Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Tips on screening rooms

This is topic Tips on screening rooms 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=008991

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 11-18-2007, 06:18 PM:

Hi, guys, I'm new to this forum. I have a fledgling production company. We are working primarily in 35mm and I wanted to set up a screening room to screen dailies, rough cuts and prints of the films we shoot. I am editing old school on Moviolas and KEM flat-beds and processing the film in-house. I also am in the process of setting up a sound transfer room so we will be using mag reels to edit and for screening dailies. I picked up a pair of 35mm mag film reproducers with a sync set-up for a projector I have yet to get but am in the process of shopping for. I am considering several options.

1) single portable projector for screening room and location. The problem is that with a single portable projector, I would have to change reels 3 or 4 times during a screening of the entire film and might not get a honest sense of timing and pace. The positive is it's very convenient to set up at a location or for say a fund raising event, however, the reproducers are over 6 ft. tall and very heavy so unless the picture is projected silently it kinda negates the convince aspect.

2) Dual projectors with old school project. Worked for years but doubles the setup times. on the positive side should one projector develop problems, you still have one left

3) Platter of giant reel set up on full sized projector. closer to the way much of the projection is done today but pretty much limits the screenings to the studio, location wouldn't be an option for the most part.

I may go the latter route because I have one stage, I can use as a dual purpose room, set up the risers for maybe 25 people with a 10x17 ft room behind (already in place) and a portable screen in front. We also have a large parking area just outside so the projector can be set up in one of the door ways (there are 3) and the screen set up across the lot.

Any way if anyone has done screening projection and is familiar with it's requirements your imput would be greatly appreciated.

I also took a look at the gallery of screening rooms and was duly impressed. If you have any general tips on things to remember about setting up a screening room, I would very much like to hear all the do, don'ts and I would suggests you care to offer. Thanks-Steve [Cool]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-19-2007, 07:40 AM:

If you demand the best in picture and sound then portables are out. Two projector setup is the way to go to get through alot of film with minimal wasted time... Century SA's are by far the best for screening dailies. They produce the steadiest/sharpest image possible out of a mechanical 35mm projector and are not all that fussy to set up and get top notch results. They are not the most light efficient but then you are not going to light up a 40 foot wide screen. Century's are also alot more portable than any other regular sized 35mm machine if you need to take one or both to a location. They are also not oily/drippy like Simplex X-L's are! The shutter shaft thats protruding from the front of the picture head is also a convenient place to attach the shaft encoder to drive the dubbers. I used to use two sets of Century SA's to do dailies with and sold several other sets to camera men and post production centers, one set is still in Houston!

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-19-2007, 08:05 AM:

Mark, I'm surprised you didn't recommend the Christie...an all-in-one projector without oil issues. It still has the take up pulley on the lower sprocket shaft, no?

I'll agree that Century has distinct advantages in mobile installations over Simplex.

For new systems, Kinoton has their FP10A, which has road cases already available.

Steve

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 11-19-2007, 08:16 AM:

If you can afford, I would recommend either getting a new Kinoton FP-25D or the Cinemeccanica Victoria 5BS model. Both of these carry big reels on each side of the projector which is great for space saving and you can run one complete film on one reel.

Demetris

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-19-2007, 12:42 PM:

Actually for a mobile setup, I would think the Christie would shine better than any other machine for overall ease.

Out of curiosity, can a Christie projector drive a 6k reel on startup? That projector starts as fast as a V5.

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 11-19-2007, 04:58 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
It still has the take up pulley on the lower sprocket shaft, no?

I think they made that belt pulley obsolete a couple of years ago. I still have a couple of them in service though (with new double sealed bearings of course).

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-19-2007, 07:08 PM:

Sorry, No more take up pulleys for the P-35's.

I wouldn't reccomend a Christie for Dailies ever. The P-35 is a bit too critical in the lateral guide department to get set up properly for the steadiest image. You very definately need the Christie factory alignment jig to do it right. With a Century just add Posi-Trol sprockets and use a piece of steel film... or better yet the Century factory alignment gauge if you're lucky enough to have one... to adjust the lateral guide roller... and violla! Perfect images that easily meet and almost always beat smpte specs. There are no Posi-trol sprockets available for the P-35 putting it at another disadvantage. The intermittent sprocket has a metric bore and the upper and lower are nothing more than X-L sprockets. Similar steadiness can be had from the old cast iron (not the alumnium variety!) Century C projectors and they too can take the posi-trol sprockets if they've had the intermittent upgrade kit installed. The flat gate to me is a disadvantage though.

You could also get the same perfect image results from a Super Simplex but then you have the oily mess to contend with and it may get on the film.

I'd certainly vote for the FP-10 if one has the megabucks it takes to help keep Larrys plane flying [Big Grin]

. Its probably the only really good portable in existance.

quote: Brad Miller
Out of curiosity, can a Christie projector drive a 6k reel on startup? That projector starts as fast as a V5.

Yep! Bruce Willis's theater in Hailey, ID ran a two projector hour reel booth with 6000 foot reels for many years till they discontinued running film all together.

Mark

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-19-2007, 09:46 PM:

Wait--the P35 can't drive a takeup reel? And people buy this crap?!? [Confused]

Even in a platter house, the abilty to run 6000' reels with an intermission for each show could easily save a show (or several days' worth of shows) if the platter dies (e.g. fried AW3 transformer).

As for the original poster, I'd consider a 2-machine booth for the screening room and a single machine with a double-MUT for other screenings. Mag sound could run on a second double-MUT. This takes up less space than a platter and would be easier to set up and transport than a second projector and dubber.

Mark--what are Posi-trol sprockets, where does one get them (Lavezzi?), and what do they cost? If they are better than standard sprockets, then why aren't they standard?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-19-2007, 09:53 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
Wait--the P35 can't drive a takeup reel? And people buy this crap?!? Even in a platter house, the abilty to run 6000' reels with an intermission for each show could easily save a show (or several days' worth of shows) if the platter dies (e.g. fried AW3 transformer).

While the Christie remains probably the easiest of all projectors to work on... even da kids can somewhat fix em! One thing that a large plex can easily endure is a day missing a screen... While its not something I see very often we do have a number of customers that would rather just leave us to our weekends than bother us. But not all customers are that nice! I would personally know right away if someone is down... might be an easy fix over the phone too!

