93's from the 1960's/70's era...with the 120v motors (converted, they originally had 3 phase)...im not sure which version they were. One of them actually went to someone who was prototyping an LED reader... maybe it was you! two other ones went to a struggling small cinema in columbia, they were in dire need of new equipment, and the other one was a P70...the the 35mm/70mm combo that went to some educational institution. I wish I still had them, very very good projectors id trade in a century any day for one of those. The owner of the Prevost company is actually very helpful and awsome to work with, excelent customer support...even if the parts take 30 years to get here...
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-23-2006, 03:13 PM:
 
There are two P-93's that are at least 25 years old running at a twin in Winnemucca, NV that I maintain. They both have Sam's readrs installed on them and unbelievably both have very good scanning drums... no out of round drums. These machines have run faultless except for the crappy turret rotate motor they use. They have gone through at least two per machine. Other than that no problems what so ever.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 12-23-2006, 08:22 PM:
 
Hi Mark

I would suggest that you open up your copy of "The Machinery's Handbook". Under the chapter "Machine Elements" is an entire section covering "Plain Bearing Materials".

There are 7 key properties of bearing materials:
1: Fatigue resistance
2: Embeddability: the ability of the bearing material to
absorb or embed within itself large or small dirt
particles present in a lubrication system. Poor
Embeddability means that circulating dirt will score
both the bearing and the journal shaft. Good
embeddability means that the bearing material will
entrap this dirt and force it into the bearing material
out f the way where it will do no harm.
3: Compatibility or anti-scoring tendencies
4: Confrmability: malleability and of the bearing material to
conform to the journal shaft during run-in/break-in.
5: High thermal conductivity
6: Corrosion resistance
7: Load capacity or strength

Cast Iron "is an inexpensive bearing material capable of operation at light loads and low speeds, i.e. up to 130 ft/min and and 150 lb/in squared. These bearings must be well lubricated and have a rather large clearance so as to avoid scoring from particles torn from the cast iron that ride between the bearing and journal. A journal hardness of between 150 and 250 Brinell has been found to be best when using cast-iron bearings." In other words, cast iron has poor embeddability and campatibility properties.

Mark, you are also uneducated about oil-lite bearings:

Porous Metals: "self-lubricating bearings are usually made by sintering metals such as plain or leaded bronze, iron, and stainless steel. The sintering produces a spongelike structure capable of absorbing fairly large quantities of oil, usually 10-35 percent of the total volume. These bearings are used where lubrication supply is difficult, inadequate, or infrequent. This type of bearing should be flodded from time to time to resaturate the material. Another use of these porous materials is to meter a small quantity of oil into the bearings such as in a drip feed system." See table 13 for Application limits

So Mark, the reason that oil-lit bearings have failed you is due to improper useage.

Also Mark, your comment regardin Lean Manufacturing makes no sense??? Lean concepts are critical in todays manufacturing world. It all comes down to waste elimination and the optimum utilization of resourcs. Lean is a culture that includes everyone employeed within the manufacturing enterprise.

Regards

Kutler
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-23-2006, 10:53 PM:
 
Lean or Just-In-Time manufacturing rely on parts getting to the assembly line in the nick of time. If anything is off, the customer gets his stuff late. The idea is to just have minimum inventory, finished and unfinished, on hand and is some bean counter's dream.

It's an admirable goal but it also totally relies on a perfect forecast by marketing. In the normal US business model, the Manufacturing department "owns", and is thus, penalized for excess inventory even though they don't do the forecast. This all leads to turf battles within companies and eventually to building to order instead of having something on the shelf for peak demand times.

In our short sighted cinema world, it sucks.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-24-2006, 02:37 AM:
 
...prob why you ever noticed that any of the Simplex units have manufacture dates on their products - like Jack-in-the-Box: cook (manufactured) to order..

Yea, inventory sitting on the shelves like like money sitting there: doing nothing and wasting away when it could be used for something else more constructive.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-24-2006, 07:31 AM:
 

quote:

---

They didn't have to worry about lean manufacturing back then, they just did things the right way instead!

---

quote:

---

Mark, you are also uneducated about oil-lite bearings:

---

quote: Sam Chavez

---

Just-In-Time manufacturing rely on parts getting to the assembly line in the nick of time. If anything is off, the customer gets his stuff late.

---

quote: Will Kutler

---

both Mark and Sam have proven their lack of understanding regarding Lean Manufacturing Concepts...