Mark

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 11-19-2007, 11:12 PM:

This is quite an education, boys, I'm hearing terms I've never heard before and appreciate all the advice. One of the major problems is price is very much a factor with pretty much rules out new equipment. I was thinking a Super Simolex, maybe a Norelco. I've seen some Holmes units go within my price range A couple of Century's have come up, model numbers, I'm not sure of. I guess what I'm looking for are the best projectors I can get for around a grand or so. I know this may be limiting but it's a realistic budget. I also already own the 2 Magna-Sync reproducers with a belt driven projector sync unit and a pair of MTM dubbers along with a Magna-Tech 600 film recorder so these would have to figure into the configuration. That's kinda where we're at right now. I've spent a LOTTA cash on camera, editing, processing and sound equipment in addition to keeping the studio up and paide for so we have to watch every penny because I still need to gather up the cash for actual production costs. What are my options under these circumstances? [Cool]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-20-2007, 05:39 AM:

If you limit your screen size to 10 to 12 feet wide then a Super Simplex with Posi-Trol sprockets is the best way to go. When you buy the Super keep two things in mind... parts are VERY scarce and look for one that has the screw and nut holding the intermittent sprocket to the shaft, then installing Posi-Trols is easy. You should be able to do that plus an ORC-1000 xenon lamp for about a grand if you shop very carefully. The orc will take a maximum 750 watt lamp and runs off 120 volts. Forget the Holmes... a lost cause for parts and a real film grinder.

Mark

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 11-21-2007, 12:33 AM:

How 'bout DeVrys? I've seen a few ex-military (mostly Navy) projectors for sale. Also we're shooting anamorphic so is there anything I should be aware of there? 10 to 12 ft should be about right, the most we could possibly go is 17 ft (the width of the room) with about a 25 to 35 ft throw. I'm a little worried abut finding lenses that will focus properly that close with a larger projector. Also are there any books on setting up projectors especially with dallies screening sections or any DVDs or tapes. How about useful websites. Thanks-Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-21-2007, 08:41 AM:

The DeVry's have alot of downsides to them with very tight threading being first among them. They are also somewhat hard on film and there is a deadheading roller that you'd have to go through as well. Its only real virtue is that it uses a Simplex Intermittent. I would reccomend that you pass on them.

For scope any ISCO aanamorphic attachment will work at that throw or down to about a 15 foot throw. I do reccomend that you buy the best projection lenses made however because its the only way you're going to know what the camera lenses are actually capable of... so the ISCO Blue Star anamorphic and an equivelent high end back up lens would definately be in order. It is the only anamorphic that does a true 2 to 1 factor, all other lenses being just in the ballpark or variable across the image. BTW: What camera anamorphics do you have there? Want to do this in VistaVision instead?

Mark

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 11-21-2007, 10:45 PM:

I would love to but probably couldn't afford the film [Big Grin]

that 8 perf VistaYision looks incredible but it eats film stock like Godzilla eats Tokyo. Why, do you have a VistaVision camera and projector availible?

We're using commiecams, a Kinor 35C Rotovision 5000 from Bruce are Aranda in Australia with a small set (35, 50 and 75mm) of Lomo Roundfront anamorphics and a Konvas KSR-1 with a small set Lomo 2 piece squarefront anamorphics as a second unit, B cam and a animation camera. Just outta curiosity what does an ISCO Blue Star anamorphic projection lens run, (again budget)? [Cool]

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 11-22-2007, 01:42 PM:

Steve, I reluctantly agree with Mark on the Holmes comments. I have 3 of them, and all have been put together with used parts. I cant find anything new that I can afford. None of these machines have ever damaged anything, but I have recently resigned myself and took ownership of a lovely Century SA. It will probably be the last machine I will own, as I wont be running it 5 shows a day.

The Holmes projectors were great starter units. The sound system on a Holmes is frightening.

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 11-25-2007, 12:12 AM:

Good to know. I would definitely not want to get projectors I couldn't find parts for. Mark, I'm still curious about why you brought VistaVision up, can you elaborate?

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 11-25-2007, 03:13 AM:

quote: Steve Beverly
Just outta curiosity what does an ISCO Blue Star anamorphic projection lens run, (again budget)?

Mark has two points that are very important to think about. Lens quality and picture steadyness. With these two issues we are ultimatly talking about the maximum resolution possible. This aplies to both projectors and cameras.

If it is your own footage, especially first generation 35mm straight of the neg. Well apart from Marks vistavision gear, its hard to ever find a better image! I guess what I'm asking where is the value in compromising? before I answer your question with "alot".

What are you planning to do with sound? I'm a bit lost on whether you will ever run regular prints? As a modern red light reader is now required for the last few years worth of films made. Its quite possible a second hand projector would not have been modernised.

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 11-25-2007, 10:23 PM:

Well it's not so much compromise as what is possible at this point. If the ISCO is say a 20K lens just for the sake of argument, It' not a possibility, plain and simple, that money would be spent elsewhere like production and we would have to go with a different anamorphic projector lens. Now if that lens is a few hundred dollars and I have to wait until I could afford it, I would bit the bullet and do so. I guess what I'm saying is I want the best image I can afford, the "I can afford" being the operative words. I woulda LIKE to have had a brand new Arri BL4 with a set of Hawk anamorphics to shoot with BUT my budget over-ruled that as well. [Big Grin]

I need to project dailies with a reasonably close representation of what the image will look like in theaters and to see if what I'm doing production and editing wise is working on the big screen, if the focus is soft, if the movement is overwhelming, is the story being moved along by the cuts, does that scene that seemed to work on the KEM, actually work when projected by the Simplex (on whatever I end up getting), ect.

As for sound, The projector will be interlocked with a Magna-Sync sound reproducer, very old school because I don't want to go through the expense of an HD transfer and the equipment to edit on HD. (DV or HDV transfer is not a reasonable option) for us. It will be edited on mag reels and mixed down on a 24 track recorder then transfered to a M&E 35mm mag reel and a dialog mag reel.

Those will be sent to an audio post house and an optical sound print will be struck, the negative with a cut list will be sent to a commercial motion picture lab and the negative will be cut (I'm a little leary of doing that myself but I might change my mind as time goes on) and an answer print will be struck. If I DO have to modernize the sound head, I will do so as again my budget will allow for. Remember, I am new to projection so there are thing I do need to learn and I freely admit that....which is why I'm asking people like yourself who are actually in the know about such things. [Cool]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-26-2007, 08:35 AM:

I think the ISCO anamorphic lists for about 3200.00 but dealers discount them for the most part..... I reccomend that you shop around for one and get the best price!!

Mark

Posted by Emiel De Jong (Member # 4225) on 11-27-2007, 07:20 AM:

No new tips here; I just like to hear of another Konvas user on this forum. I shot a short some 3 years ago on a Konvas 2M (at this moment there is a chance I finally can finish it, film all the way, in the near future). Here is a scan from the negative:

The movie is about the frustrations of a chain-smoking projectionist. Maybe there is still some tip on screening-room equipment in this picture; Kinoton/Philips would be my favorite choice... [Smile]

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-27-2007, 08:06 AM:

If you will just be showing your own films, then you do not need the LED reader soundhead upgrade. Just be sure to order your release prints with either "silver" or "high-magenta" optical tracks. These are pretty much standard for small print runs, anyway, and will play fine on any soundhead. Obviously, none of this is an issue when running interlocked sound on the dubber.

What are your plans for sound--i.e. will you be mixing for mono, some variant of Dolby Stereo, or digital? If you will be doing multichannel mixes, you will need 2- 3- or maybe 6-track heads for the dubbers and also a mag preamp and some sort of processor, as well as (maybe) an outboard NR unit (or several). If you want to advertise "Dolby Stereo" or "Dolby Digital" (or "DTS" or "SDDS") with your films, you will need to look into licensing.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 11-27-2007, 05:54 PM:

$3200, Not nearly as scary as 20k! But you will still find that its probably the most expesive option.

quote: Steve Beverly
I need to project dailies with a reasonably close representation of what the image will look like in theaters

Well what you will be working with could potentially be of a noticably higher standard than avalable to even the best movie theatres. Prints made directly off the original neg are noticably better than release print quality.

Personally I guess you want to make the mag rig portable I would suggest a truck, a portable projection room on wheels! Can you wire the mag to more than 1 projector? Do you really need more than one projector, the few times I've run sync rushes, running seperate spools one at a time has not been an issue, cheaking the leader and the beep are in sync are a must see! ( In cinemas we spend our days tring to avoid letting the audience see leaders!)

If your in the position to order your own type of soundtrack, cyan readers are only important to know about before ordering your prints!

What sort of speakers, amps, audio processer?

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 11-28-2007, 05:21 PM:

Beautiful shot Emeil, love the lighting, but I just have to wonder where you got the inspiration for you story [Big Grin]

These little Konvas' are amazing camera, huh!

Here's what I've own sound wise for sound sweeting, FX and Dolby

AKAI Professional S950 Midi sampler with manual

LYNX Time Code Module with LYNX FILM INTERFACE MODULE with both manuals

DOLBY A Type Model 350 ENCODE/Record

DOLBY A Type Model 350 Decode/PB

JL Cooper MIDI MUTE with MIDI Ch 2 Modem

Calzone Case

I know this stuff is a little old but that's what I've got, as for a mixer, I have this dinasour TASCAM that I'm not even sure if it works so I'll probably have to replace that. I DOOO also JUST happen to have a 6 track head that is brand new in the box and came with my Film reproducers!

I have 2 of the film reproducers and a box truck I'm restoring to use as my camera truck which could be set-up to use as a portable projection booth as well.

$3200 buck is still way outta my price range for a projection lens, I guess I'll just have to wait ans see what comes up on Ebay. I saw an ISCO that went cheap today but I have something else I want to get so I'm saving my cash for that. As far as the licensing goes, it'll depend on what kind of a deal I make with a distributer once the film is completed, if he thinks it's a valuable sales tool, more than likely he'll pay to use the Dolby name, we'll just have to see. As for sound, given my limited budget, what would you boys recommend? I had thought maybe a home surround sound. I've got a pair of old movie theater speakers but have never tested them and their not huge. Their were meant to hang ans are kinda triangle shaped. I am open to suggestions but pleas remember this has got to be done on the cheap so older equipment that will work is definitely a consideration, probably a necessity!

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 11-28-2007, 07:03 PM:

Those Dolby NR units are the 360 model.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-28-2007, 07:51 PM:

Not using the type A dolby and buying a pair of used CAT 280T's to master in Dolby SR would be very beneficial to what ever you do. Not only will it allow you a much higher quality end product ther eare also other factors to overdubbing and so on where SR really blows type A out of th water. I think you'll find that very few commercial houses use type A at all any more.
280T SR cards can be had for very reasonable prices!!

Mark

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 11-28-2007, 07:52 PM:

Steve, could you raise more money for your business venture?

Surely there must be investors out there and sufficient finance.

Why do everything on the cheap? I find the low-budget mentality really uninspiring.

Can I ask what's in the way of raising sufficient finance and doing it properly?

NB - this is NOT in any way a criticism of you, it's just an honest exploration of why in these cases the money never seems to be "there" to do things right.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-28-2007, 08:37 PM:

The cat. 280T won't help, since it doesn't have "encode" mode. He needs regular cat. 280s (or modified cat. 280Ts).

Also, he needs the Dolby box that does the 4:2 matrix encode. Not sure on the cat. number, but it's basically a reverse cat. 150 in a box.

Another option would be to just mix everything in "Woody Allen format" (mono with Dolby NR), which eliminates the need for the matrix encoder.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-28-2007, 09:09 PM:

Yea, either SR cards will work... one with a simple mod... but what ever.... he'd be wayyyyyyyy better off with SR because of its more forgiving qualities.

quote: Brian Guckian
Surely there must be investors out there and sufficient finance.

Airline pilots are a good place to start for fund raising! Several got together and backed an indie feature back when I lived outside of Chicago. The film also turned out to be a minor sucess as well. The cash the pilots sunk into it allowed them to have pretty high production values and the film had a really good look to it.

Also, at least a few years back USL Labs still had some of the Ultra-Stereo Encoding stuff laying around so talk to CLint about that if you wanna do a stereo analog track.

Mark

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 11-28-2007, 09:28 PM:

Weelll, Bri, let try and explain it to you, the thing about investors is they are investing and want their money back with a reasonable guarantee of profit in the shortest time possible which means very few want to invest in high risk ventures like film making ESPECIALLY if someone such as myself has no track record. Now I also live in El Paso, Texas which is not generally known as the nexus of the artist and cultural world so there are VERY few investors of any type here and what there are tend to invest outside of the area believing there is no talent worth supporting locally or donate to the more traditional artist institution such as the symphony and opera. Thirdly, investors tend to make demands, micro manage and take any profit from any artist venture they are associated with which generally does not sit well with the artist. Fourthly it is generally accepted that on first film independent productions it is self financed for the above reasons. There is the additional problem that there are NO support facilities in El Paso such as labs, post houses, audio houses, studios, film equipment rentals, ect. which means I have essentially been forced to create a small studio from scratch.

I have had the very good fortune to have a friend who live in Juarez just across the Mexican boarder and has a 10 ton and 8 ton lighting and Grip trucks with a large diesel genny parked at my facility. I have been able to gather over the last few years, 2 full 35mm anamorphic camera packages for A and B camera, steadyicam and animation shots, a steadicam package, a full Nagra sound recording package, a camera crane, a Brey 35mm motion picture film processing machine a Mitchell step printer, 2 KEM flatbed editing tables with all three head, scope, academy and widescreen, a Moviola film trim bin with sound ans picture splicers a High speed rewind, a camera truck, an MTM 35mm/16mm dubber, 2 Magna-Sync 35mm film reproducers with a projector sync unit, a Magna-Tech 600 35mm film recorder all of which I have paid for out of my own pocket or borrowed money for that I need to pay back. I still need to get a Moviola upright with 'scope bubble, an optical printer, 35mm projector w/ 'scope lens, an edge coding machine, various expendables, long shaft rewinds, a motorhome set up to do hair and make-up in addition to production funds and the 1000 and 1 pieces of support equipment a production requires on a film shoot as well as paying my studio's rent, phone and electricity.