JIT is a philosophy based on the planned elimination of non-value added waste from all aspects of manufacturing

---

You give a very good and detailed explanation, Will. I got the impression, though, that Sam essentially said the same thing. I mean, you both arrived at the same place, he just got there quicker.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-24-2006, 03:34 PM:
 

quote: Tim Reed

---

You give a very good and detailed explanation

---

Actually Tim,

He still failed to explain why the cast iron bushings last far longer then his beloved Oilite bushings .

Mark
 

---

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 12-24-2006, 03:42 PM:
 
Tim,

In Lean Manufacturing you have both "pull" and "push" philosophies.

Pull processing: products are pulled from the consumer end, not pushed from the production end.

And as I stated, Lean is much more in depth than Sam's explination.

Mark is going to have to explain his statement of Lean not working in the real world! And he needs to explain his statement very well. After all, the Japanese embraced Lean concepts in the post WWII era and ended up kicking America's ass in manufacturing. In order to be successful, Lean has to be accepted as a work-place culture. And American business just does not "get it".

Lean embraces both the manufacturing and service sectors.

In our disfunctional cinema exhibition industry, the lack of Lean concepts are a perfect explaination of everything that we acknowledge as "Film Done Wrong".

And Mark

In all product manufacture the bearing is supposed to take the brunt of the abuse. In the various Simplex models, it is usually the expensive shaft that gets scored and damaged. So now you need to worry about producing and stocking oversized shafts and parts. Would it not be better to replace a $1.50 oil-lite bearing every 20 years instead of that $50-$60 shaft?
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 12-24-2006, 03:59 PM:
 
Japan was an easy role model after WW2 to implement lean manufacturing due to rising from the ashes and a very homogenious population.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-24-2006, 04:22 PM:
 

quote: Richard Fowler

---

Japan was an easy role model after WW2 to implement lean manufacturing due to rising from the ashes and a very homogenious population

---

quote:

---

Mark is going to have to explain his statement of Lean not working in the real world!

---

quote: Will Kutler

---

And Mark

In all product manufacture the bearing is supposed to take the brunt of the abuse. In the various Simplex models, it is usually the expensive shaft that gets scored and damaged. So now you need to worry about producing and stocking oversized shafts and parts. Would it not be better to replace a $1.50 oil-lite bearing every 20 years instead of that $50-$60 shaft?

---

quote: Richard Fowler

---

double shutters allow more even illuminated image time on the screen

---

Thanks ... that's pretty much what I miserably failed to convey. By pull-down cycle, I meant the time from fully-dark to fully-open again.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-29-2006, 06:31 PM:
 

quote: Louis Bornwasser

---

"which problem do you want?"

---

I'll have to remember that one.
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 12-29-2006, 07:06 PM:
 

quote: Will Kutler

---

Many decades ago products were made to last, and consumers kept their products for many years.

In the automotive industry Detroit would gradually release technology over a period of many years. With any product patent protection and having the competition reverse-engineer your product was an ever-existant problem.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

The single-wing shutter is generally the best at any given size. It has even illumination and due to its speed being twice as fast as a conventional shutter, it offers all of the benefits of a double shutter but none of its shortcomings.

---

quote: Louis Bornwasser

---

Wonder why no one has used a pair of single wing shutters at 2880?

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

The Simplex has a better chance of going with a double speed blade than Century

---

I disagree. Not until the movement is redesigned(or the compensator to allow for better shock absorbtion) to allow for larger fibre gears. The slightest oscillation in the shutter would result in an arguement with the "fusable link" G-1836 gear. Had the Century been an oil bath machine and equipped with a conical shutter they'd have really had something there.

Christie has done more homework on their "Gear Train" and has switched to both composite teflon coated pulleys (and composite curved runners) as well as round tooth timming belts that are much larger than the old square tooth stuff.n To me the Christie still represents the most bang for the buck in U.S. made pojectors.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-02-2007, 08:52 AM:
 
You can disagree all you want...you'd still be wrong.

Christie HAD to do more homework...look at where they started from...the P35 was a belt drive system gone mad. Most everything they have done has been in response to their original lacking design.

The Century gear train...in an oil bath...would still be a miserable design. It works despite itself but still with significantly higher failures in their gears (shutter, main drive...even intermittent drive) than other designs. An oil bath would help but it wouldn't overcome bad design.