So I'm sorry you find the low budget film making mind set so un-inspiring as I happen to find it positively religious and heroic, despite the enormous challenges, expense, disappointments and odds against us, we take what every we have and can get our hands on and make it work. THAT'S why I need things cheap, because there is SOOOOO FREAKIN' much money that has to be spent in order to make a film that it is MIND-BOGGLING. I have, by doing things the way I'm doing them, IE creating a mini film studio, allowed myself the possibility of making several films and bringing an industry to this God-forsaken wasteland. [Cool]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-29-2007, 01:55 AM:

quote: Steve Beverly
the thing about investors is they are investing and want their money back with a reasonable guarantee of profit in the shortest time possible which means very few want to invest in high risk ventures like film making ESPECIALLY if someone such as myself has no track record.

Not always true Steve! In fact the Pilots that pooled their resources to produce the indie feature outside of Chicago were looking for no more than a tax write off. There are many others looking for the same... you just have to find them.

Mark

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 11-29-2007, 02:43 AM:

Hey Mark, buddy, if you can find me some pilots who are interested in the film business or in a tax write off, I also heard dentists were good, I'll be more than happy, ecstatic even to make you the executive producer of Blood Moon Rising and pay you a percentage of any funding you raise that you will be more than happy with. We're looking a 150 to 200K or 250 to 300 K if we hire 2 name actors for the leads over a 3 week shoot. We will shoot mainly in the deserts around here and can fly you in for production if you want to lend a hand and make some more cash. E-mail me. [Cool]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-29-2007, 10:26 AM:

Thanks for the offer but I retired from all that after serving time on over 40 feature productions.

Mark

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 11-29-2007, 02:20 PM:

YES but have you ever executive produced! [Big Grin]

That's a shame, you sound like the kinda guy we like to work with. Thanks anyway. [Cool]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-29-2007, 02:36 PM:

Steve: If you toss in a guaranteed plateful of "crinkle cut" fries every day, Mark might come around. [Big Grin]

Posted by Alan Gouger (Member # 543) on 11-29-2007, 03:28 PM:

Mark is this you ?

http://imdb.com/name/nm0347684/

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 11-29-2007, 03:36 PM:

WOW [Eek!]

Mark You're up 85% on their STARmeter this week.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-29-2007, 03:41 PM:

I think I remember him posting about working on "Touched by an Angel" a while back and that's first on the list so that's probably the same Mark. Plus, he's mentioned running the dailies for various stuff.

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 11-29-2007, 10:25 PM:

Are you kidding I'll offer him TWO guaranteed plateful of "crinkle cut" fries every day 'long with his choice of shake or malt and the best steaks in Texas.....and that says a LOT!

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 11-30-2007, 07:44 AM:

I don't want to have an argument here, but I have to be honest and say I don't buy any of your arguments Steve.

If you can't raise sufficient funds to do the job properly, then consider not doing it at all.

The problem is that people who operate from the negative low-budget mentality are very bad for the industry because they force down standards and in fact ultimately do people out of their jobs.

Let's say I manufacture film production equipment. I have a cost base and sell the product at a reasonable margin. I employ people and have overheads.

But now I find I can't sell my products because people are scrimping and scraping and buying used stuff on Ebay, borrowing stuff from friends or whatever. So what's the future for my company?

Investors won't touch people who aren't serious and who come from the low-quality low-budget mentality. It's a vicious circle.

Respectfully, please think about what you're doing.

One more thing - it is wrong IMO to use this website for free consultancy. Instead, you should hire a proper production / post-production consultant (they are a dime a dozen), who can work with you to develop your facility in a cost-effective manner. Engaging somebody on a freelance basis at an hourly rate would not cost the earth. You could also look at why you are trying to develop your own facility rather than supporting existing ones - many filmmakers work long-distance.

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 11-30-2007, 02:57 PM:

Oh, I APOLOGIZE Big Bri, I was unaware that all film should be shot on brand new equipment in order to keep manufactures in business and maintain the high standards people like yourself demand. Again though, let me just get this straight so I don't offend you anymore, what exactly is "doing the job properly" I mean Hitchcock spent well under a million dollars to make Psycho and Kevin Smith spent 28k to make Clerks, Robert Rodriguez spent 7 grand to make El Mariachi and Blair Which cost 15K, Chasing Amy cost 250K sooooo what exactly would YOU, being an expert on independent film, deem in your omnipotent judgment a "proper" amount of cash to make a feature film? As for asking questions on a public forum,If you had READ my posts, you woulda realized there ARE NO FACILITIES nor are there any local consultants available to support in El Paso and the surrounding area so I'm kinda forced to create one on my own and further more, the only person that seems to have a problem with it is YOU so IIII would recommend that YOU not answer any questions if you feel that seeking advice from people in the know is inappropriate.I personally don't feel the loss of any information or opinions you have given me in this particular thread would be missed. As for MY standards, I'm shooting 35mm anamorphic in spectacular desert locations with a 10 ton grip and lighting truck as support on late model, upgraded cameras that were the premiere Soviet motion picture cameras up until the late 90s, SORRY if that doesn't meet YOUR standards, scooter, but they meet mine so I'll jus' keep on doin' what I'm doin' and you do your thing. [Cool]

You know I also find it a bit hypocritical that the ONE and only feature you worked on (as an assistant editor I might add) on was shot on 16mm and you're criticizing MY standards.

[ 11-30-2007, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: Steve Beverly ]

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-30-2007, 04:54 PM:

quote: Steve Beverly
You know I also find it a bit hypocritical that the ONE feature you were an assistant editor on was shot on 16mm and you're criticizing MY standards.

Are you saying that only people with low standards get hired to edit 16mm movies? Furthermore, maybe he only edited that one movie... because he deciding editing wasn't something he wanted to do.

Unless he didn't try hard at editing that film, how is he being a hypocrite?

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 11-30-2007, 05:36 PM:

No simply that 16mm isn't generally considered the upper echelon of film making standards which is something he seems to have an issue with, also he seems to speak as an expert on film production siting what is and isn't acceptable film making etiquette and about how making films under less than the perfect conditions and with less money than one would like to have is an insult and detriment to any "real" film maker out there. That sorta eliminates guys like Harmony Corine, Jim Jarmish, The young Kevin Smith and Robert Rodriguez AND a 16 year old Steve Spielberg, not to mention myself and I take exception to such absurd generalizations. As a producer/director my job is to save cash where ever possible but he assumes that because I stretch every penny into copper wire, my production will be a piece of crap, when in fact what I'm doing is using all of the resources available to put as much production value as possible into every frame of film I shoot and for someone to make statements like those proves he has never produced a feature film which is borne out by his resume' THAT"S what I find hypocritical.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-30-2007, 05:50 PM:

The confusion is that you seem to be misusing the word "hypocritical."