The Simplex has the best chance at a single shutter redesign.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-02-2007, 03:10 PM:
 
Humm, I don't remember saying the Christie was the best.... only that it gave the best bang for the buck. Of course they had to redesign again... and they will be redesigning it untill the end of film. Even the older Christies continue to give more reliable service over other American made projectors in todays typical booth that is run by monkeys. The Christie sound head in the later models consistantly gives better W&F specs than either the Century or 5 star are capable of. The P35GP models... well, I won't mention how many percent it actually is.... .

quote: Steve Guttag

---

The Simplex has the best chance at a single shutter redesign.

---

Actually I think you misread my post. We do indeed both agree that the Simplex would need to be re-designed for a single blade shutter to happen... You said it yourself. A century in an oil bath would still be a great idea... anything to make it more reliable and worthy.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-02-2007, 03:18 PM:
 
I know that Steve and Mark aren't terribly fond of the Century design, but do the gears really fail that often when they are kept lubricated? I've never seen a stripped gear, nor have I heard of it happening in the recent past at any of the theatres where I have worked. The machines in question date from the 1940s through the 1970s.

I guess what I'm asking is whether the Century is really that much less reliable than an X-L/PR1014, assuming that both are properly maintained. So, is it? Or is the X-L/PR1014 just better under "real world" circumstances where maintenance is poor?
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-02-2007, 03:27 PM:
 
Actually Scott I am very fond of the Century projector. Used them on close to 40 dailies jobs myself and other portable units I built for customers using Century machines have seen duty on another 200 or so features. Also built the VistaVision projector out of a 4" Century C model and it runs flawlessly.... and doesn't scratch film like most other VV maachines do.

In the future Steve needs to state more than "I am just Wrong" or we can assume that he is merely speculating that I am wrong. I guess I can say that Steve wears pink underwear too but both statements are of course just hearsay. Let him explain why I am wrong via calculations. Of course we could do gear tooth stress calculations on the G-1836 but the teeth are so miniscule and weak that it would be a waste of time. So it is all just speculation about the X-L being able to run a double speed shutter. In relaity the X-L and Century gear trains are similar... both use orthagonal gearing, one with a fine tooth pitch and one with a corse tooth pitch. Both projector designs have gear pairs where the larger gear is turning a smaller gear... thats the bad aspect. What it all really boils down to is the truth that U.S. projector manufacturers just don't produce anything that is really all that good any more. Give me a good ole Super any day!

For me its been about 50/50 in reliability between Simplex and Century assuming both are properly maintained, we service about an equal amount of both. X-L's will suffer broken pad roller latch pins and gate/trap problems with the large asortment of gates and traps they conured up for it. Centurys will go through an occasional main drive gear or seized bearing. Both have their unique problems and good points. Neither will survive well if "let go". On the other hand the latest version of the Christie if let go keeps on running just fine till the shutter belt breaks. How long that takes depends on nnumber hours running time and how good of condition the pulleys are in. The new composition gears and belts for the Christie are supposed to afford a 5 year life span for the belts. We have Cine X-35's with belts that are just at 3 years old now so I think 5 years is believable.

That all said the DP-70 is still the best built most relaible projector ever made and with the lowest maintainance cost.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-02-2007, 04:36 PM:
 
Ya know Mark, I don't know who's more of a BRUTE... you or Adam!
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-02-2007, 05:06 PM:
 
Naw Phil.... Actually you are the real BRUTE!

Mark
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-02-2007, 05:16 PM:
 
Scott, The Century failure rate seems about 10:1 given similar operators. Main drives and shutter gear failures are quite common. I'll address Mark's wrongness later.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 01-02-2007, 05:24 PM:
 
Century "troubles" are mostly related to the extremely bad gears made by Wolk, ORC and LaVezzi during a certain period in the late 80's and early 90's. If older they are workhorses and if later can be extremely reliable with only a little care.

As far as wow & flutter, NO ONE beats a properly set up Century MSA (direct drive). It, of course, has a Davis bridge. No one else has ever tried another "closed loop" design. (It works slightly less well in the SA standard drive model due to problems in the projector drive belt.) Louis
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-03-2007, 08:15 AM:
 

quote: Louis Bornwasser

---

Century "troubles" are mostly related to the extremely bad gears made by Wolk, ORC and LaVezzi during a certain period in the late 80's and early 90's. If older they are workhorses and if later can be extremely reliable with only a little care.