If someone is "hypocritical" it means that their actions belie or go against their own stated beliefs.

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 11-30-2007, 06:02 PM:

Yes well isn't that exactly what he's doing? He states that "Investors won't touch people who aren't serious and who come from the low-quality low-budget mentality. It's a vicious circle."

when 16mm is the ULTIMATE low budget format and far less quality image wise than 35mm anamorphic which he "Respectfully," requests me to "please think about what you're doing." That IS most definitely hypocritical in that by agreeing to help edit somewhat inferior quality 16mm film his actions belie and gone against his own stated beliefs.

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 11-30-2007, 06:21 PM:

Well I obviously touched a nerve [Big Grin]

Here are some possibilities:

a) Commit to raising $ 3 million by the end of March 2008

b) Set up a website or use an existing one and break that figure down into multiple investment slots.
20 slots at $ 50,000 = $ 1 million
100 slots at $ 10,000 = $ 1 million
100 slots at $ 5,000 = $ 500,000
300 slots at $ 1,000 = $ 300,000
1000 slots at $ 200 = $ 200,000

c) Re-boot your business plan and make films people want to see - not inferior product like Blood Moon Rising [Roll Eyes]

(Great Date movie! [thumbsdown]

) Films that connect with audiences and look and sound good.

d) Offer a Prospectus based on your re-booted plan and make that available on the website (the web vastly increasing your access to potential Investors). Offer a decent potential return of 5% as you are now in the business of creating quality films that people will pay to see. The scheme will have to be audited and overseen by a lawyer or whatever to make sure it's all above board.

e) Money-where-mouth-is time: if you can make the above happen and make it work, I give you my word that I'll invest $ 200, which is commensurate with my current income. I will accept the potential risk; no point in making these proposals if one isn't prepared to stand by them!

BTW don't take things too seriously...it's all about challenging mindsets and perceptions and the negative "cheap and nasty" ethos [Razz]

Indeed your job is NOT to "save cash where possible" but to make movies that might mean something to people (in the broadest sense...which e.g. could include great comedy).

[BTW to clarify re. 16mm, I did work as an assitant editor going back about 15 years ago, but the films were all products of first-timers and were not in any way meant for mainstream cinema distribution, but primarily for TV screening. Please also be careful using these arguing tactics, because it's like saying that reasonably well-fed people can't voice concerns about world hunger!]

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-30-2007, 06:32 PM:

In the US, at least, you can't just put up a web site and ask for investors to send you money. There are quite a few complicated SEC requirements that apply when one makes a public solicitation for investors. This is where the lawyers get involved and things get expensive and slow. It's better/faster/easier/cheaper to solicit investors privately whenever possible for these reasons.

Also, consider that films have historically been lousy investments and that most people would be wise to invest their money in ventures that are more likely to provide returns.

Personally, I would tend to question the need to purchase equipment if the budget is limited. It's probably easier and cheaper to rent whatever is needed for the production. Rather than spending money on building a screening room, it might be better to work a deal with a local theatre for the use of their space during off-hours. Maybe buy them a good anamorphic lens or pay for a service call or something in return for them allowing the use of the theatre to run dailies and screenings. Grip equipment is probably best rented locally due to the weight and bulk, but cameras and sound equipment can easily be shipped in from elsewhere.

In any case, I wish Steve the best of luck with his project and applaud his decision to shoot in anamorphic, which is becoming progressively less common as filmmakers gravitate toward the inferior super-35 format.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-30-2007, 06:34 PM:

quote: Steve Beverly
Yes well isn't that exactly what he's doing? He states that "Investors won't touch people who aren't serious and who come from the low-quality low-budget mentality. It's a vicious circle."

when 16mm is the ULTIMATE low budget format and far less quality image wise than 35mm anamorphic which he "Respectfully," requests me to "please think about what you're doing." That IS most definitely hypocritical in that by agreeing to help edit somewhat inferior quality 16mm film his actions belie and gone against his own stated beliefs.

You're comparing apples with oranges here.

If I made the best 16mm editing facility around, investors might take a look at me. On the other hand, if I made the worst 35mm editing facility around they'd avoid me like the plague.

So if a guy had a good 16mm editing facility and spared nothing on making that part good and told the guy who had a bad 35mm facility that he was cutting too many corners, you couldn't really call the guy a hypocrite.

Note: I'm not saying that your's is the worst; I'm just using that to illustrate a point.

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 11-30-2007, 06:41 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
In the US, at least, you can't just put up a web site and ask for investors to send you money. There are quite a few complicated SEC requirements that apply when one makes a public solicitation for investors

I felt that was understood in my post, and of course it's not as simple as that. However it has been done, and it can be done, and I think the bottom line here is one of attitude and approach.

Anything is possible - it's just about mindset. I do think it's really healthy to challenge these baseless assertions that "there's no money" and "it's impossible", etc. etc.

And it is relevant right here in that if you want to correctly project an anamorphic image you must spend the money on a correctly- and carefully-engineered instrument to do that. It costs money because there is complex engineering involved. That needs to be respected.

[Could these people help you Steve?]
El Paso Filmmakers

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 11-30-2007, 07:25 PM:

While I appreciate the suggestions and the offer of $200 bucks, how do you know Blood Moon Rising is inferior product, you haven't read the script or seen conceptual art for it? Although I like the name, it really doesn't tell you anything. Movies like Night of the Living Dead, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Thing from Another World and Psycho were ALL low budget, exploitation picture, NONE of them were inferior product. And you're right, there is PLENTY of money out there....AFTER you've had a hit OOORRR at least made a profit on a few films, people will throw buckets of cash at you if they think they're gonna make buckets of cash back. It seem I need to challenge your mindset and perceptions about what is the negative "cheap and nasty" ethos. Blood Moon Rising takes many cues from Apocalypse Now, Lawrence of Arabia, Cat People and Jaws and on another note about my business plan go to:

www.cinematography.com/forum2004/index.php?showtopic=27043

check out Richard Boddington's experiences at AFM and see what was selling there, then tell me how much I need to re-tool.

Scott, I found for what it would cost to rent equipment over a 3 or 4 week shoot, I could own it,,,, and use it to make more movies, same thing with processing and editing. Again, everything I buy, I get in great condition at a good price or I don't buy it. As for working out a deal with theater owners, I'd be limited to their schedule which is not appealing to me especially as I've gathered a lot of what I need already, I have the space to build a screening room and am looking towards the future so buying also makes sense there plus theater owners will probably get upset if I borrow their projectors when I go on location. [Big Grin]

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 11-30-2007, 11:30 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
Rather than spending money on building a screening room, it might be better to work a deal with a local theatre for the use of their space during off-hours.