---

quote: Louis Bornwasser

---

As far as wow & flutter, NO ONE beats a properly set up Century MSA (direct drive).

---

quote: Richard Fowler

---

Steve Krams of ICECO/Magnatech, with the help of an engineering department of a University, experimented with gears of a different angle which gave much more life. The option never got too far due to people comfortable with "standard" Century issues which have allowed many service people reliable income.

---

I tried several sets of those gears a number of years back. No real advantage for me... they lsat about the same length of time as a regular gear pair does... they are finer pitch teeth. They did run seemingly quieter though.

There are a pair of Westrex 35mm machines in Cody, WY that are in excess of 40 years old and are still running with ALL the original parts except for some of the film path parts and one C/O coil.

Then of course the Brits made a soundhead with the lowest W&F spec. I've ever measured in an optical reproducer !!

Mark
 

---

Posted by William Del Valle (Member # 3569) on 01-10-2007, 03:07 PM:
 
which projector is the best is a matter of opinion and who or what you learned on and are most confortable with. Muself i have been a Century man most of my life (i'm 65) about 15 years ago i went to work for AMC and they had Christies. I grew to love those machines, they were easy to thread. Even the do-do kids they hired had no problem in running them. they were easy to maintain. They (Christie) had changed frim a metal drive intermitten gear to a fiber one, after about six months the gear was making so much noise that gear it had to be changed. Until i discovered that reversing the gear gave the fiberr gear new life. otherwise they were great machines.
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 01-10-2007, 09:37 PM:
 

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Kalee model 21... .065% at lowest dip on meter.

---

quote: Vaughn Hamrick

---

I'm fond of Century projectors

---

quote: Bernard Tonks

---

I did my training on the BTH model KB projector, so it was my favourite for sometime. For an open machine they ran very quietly, film absolutely purred

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

The Century failure rate seems about 10:1 given similar operators.

---

I've just not seen that kinda failure rate ever on Centurys. Out here The Simplex X-L contines to be the most repaired projector but in all fairness there are more of them and I attribute at least half the repairs I do on them to the poor quality and bad designs from Strong that were supposed to update them. Never the less I just don't see 10 to 1 failure rate in Centurys. If they were that bad they'd have never sold so many of them nor wold they still be making them to this day.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-15-2007, 06:46 PM:
 
The Simplex has routinely outsold the Century. Just what sort of failures are you seeing in the Simplex? It is a very rare bird for us to see a Simplex cause a show to be lost. That is not the case for the Century projectors where a main drive gear can give way pretty easily. In fact, we have a Century "field" kit that has most everything a Century can wear out...never needed such a kit for the Simplex.

Steve
 

---

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 07-15-2007, 07:10 PM:
 
I am a big fan of the Cinemeccanica V9. Seemed to have the right combination of 'toughness" (V8 intermittent) and simple, open frame design. I had good luck with V5's also, but I felt the V5 was just a little too lightweight. The V5-8-9 series seemed to be designed such that, while easy to thread and keep clean, the internal parts are hard to replace (although they don't often need to be.) Whereas, with some American projectors they are harder to thread, (more rollers, etc.) but internal parts can be changed quicker.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-15-2007, 07:29 PM:
 
Oh Boy! A continuation of the pissing contest of what projector is best!
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-15-2007, 08:18 PM:
 
Phil if one doesn't piss occasionally we die
all things aside there is in my opinion no terrible machine each has its virtues (cheap being in some eyes one of them)
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-15-2007, 08:31 PM:
 
I was once asked after a speech at a theatre owner's convention: "What is the best projector?" I answered: "which problem can you best tolerate?" (price, reliability, ease of obtaining parts.) Your results will vary. Louis
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-15-2007, 09:33 PM:
 
This outperforms a lot of them. (Who had one of these, btw? We did - circa 1968!)


 

---

Posted by Aaron Stroop (Member # 2874) on 07-15-2007, 09:57 PM:
 
if you want my view the only projector to buy is
cinemeccanica
i have sent most of my working life on thease projectors along with kinoton and a couple of usa built projectors
if you get the chance go to milano and visit the factory i have been there a couple of times its worth a look
 

---

Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 07-16-2007, 04:26 AM:
 
Louis what is a Davis Bridge? I've never heard of it/one

quote: Louis Bornwasser

---

As far as wow & flutter, NO ONE beats a properly set up Century MSA (direct drive). It, of course, has a Davis bridge. No one else has ever tried another "closed loop" design.

---

 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-16-2007, 04:39 AM:
 
Timmy, that's funny! I agree wit' ya!

The Davis Bridge refers to the excellent method Century projectors used for sound stabilization on their optical soundheads. Far better than ANY other manufacturer's methods...especially the crappy Simplex and Kinotone ones.
 

---

Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 07-16-2007, 05:40 AM:
 
Hi Phil, still not sure exactly what makes a Davis Bridge so special. Maybe you could go into some more detail.

One of the best soundheads, for wow and flutter LACK OF, is this one....



BTH rotary magnetic optical soundhead
The word 'magnetic' applies to the method of driving the sound scanning drum and not to the type of track. The drum is revolved by an electric motor, and magnet, and not by the usual method of using the film.

Never seen another soundhead that used this method. I suspect there may still be some in service in Scotland..... any red led conversions for this one?
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-16-2007, 06:01 AM:
 
The Century soundhead is a straight-forward, simple, and efficient design where as the Simplex has a "pinch roller" that tends to imbed dirt on to the print...high maintenance to keep it clean.

The main problem with the Kinoton (IMHO) is the crappy threading path. Way too many rollers and exposures for damaging prints.

Davis example:

 

---

Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 07-16-2007, 06:22 AM:
 
Cheers for that Phil....

I have seen this type of soundhead after all, it's used on the later Westar heads, 2003 if memory serves me well.

The BTH head has NO tension on the film in the soundhead at all. As the sound drum is driven thru the magnetic coupling the film follwes a gentle curve thru the lateral guide roller and over the drum to the sprocket.... only the one roller!

I belive this type of drive was used in sound recording and apart from BTH was not used in a projector again.

Can anyone add to this?
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-16-2007, 08:34 AM:
 
Yous guys are all lost in space. Don't you know that all these projectors are now obsolete...! They have been replaced by this. So go read, have fun... but and don't get lost in its specifications!

quote: Ken McFall

---

I belive this type of drive was used in sound recording and apart from BTH was not used in a projector again.

---

The Century R-2 sound head used magnetic coupling in it's stabilization system. This was the sound head that Century won the Technical Oscar for...not the R-3 which Louis has attempted lead you to believe is the best sound head . Some of the Cinemecanicca Vic 10's also used it. A pair that I had very definately used magnatic coupled stabilization on the optical reproducer.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 07-16-2007, 10:27 AM:
 
Thanks Mark....

Yeah it may be a sad look back but some of that stuff is still running today. Can you honestly say that this Digital stuff will still be running in 50 years time? With the pace of change currently being seen it's doubtful if some of it will still be 'current' in 2 years let alone 50.

At that time I'm sure even you will be looking back fondly to today.... or maybe not
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-16-2007, 11:14 AM:
 

quote: Ken McFall

---

Can you honestly say that this Digital stuff will still be running in 50 years time? With the pace of change currently being seen it's doubtful if some of it will still be 'current' in 2 years let alone 50.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

If I'm wrong then some one please correct me.

---

Okay, you're in timeout!
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-16-2007, 08:56 PM:
 
K Tim, Timeouts over! I'm back from the pizza place.....

None of the ones I've seen...VIC-10 and Century were driven by the motor. They just used the eddy current generated between the flywheel and fixed magnets motion to create a very smooth drag on the sound drum to effect better filtration. There was also some copper involved in the fluwheel... I've had one apart to re-bearing once. On the Century R-2 it definately worked well and they won the technical oscar for it. that sound reproducer did not use the present lousy Davis tight loop that the R-3 uses. It used a lay on lateral guide roller. Will look for some imfo on it that I have around someplace. There was also a write up in one of old International Projectionist rags about the R-2 sound reproducer. There may be something in Audio Cyclopedia as well and I'll have a look for it.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-16-2007, 10:43 PM:
 
Wait a minute...I think you are wrong on that one Mr Hill.

First I think his name was Davies and his method was the closed loop isolation systems to minimize outside influences on wow/flutter.

The Century sound head is NOT a closed loop system. It is a tight loop system and it in fact DOES suffer from outside influences on its sound.

The Davies closed loop system is used in dubbers and in many penthouse readers. The key is that there is but one entry and exit point for the media (for film this is a sprocket but Technics and other used it for magnetic tape machines too). The system also needs to self-balance and have a means for damping, if properly designed. By isolating the media in the closed loop, what happens outside mostly stays outside. As some penthouse and platter users have found out...that is not an entirely true aspect...it isn't perfect. However things can be done to further isolate the loop from the outside. The Cat 699 was better than latter units by having an additional sprung roller to minimize forces on the loop. Reel-to-reel sources perform normally better so long as the clutch pads put even tension on the film.