We did this for a local film maker (Rick Walker)
Rick Walker IMDB

a few years ago. He screened his feature "Sam & Janet" for his investors if I remember correctly. And as way of saying thank you, he gave myself and the other managers who were here a generous stipen as a thank you. [Smile]

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 12-01-2007, 03:30 PM:

Actually for investor screening, I DID plan on using a commercial theater in the off hours. It makes more of an impact and impression. They can immediately see the project coming to the theaters even if no distribution deal has yet been struck. It's a good strategy many people have employed. I remember an interview with the Coen Brothers, where they talked about trying to raise money for Blood Simple. They said whenever they would call people up and ask for money, they would get hung up on BUT, when they would call people up and ask if they would like to see a film, they got much better response. They went ahead and shot a trailer with actors and scenes that never did appear in the actual film but it was enough to get them the funding they needed. Good lesson to be learned there. [Cool]

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 12-03-2007, 06:05 PM:

Well, I ended up buying an A.V.E. that was designed as a dailies projector. It's portable and has reel arms for the mag reels already incorporated into to projector, it is also capable of reading optical tracks on prints AND it was in my price range. I've never scene a dual purpose projector and this one is from the 50s so it's fairly old and parts are a concern, but it is in working condition at the moment. I will still have to pick up an anamorphic attachment for it but I'm on my way. Dose anyone know of any places that service and have parts for these projectors?

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 12-04-2007, 08:13 AM:

This was a projector that was made by Shinkyo Electric of Japan which now makes video projectors. This model has been out of production for many years. A.V.E. imported and modified them in the 1960-70's and created interlock, portable and mini cine changeover systems. They handle film better than the Tokiwa T series portable due to the framer rotating the intermittent sprocket instead of adjustable bearing rollers. Rangertone may be able to source parts since they where the last importer.

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 12-04-2007, 06:56 PM:

Thanks for the information, Richard. It was listed as a 50s projector so it's good to know it's a bit newer. Do you have a website or phone number for Rangertone? I did a Google search but did get a satisfactory listing.

I still need to find an anamorphic lens or attachment for this projector, I assume, being a dallies projector from the 60s and 70s, it had anamorphic lenses or lens attachments available. What would you recommend?

Also, a friend of mine mentioned that Xenon was the light source used on most modern projectors and for color timing, I may have to cover the lens with a CTB filter or change out the light source to Xenon any ideas on that. In addition the seller said the sound needed to be updated, any thoughts on that? Anyone? [Cool]

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 12-04-2007, 07:29 PM:

quote: Steve Beverly
seller said the sound needed to be updated, any thoughts on that? Anyone?

quote: Cameron Glendinning
I'm a bit lost on whether you will ever run regular prints? As a modern red light reader is now required for the last few years worth of films made. Its quite possible a second hand projector would not have been modernised.

quote: Scott Norwood
If you will just be showing your own films, then you do not need the LED reader soundhead upgrade. Just be sure to order your release prints with either "silver" or "high-magenta" optical tracks. These are pretty much standard for small print runs, anyway, and will play fine on any soundhead. Obviously, none of this is an issue when running interlocked sound on the dubber.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-04-2007, 07:49 PM:

No professional DP would ever run dailies on that except just to verify that the camera even just worked. Beyond just seeing an image it can't be used for QC or grading of any sort.

Color temperature is wrong

Steadiness is not going to be adaquate nor come close to SMPTE specs.

Wow and flutter and frequency response are not going to be adaquate for the sound mixer.

How is the flatness of focus? I say doubtful...

Dailies are all done via DLP these days anyways.

I woulda bought the DeVry over this! With some work it IS possible for a DeVry to meet SMPTE Specs... A DeVry CAN be adapted to Xenon with just a little work.

Mark

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 12-04-2007, 08:18 PM:

Well, that's a depressing thing to know. One of the main reasons I bought it was because of the Mitchell Cope Screening Room pictorials here at Film-Tech:

www.film-tech.com/warehouse/pics/cope/cope.html

which had one almost identical to this except there were no mag reel arms and it fed from a Christie platter system so I figured if he went to all that trouble it had to be halfway decent. I suppose I can sell it and go with something else. I'm just curious though, if these are such crappy projectors, why did they make them with the mag reel arms for screening dallies?

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-04-2007, 09:00 PM:

My experience was as portables go the only one i would use was the MP30 and even it had issues the only other portable is the wassman that I would consider

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-04-2007, 09:32 PM:

I couldn't tell you why he used it in his screening room... Like I said... to see if the camera works its ok... but beyond that its not usable.

None of the films I serviced ever had any portable projector... it just wouldn't cut it for the reasons I listed above. These folks are super critical and even both projectors need to be color matched to within a decent tolerance. I used either my own on board mag playback design based on the Century projector and Century 3-D sound reproducer or a pair of Century's and electronic drive MTM dubbers. None of the gear I own is what I would call portable. A complete dual machine booth fills the back of a full size pickup.

Hopefully you can return that projector to whom you bought it from and get your dough back. I think you need to study up on projectors a good deal more and not just jump into something that comes along because its cheap. A good reliable projector is as important as a good camera and lenses are if not more so... without one you have no idea whats on your film!!

Mark

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 12-04-2007, 09:46 PM:

Well, I believe that Super Simplex is still available and it comes with what looks like modified Magna-Tech turned into a film tower so maybe that might be the way to go. The DeVry is still also availible and it's simi-portable.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-04-2007, 10:13 PM:

Here is some of the stuff that I used to use. I still have one pair of SA's and the pair of MTM dubbers....

I think this is the "Home Alone" pair of projectors. I have to give credit to Steve Kraus for comming up with the all in one idea on the Century. This was the first time I used the "Warnerphponic" Century sound reproducers. They still had the original 3-track heads in them... one was S/N 001! I still have that mag head although it is pretty worn. Some nights on John Hughes films we went through anywhere from 20K to 40K feet of film on them... literally hours of dailies! You could re-thread them and be ready for the next c/o in about a minute once you got used to them. Ultimately there would be 7 sets of these built. All of them survive to this day.

This is the first production set of projectors as used on "Free Willy-2" shot on Lopez Island.

This pair is installed in Houston.

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 12-05-2007, 07:07 AM:

Serviced some of Mark's machines in Florida. We had next to no problems...only the operator (Who had no clue what he was running) on one production which we had switched to an experienced dailies projectionist.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 12-05-2007, 10:25 AM:

quote: Steve Beverly
I bought it was because of the Mitchell Cope Screening Room pictorials here

Isn't his room a Private Home Screening Room? It's a nice looking room from the pictures, but as Mark said those projectors wouldn't be a good choice for working with todays film makers at any budget. They used those types of projectors in the days you where stuck in the middle of nowhere and needed to see the footage. That was many moons ago.
I work with many film makers here in NYC on all types of budgets and dallies. The Screening Room I run is in Times Square and fits the needs of the modern film maker for film and digital.