The Century sound head, neither self balances nor is a closed loop. It is a tight loop system however. For the system to self balance there would need to be a spring used to offset the weight of the rollers being forced down by gravity. Or have the force they exert not be affected by gravity (move left to right). You will note that on most penthouse systems, there is a second spring in addition to the one that ties the two rollers together...its purpose to offset the forces of gravity on the rollers so they will self center when at speed.

In fact, with the Century and slop in the direct drive linkage or with any gear meash or even any bend in a sprocket shaft will affect the flutter in a way that a true Davies loop system will not suffer.

I will give you that the Century design (the whole thing) is a statement in simplicity. It is a very straight film path from top to bottom. The sound head CAN perform very well. Its biggest problem is that no two units are machined the same. The lateral stability of the system is wanting and depends on the bearing quality of the pivots. There is also no provision for the lateral guide roller wearing, other than the drum taper. The damping affect depends on the blend of the Castor Oil...er damping fluid as well as the plugner vs. cup...which seems to be much tighter in the olden days as compared to now.

The bearing receivers in the casting are a bit too sloppy and can be machined non-cocentric. It is not uncommon for the entire Century drum to orbit. This can be mostly negated by changing the loading of the drum shaft by removing the loading spring, pushing the bearing all of the way into the casting so it can't slide anymore (the source of the orbiting drum) and then loading the bearing on its inner race with a wavy washer...this will still allow the drum to be loaded but minimize/eliminate the drum from orbiting.

CE did a good job at improving the film alignment and stabilization with their digital reader version. They changed the the oil pot with an air pot and added a spring to the air pot to deal with gravity. Furthermore, it gets a better wrap on the drum itself with improves with spin up time as well as improving the wrap on the hold back sprocket in the soundhead to reduce perforation stress and dependence on the pad roller.

The Kinoton as well as Simplex (before the dreaded 5-star) are loose loop systems and can perform very well. What Simplex really needs to do is to change their drum and pinch roller so that the edges are all that are pressed on, not the picture area...that was just plain dumb.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-17-2007, 08:31 AM:
 
Moe,

I am not talking about that Century sound head...R-3 and later!! I don't think you've ever seen an R-2 before. There are few if any left in service because parts are non-existant. I believe it was introduced at the end of the 1930's when the Model C debuted and made sometime into the 50's. It also has a constant speed and hold back sprocket!! The R-2 was pre davis tight loop! It utilized a lay on lateral guide roller more closely related to the Motiograph's. Also it was completely gear driven and the motor mounted vertically to the bottom of the main casting. The rotary stabilizer was completely enclosed except where the scanning frim was because of the magnetic system stabilization it utilized. This is also very definately the Century that won the oscar.

R-2 Sound Reproducer and Model C Projector head. The box behind the lower magazine contained the drive motor and start resistor. The odd part was the sound head drive to the projector was by chain. I have a brand new drive kit to put an X-L onto one of these sound heads. Note the inching knob stickin out the front of the sound head!!


Mark
 

---

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 07-17-2007, 09:16 AM:
 
There are a few Westrex 2001/2002 combinations like the one in Marks photo (is that from 'The Complete Projectionist'?) still in service in the UK, not many, because as said, parts are non existant. I just removed one last week, it was replaced with a Century SA/R3.

I have one site on service that runs a pair of 2002 sound heads, they have been fittted with ACL lasers, and the rubber coupling replaced with modern castellated items. They run well, and very smoothly too!
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 07-17-2007, 09:16 AM:
 
The R2 also had a damping assembly which is similar in concept to the dashpot unit used on Cinemeccanica "delux" projectors ( versus no damper or spring jockey roller unit ). The weak point was the motor set-up where an inferior motor was substituted for the factory specified unit. I used to service many of these out of the USA.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-17-2007, 09:33 AM:
 
That photo is from "The Complete Projectionist". You're right Rochard I forgot about the hydro flutter supressor in there.... It works in conjunction with the magnetic stabilizer system somehow. I think much of the design was licensed from Western Electric. The studios also used to have alot of these as far as up into the early 90's. I remember Charlie Wolk calling for any extra parts I had laying around for them. He may have even bought a pair that I once had. As far as I know all the studio's have removed them.

quote:

---

I have one site on service that runs a pair of 2002 sound heads, they have been fittted with ACL lasers, and the rubber coupling replaced with modern castellated items. They run well, and very smoothly too!

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

What do you goys do for parts?

---

Motors can be rewound, for things like drive couplings and bearings, you can obtain modern equivalents, other than that we've a small stock of parts, and we tend to canibalise out of use heads. Once that stock is gone, it's gone. I can't see us having anything made, there are so few of these in use now. I personally know of 5 in whole of the UK, like I said only 2 of them are on my patch. Fitted with ACL combined optics/lasers they line up beautifully and are very smooth and stable running.

Mark, all the ones I've ever seen like your photo use a springy metal coupling shaft between the rep-set and picture head. It's made of several strands of wire, tightly twisted together and is failure prone on these old machines. The combination of 2001/2003 used a chain drive between the heads. Later variants used a timing belt.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-17-2007, 01:35 PM:
 
The R2 was invented and manufactured by Western Electric. When the name changed to Century that was the only product they made. At one time there was a theatre in Evansville Indiana that had 2 W.E. and 2 Century R2. Identical. Louis
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-17-2007, 04:33 PM:
 
R6's were the same.
 

---

Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 07-17-2007, 05:00 PM:
 
I've said it before that Pete may well have more Westar equipment than anywhere else in the UK.

As a design standard it's hard to beat and has been improved over the years. But the fundimental mech's remains the same.

The only reason they have survived so long it that Westrex as a service company leased out the equipment and continued service for many years. Of course this eventually ended and so did the service.

For much of the existing equipment still going it's going to be walking a tight rope waiting for a failure that cannot be easily and, more importantly, quickly repaired. I would suspect that such an event may even close some smaller operations.

Omnex can only continue to provide service when it has the parts.... and the cinema operator can afford to pay for the time and expertise required.

I have one site that has this setup and recently had a motor coupling fail. Omnex provided the part and things are back to normal but it is only a matter of time before something else happens that could easily close this site down.

Omnex has always been very generous with its time and I'm sure will continue to help where it is realistic to do so.

But I fear the last bell is about to sound for some of this eqipment.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-17-2007, 05:13 PM:
 
Doesn't surprise me that W.E. had a hand in it and that explains the magnetic part. That part of it would have been way way over the heads of anyone at Century to build. Tim, Louis... have you ever had the stabilizer apart on one of those?
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-17-2007, 06:42 PM:
 
YES! Little-bitty ball bearing on a needle-point axle holding up the whole works, and horseshoe magnets around the circumference on the inside of the cover!


 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-17-2007, 07:17 PM:
 

quote:

---

YES! Little-bitty ball bearing on a needle-point axle holding up the whole works, and horseshoe magnets around the circumference on the inside of the cover!

---

Can you imagine some US company trying to build that stabilizer today... Yikes!
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-18-2007, 01:46 AM:
 
nah, they'd let the Chinese manufacture something like that for us since it's cheaper that way ... let alone they're getting so industrialzed..
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-18-2007, 12:25 PM:
 
Remember the concept of cannibalization; works great. Louis
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-18-2007, 05:16 PM:
 
Cannibilazation is great when there are abundent pulls to split up but there were not that many of these sound heads to begin with, like the occasional W.E TA-7400 reverse scan sound head you see here and there. Thay musta been expensive suckers....

Mark
 

---

Posted by Bastiaan Fleerkate (Member # 3826) on 07-20-2007, 02:31 PM:
 
I don't know if this is already said... (I am lazy , I don't want to read all of the posts )

I think the first thing you must take into mind, is the availability of the spare parts in your country or surrounding country's... Iceland is special in this case... Nothing is more frustrating then waiting for a part that isn't available with your supplier.

I personally like the Kinoton FP30E... nice steady picture with German precision and reliability...
 