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 12-05-2007, 10:49 PM:

Well GREAT news, I was able to cancel the deal on the A.V.E., it cost me $25 bucks but well worth the price to not make a catastrophic mistake. Now here is the Super Simplex I am looking at, it is in my price:

Here is the info on the projection system:

The system includes the following items:

* Super Simplex Projector - reconditioned, and in excellent condition. Less than 30 hours since reconditioning. The reconditioning included new gate components, shutter, bearings, sprockets, intermittent movement, etc. This machine is like-new. It comes with a 1.85 aperture plate.
* Simplex Four Star Soundhead - Works well, and sounds great, low flutter and wow. Cosmetically, not the prettiest, but otherwise in good condition.
* Exciter Lamp Power Supply - a good ol’ analog unit mounted in the film transport rack with a front panel switch provided on the transport control panel. The supply could power two exciter lamps, if required.
* Spare Exciter Lamp - call us paranoid, but we like spare bulbs!
* ORC 1000 Xenon Lamp House - Self contained, no external power supply required. The bulb in the lamp house is quite young and bright.
* Spare Xenon Bulb - in original packaging.
* Pedestal for projector, soundhead, and lamp ? re-wired, cast iron base, dolly included.
* Custom Built Film Transport System - constructed for the purpose of showing complete features with a single projector. Far simpler than a platter system, and better for the film. The transport is build around two classic 10, 000 ft Cinerama reels and a pair of projector reel arms. The system allows reel-to-reel showing and rewind, and handles both the Cinerama reels as well as standard reels. This system can be used in place of a make-up table for print assembly/breakdown. The take-up motor is a high quality, quiet, high-torque worm gear motor, and the rewind motor is a high-speed torque motor with variable tension control. A small amount of hold-back tension can be applied during show for smooth film transport. Custom roller guide arms for the projector are included.
* 35mm Tape Splicer with tape for print make-up. Makes nice tight splices.
* Instruction Manuals - a binder with copies of the original Simplex operating and maintenance manuals is included. Also in the binder is a copy of the ORC Lamp manual, and a selection of articles on film handling and troubleshooting.
* Lens - your choice of lenses (only one is included, you choose) a 100mm Snap-Lite or a 50mm Snap-Lite. A Cinemascope anamorphic is also available, but not included in the auction.
* Aperture Plates: comes with 1.85 plate, full aperture plate available on request.
* Lubrication Kit - a container of all the necessary lubricants for normal operation, including soundhead oil, projector oil, two oilers, and denatured alcohol for cleaning.

The spare Xenon bulb is in its original packing. The Xenon bulb, the spare Exciter bulb, the Splicer, and a hardware kit come in a fiberglass road case for neat storage or transport.

This system is as close to “Plug-and-Play” as you can get. The projected image is rock stable, and top quality. I routinely used a 16’ screen and filled it with a bright and beautiful image. If you need to go bigger (like for ‘movies in the park’) you need only add a higher power lamp house.

Other than the sound head, no sound equipment is included. The soundhead output can feed a standard mixer/amplifier.

and has 3 lenses available including an anamorphic and an extra charge:

The projector comes with your choice of one of these lenses, an Isco Cinelux Ultra 50mm f2, the right or a Kollmorgen Snaplite 3.75" (95mm) f2. both are in excellent condition, clear, no mold or scratches. I also have a Cinemascope Anamorphic available.

And here is the DeVry I am looking at:

And here is the information on it:

Self contained unit, 1000 Watt Incandescent lamp-house, 2000 Ft. Take-up, 2 new spare Display Spotlights, New DHT Lamp (plus 2 new spares!), 6 Lenses, and spare steel belt & sprocket. See photos.

This is a portable 35mm projector, first commissioned by the US Navy, for entertainment and education of sailors onboard ship. Built like a battleship, of heavy-gauge "horizon grey" steel, The DeVry 35mm Projector can project a big, bright 35mm image with sound, and is easy to adjust and fix. Was designed to project for a 1500-person audience.

Description of the lenses:

1. Baush & Lomb Series 1 CINEPHOR 3.25 EF
2. Kollmorgen Optical Series 1 BX-171 2.75
3. Gundlach Manhatten Optical 6 inch No. 1
4. Sunray Wollensak 5 inch Focus
5. Sunray Wollensak 4 1/4 inch Focus
6. Gundlach Manhatten Optical 5 1/2 inch

The lens that is in the projector:

Wollensak 3" f/1.9 Cinema Raptar Projection Lens.

Comes with a full 47 page manual, power cord and 2000 ft reel. You will need an external amplifier for sound.

The unit powers up, light works, but has not been tested with film. Being sold as-is condition.

It costs about half of what the Simplex costs. What do you think of these for what I'm wanting to do?

Posted by Richard B. Perrine (Member # 409) on 12-06-2007, 12:11 AM:

Boy...I don't post that often...so I had to look up my password for this.
I had a set of Devry's....I'd pass on them.

Good machine for interlocks.....FP-20
I took mine put torqure motors on the reels, a servo-drive to replace the orginial motor, shaft encoder to lock to the mag dubbers, and added GE sylsens to both of them (just cause I was doing everything else).
FP-20 easy to add the shaft encoder or mount anything insdie the collum.

Actually to the mix of dubbers...MTM, Magnasync, Magnatech 600
You may have a real apples and oranges thing here.
MTM uses a quad pulse. Magnatech uses bi-phase. Magnasync I'm not sure if they ever had any drives that matched the other 2.
I have Magnatech.
Your MTE 600 is best to work with. Is it a 6 Track Record/play
machine? if it is ...your set for a master recorder.
You would them just need a shaft encoder in the projector to drive it.
BUT the controller uses biphase pulses....SO to lock the MTM deck you need to convert to quad pulses (4line drive instead of just 2 line like the bi-phase)
All your dubbers probably have different motor systems....
Check them... The MTE 600 will have a Seperior Electric Stepper Motor, but the Magnasync may have plain old sync motors....the only way to lock them is with selsyn motors.
as Far as you Dolby goes.....replace the A cards with SR.
Nobody is recording prints with Type A.
It will mean a complete remix of your soundtrack form the PME stems...if you use them.
Now if you want a couple of Magnatech racks to lock with yor MTE 600.....contact me.

Foolish me posted my email address in the body of this email so the mods had to come in and edit it.

[ 12-06-2007, 01:14 AM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-06-2007, 01:15 AM:

Steve, I am sure there will be somebody to come argue against this post, but what you are looking at is junk. Poor equipment. Stuff you should not be bothering with.

Just get yourself something like a Century SA and a portable lamphouse and stay away from the junk.