---

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 07-20-2007, 09:13 PM:
 
Christie CineX35

quote:

---

Standard analog visible red LED soundhead with Davis Loop design, which is driven by single sprocket to eliminate possible speed variations and reduce possible film tension

---

quote:

---

To ensure smooth film motion, it uses an easily threaded Davis tight-loop configuration with twin tension arms.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Any chance that the steel sprocket will interfere with the mag-clutch system

---

quote: Gordon McLeod

---

actually the BACP reader has been used on the mega machines like that
but the best is the sondor
http://www.sondor.ch/soundhouse.html

---

I just looked into this. They are a UK company ( our dollar really takes a hit, ouch ) with one US distributor. Sadly as much as it would have been a great solution for my Devry I cannot justify its cost. I could buy a used projector, current model with BACP for the same money which I think for myself would be the wiser choice!
Thanks for the link though, its still nice to see there is a solution had I decided to go that route.
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 07-23-2007, 05:16 PM:
 
Sondor is Swiss...pricy even when our dollar was worth more
 

---

Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 07-23-2007, 07:34 PM:
 
Silly question..... but here goes anyway.

I've seen an excellent installation of Sondor's in Londons West End, done by Tom Pain beautiful install and very nice machine but why does it look exactly like a Kinoton FP20?

Side by side you could not tell the difference. What's the story here?
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-23-2007, 07:44 PM:
 
the sondor is an electronic intermitent machine and I beleive they have a rotating prism continous motion version or that may have been perfectone
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-23-2007, 08:09 PM:
 
I'd bet that Sondor Analog head costs as much as a new Pimp'n Caddy does! Also, I'm still missing why exactly you would want to read the analog sound from above rather than below...

If you go back and look at some of the older Phillips and Bauer 35mm stuff you find that they made stanf along 35mm analog reproducers... No drive in them at all, just the rotary stabilizer and lateral guide roller, optics... all the drive was provided by the projector's lower 32 tooth sprocket.

I use a small Phillips sound reproducer from an FP-56 with my dubber in the shop to feed stereo processors when I work on them...



Mark
 

---

Posted by Alan Gouger (Member # 543) on 07-23-2007, 10:29 PM:
 
Not only do you purchase the sound head assembly but you have to buy their interface cables and their special pre amp. I did not get pricing on the preamp which may contain the delay but the price for the sound head alone without DTS or DD scared me enough to not bother asking about the preamp. I was expecting this to cost around 2k at most.

This would have been a simple solution for my Devry. Mark something like that would work great unless I would end up with a lot of flutter.
I could place something in the top of the take up department. I run the film down to a roller at the bottom of the pan and out to a double mutt. There must be a solution to allow me to get stereo out of this puppy without re tooling its own sound pickup..
 

---

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 07-24-2007, 05:52 PM:
 
Mark, With the Mega, we really had no choice for the 35. They wanted the 35 option available as a kit so existing theaters could buy them. It still meant a trip from Mega to make the initial changes to the machine. When we had to come up with a delay unit, there was a group of us standing around the projector and I asked "how long of a delay? About 2 seconds? That's easy!" I sat for a second looking deep in thought and said "Just run the signal through 980 feet of wire and by the time it gets to the processor, it's delayed!" one tech was thinking about if it would work, the machinist asked me if it would work, and the other tech looked at me and said I was so full of shit, just as me and my boss busted up laughing. Then I heard a couple of "you mother fucker Rick"s as I was leaving the room.

Rick
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-24-2007, 06:56 PM:
 
Rick,
I can definately understand putting it on the Mega but not on a DeVry! The DeVry is not difficult to convert to stereo/reverse scam. Lets see 980 feet.... about 2 microseconds mabie.... When I worked at the TV station and we built the new facilities we actually timed the fixed station equipment by adding or subtracting coils of wire to the 3.58mhz from the sync generator. We ended up with thousands of feet of wire coiled up under the raised floor but it worked well and was alot cheaper than a proc. amp for each piece of gear. The cameras (TK-45's) didn't need it as they had color phase adjustments on the CCU's.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Phillip Grace (Member # 2262) on 07-26-2007, 02:28 AM:
 
The Sondor Soundhouse can be optioned to read SR-D Analogue (with delay line) and DTS. It is also available with a driven sprocket or a damped sprocket. I thought it would be an ideal one-stop conversion for digital sound. I wanted to use one on an older projector to retain the mono basement reader for old analogue soundtracks. I think the dolby septum may clip some of the older fully modualted dual bi-lateral tracks, and introduce distortion. Unfortunately the currency exchange rate made it too expenive an option.
Maybe it would be possible to re-engineer SDDS readers to read more than just the Sony SDDS track.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-26-2007, 09:13 AM:
 

quote: Phillip Grace

---

I think the dolby septum may clip some of the older fully modualted dual bi-lateral tracks, and introduce distortion.

---