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 12-06-2007, 02:43 AM:

I'd be happy too if I could find a Century SA with a portable lamphouse for around a grand....I doubt whether that's gonna happen but I'd love to do it. I also would love to film on the latest Panavisions but can't afford that either. I've got to make what I'm ABLE to do work. I would think maybe the reconditioned Simplex might be closer to what I need to see the film for grading, QC and focus. When I can afford better equipment, I'll upgrade, what I need now is what will work for the money I have to spend and the OTHER problem is I have to get things when the money is available because it has a funny way of evaporating. I don't need the best stuff out there, just something that will work for now, after all, nobody learns to drive at Indy so though I would love to have Mark's old set-up, I gotta deal with reality and go with the cheapest possibly solution that works....unfortunately. Now maybe none of this equipment isn't worth messing with, but there has to be a solution in that price range. I have a selsyn belt sync system that came with the Magnasync reproducers so that's what I'll have to use. They also came with a 6 Track head, but I think they only can playback, not record. I bought them from a guy who also used to do dallies screening so they were well taken care of.

Here is my MTM 35/16mm dubber:

The Magna Tech 600 is too big to upload so I'll reduce it and submit it later.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-06-2007, 11:01 PM:

Actually some junk is very capable of putting out a better image than some of the current stuff can. All he's after is picture standard thats equal or better than SMPTE and any Super in decent condition can easily do that. There is OBVIOUSLY a budget he needs to follow but if anyone wants to sell Steve a nice SA for 500 bucks I'm sure he would jump on it. As for the Super you'd want to know what he menas by "reconditioned". To some people this means wipe the crud off and send it out the door. This Super has been on and off E-BAy for a long time. The ORC is ok for dailies because of its aluminized reflector... you basically get white light out of it and it runs on 120 volts. You can do 16fl on a 12 foot wide screen with no problem if the mirror is in decent shape..... is it? Also, is the intermittent sprocket on the Super held on by a screw and nut or with taper pins? The taper pin sprockets are NLA and you need the later LaVezzi movement to be able to use Posi-Trol sprockets. Being able to use them is a huge advantage, even on an SA since lateral guiding of the film is done by full width fitting vkf type teeth on one side of the sprocket... just like the reg pins in the movement of a 35mm camera [Cool]

.

There are FP-20's on the cheap once in a while but again condition needs to be kown and because you are helping to keep Larry's airplane flying the parts are super expensive [Eek!]

.

As to the dubbers I always prefered MTM servo drive to Manatech. A room full of Magnatech stepper drive motors running is quite annoying after several hours... noisy dam dubbers! MTM's are silent and have alot lower wow & flutter and I also believe the electronics are of much later design and quieter.... they are how ever a little more temperamental than Magnatech. If you need any direct advice or parts for dubbers just contact Scott Sound in Burbank.

Mark

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 12-07-2007, 03:58 AM:

Well, here's what he had to say about the reconditioning:

"Super Simplex Projector - reconditioned, and in excellent condition. Less than 30 hours since reconditioning. The reconditioning included new gate components, shutter, bearings, sprockets, intermittent movement, etc. This machine is like-new."

I emailed him and asked If he could give me a few more details on the reconditioning. I also asked about the intermittent sprocket and the mirror. I'll see if he replies and what he has to say. My only real concern is the film transport system. It looks a little Mickey Mouse to me but if it works, it would be nice screen features with, 'course I'd have to get a make-up table, but everything in it's time. [Cool]

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-07-2007, 11:36 AM:

Have many of almost every dubber made I rate them as follows
Westrex servo drive was the best for low wow and flutter but is very very complex to service and there drive frequency originaly was not 960hz like magnatech
MTM servo drive is very good but there torque motors were a little lacking when it came to handling large reels
Magna Tech could be depending on its age of selsyn drive interlock
converting to a stepper is the only way I know of with current drives to make them work
The stepper drive does have noticably higher wow and flutter

On the issue of preamps
MTM has a terrible low frequency bump
Westrex (later called cinemag) are very good
Magna Techs are ok
Innovonics made the nicest 3rd market record and playback systems that allowed 4 preset eq and level curves
They are regrettably no longer made

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-07-2007, 12:54 PM:

quote: Gordon McLeod
Westrex servo drive was the best for low wow and flutter but is very very complex to service

There are zero parts available for Westrex dubbers at all unless you scavenge from another dubber... been through that at the 15/70 theater.

The bump on the MTM is easy to tame with the use of the correct type of heads.

I agree on the reel servos... touchiest part of the MTM's. But they treat you good if you reciprocate. When properly set up the on machine rewind os really nice as it slows down to a crawl when the reel's almost done rewinding.

Mark

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 12-07-2007, 01:07 PM:

Remember working a Paramount film finger pushing a MTM torque motor for 5 weeks...... [Big Grin]

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 12-07-2007, 04:29 PM:

I received an email back, apparently the Simplex has been sold, though he said he would keep the eamil in the event the deal didn't go through. I suppose the DeVry even at 500 bills is more or less a complete waste of time right?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-07-2007, 06:55 PM:

You seem in such a rush.....

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 12-07-2007, 10:42 PM:

It's just that money evaporating thing. You're right though, I do need to wait for the right deal to come along. I curb my more self destructive instincts and just wait until something come up and hopefully I'll still have the cash available to do it at the time. [Cool]

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-08-2007, 09:53 AM:

remember that that Devry is currently set up for incadescent light source and all 35mm prints are timed for 5400K xenon so your dailies will have colour issues

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 12-08-2007, 02:03 PM:

For once I agree with Brad Miller that Devry your looking at is Junk. Actually, most Devrys I see are junk because they were used and abused machines. I have several factory refurbished units with more or less zero time. They actually look new at 1 ft away. These work very well with good modern lenses. They work as well as any Super Simplex unit since the Devry uses the same intermittent. It's the intermittent that presents the film image to the screen.

I have one for sale. I believe it's sold but the deal has not gone through yet because of a long string of bad weather in Upstate NY. You might want to contact me in case the deal falls apart. Although shipping from the East Coast might be expensive.

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 12-08-2007, 10:51 PM:

I'm very interested. I have a pretty good company I use for shipping. I'm assuming of course it has a xenon light source, modern sound reader and is in my price range.

Posted by Steve Beverly (Member # 4540) on 12-10-2007, 02:42 PM:

Thanks for the information on the dubbers, Gordon and Mark, so given what I have, what is the best way to go and how do I set up my sylsens interlock? (again, I know virtually nothing about projection and am just now learning) The sylsens came with the Magna-sync reproducers, so I know it works with them, but how and where does it hook up to a projector and what problems am I going to have to deal with? Thanks-Steve

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-10-2007, 05:18 PM:

The Selsyn systems often used on dubbers was based on a master motor generator sync set driving the projector and dubbers