This is topic Rake Scratch 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=009005

---

Posted by Chad Smith (Member # 2130) on 11-25-2007, 06:56 PM:
 


I poked around on the forums for a bit and didn't see a similar scratch that anyone had posted about.

Thank the lord that this is on the base side of the film. FilmGuard helped out a bunch, it doesn't look nearly as bad as when we discovered the scratches.

For pictures of the projection setup that we have check a few posts down in a thread I made about a year ago regarding a different type of scratch: scratches (in middle?)

Our setup has remained the same with the exception of our tech recently installing new Dolby Analog readers on all of our houses.

Any ideas?

I'll try to get a better photo of that scratch when I get home from work tonight, if only for sake of documentation.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-25-2007, 07:20 PM:
 
looks like the film missed a guide roller and drug across its axle or flat surface, impedence drum has froze with the film sliding over the drum, or got away in the failsafe area by missing a roller.

Speaking of the failsafe area, I've seen the failsafe assemblies being too far back to where the film actually rubs against the rear frame of the soundhead.

Try to find some "white snow" - (being the base side of the film) somewhere in the platter and projector area..
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-25-2007, 07:27 PM:
 
Given the pictures of his setup, there isn't a whole lot that could've caused this. The obvious culprit would be the sounddrum not spinning freely. Check that first and get back to us.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-25-2007, 07:48 PM:
 
forgot to add: if one misses that lower roller on the DTS reader, film can be scraping against the upper casing of the machine..course, depends on the reader placement..
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 11-25-2007, 08:04 PM:
 
If someone is forgetting to make sure that the film is seated on the film guide directly above the lock pin on the platter take-up assembly and is instead looping the film on that pin itself you'll get continuous black verticle scratching on the base side if you're threading with the analog track facing away from the platter tree thru the take-up assembly.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-25-2007, 08:11 PM:
 
Jeremy is right! About 90% of the time, the only film damage is with Potts/Strong platters. The "push button" on the vertical carriage assembly is usually the culprit. Louis
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-25-2007, 08:31 PM:
 

quote: Louis Bornwasser

---

Jeremy is right! About 90% of the time, the only film damage is with Potts/Strong platters. The "push button" on the vertical carriage assembly is usually the culprit. Louis

---

Boy Howdy you are dead right on that one! That stupid plunger has ruined more film than the film grinding machines that re-cycle film. There are in some places people that are so stupid that I've had to remove the plunger.... Then they use a screwdriver and they have to take it out since it won't release on its own...

Mark
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-25-2007, 10:28 PM:
 
Stupid Strong platters. Glad I don't have to deal with any of them any longer. That would be impossible on a Christie platter.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-25-2007, 10:49 PM:
 
Yeah, it's a mishtread.

But why blame it on the platter when it's the operator who doesn't recheck his threading before he hits the little green button?

Then, again, I work in a Catholic school. If my operators don't do as I tell them I can call Sister Mary Elephant to come whack his pee-pee with a ruler!
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-26-2007, 02:02 AM:
 
(and I've got 26 of them STRONG platters to fuss with..owner wanted something cheap and easy to operate..nothing fancy to deal with..)

Now, I have to admit, being in a hurry, that I've wanged up a couple of prints with the film being dragged on that lock pin, but never have had a full rake scratch pattern like this one since the spring usually holds the film away from the pin-just the scratching from the head of that pin - why I made those full-surface rubbing comments.

Plus, (if he has Simplex 5-star soundheads) he mentions on that Dolby Analog readers were installed...AND if they are the CE type where you have to partically take out the front scanner drum bearing (but totally remove the flywheel and rear bearing to push out the scanner drum bearing) to align up the LED bracket. I bet a dime to a donut that when they put on the flywheel,they put it on too far on the drum shaft and it's dragging against the belt idler pulley causing the resistance in the drum rotation. You wouldn't notice any warble in the sound if doing DTS and/or Dolby Penthouse readers.

..something to chek into...

True Brad on the AW3, but someone who ain't careful with that roller traveller can easilly let the thing drop past that bottom lock pin on the slide rod and really can wang up a print when the film drags flush over the face of the deck when on rewind.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-26-2007, 10:49 AM:
 
Monte, the new bars are impossible for this to happen on. Older bars can be modified in a variety of ways from wrapping gaffer's tape around the bottom edge to drilling a hole and putting a nut/bolt through it...anything to prevent the travel from going past that pin.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-26-2007, 10:50 AM:
 

quote: Randy Stankey

---

I can call Sister Mary Elephant to come whack his pee-pee

---

Randy, you're mixing up your Cheech & Chong tracks. "Whack his pee-pee" was said by the judge in "Trippin' in Court." (Still pretty funny though!)
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-26-2007, 11:32 AM:
 
Okay, I'll call Sargent Stadanko instead.

But seriously... You can't say it enough, no matter what kind of platter you've got.

Check, recheck and TRIPLE check your threading BEFORE you hit that damn "start" button!
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-26-2007, 04:40 PM:
 
If you add a roller just below the offending pin; misthreading will only turn the wrong roller, not damage film. The hole is already there, just reverse the screw in it and add another roller. You may need to trim the O.D. on the new roller. Louis
 

---

Posted by Timothy Eiler (Member # 383) on 11-26-2007, 05:00 PM:
 
I really cant tell from the pictures But if you missed the last roller in the DD reader and went directly to the Projector would it Drag across the top of the turret? If so wouldn't that causes scratch that are seen in the picture?
 

---

Posted by Chad Smith (Member # 2130) on 11-26-2007, 06:06 PM:
 


Everything else was in proper working order so I decided to try some misthreads and this is the only one that recreated the scratch. The lock pin did make some scratches but not covering the entire width of the film like our scratch did.

Thanks for the help guys, mystery solved
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-26-2007, 08:49 PM:
 
Yet another reason why Strong platters are stupid. There is simply no excuse for a platter to not have keeper brackets/rollers on every roller.

The good news is that it is pretty easy to add keepers on a Strong platter. Home Depot carries a particular model of brackets that when cut in half permit keepers to effortlessly be added to existing rollers. I'll try to get a picture sometime this week.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-26-2007, 09:02 PM:
 
Nah....when a film path does that, that's definitely a bad case of not paying attention when someone misses that dbl roller assembly on top when on rewinding to the top platter when lacing the platter... and the absense of keeper rollers can't be blamed to defend the stupidity of the operator.

You got to give these STRONG units a rightful chance to exist in this cinema worlds we're in: Simple to operate, to maintain and if you treat them right, and they're really not that all bad of a platter.

There is no motor or trim cards, DC paks,s et.al. that one has to worry on replacing, just go buy a 2M262 motor to mod it for a platter motor, 1R236 brushes for your existing motors, 6X284 microswitches for the brains (all numbers from Grainger), and ask Mark G. for bearing replacement help and you're really set to go.

(Chad,was there any signs of wear on that roller arm where the film was dragging across?)

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-26-2007, 10:50 PM:
 
You just can't knock Strong/Potts platters out of hand like that.

I agree, they are a cheap product and, as such, they just won't have the same degree of polish that other products will. But you've got to agree that Speco, Christie and other brands have their quirks too.

Specos can be prone to brain wraps if you aren't careful. Christie's can scratch film if you don't watch out for the aforementioned problem. EVERY platter can scratch film if you don't watch out.

Like I said above, it is incumbent on the operator to check, recheck and TRIPLE check his work BEFORE hitting the button! That's what we get PAID FOR!

I have no problem with saying something like "Watch out for 'Brand-X' because you'll damage film if you aren't careful of... <some problem>!" That's what professionals do. They find problems and help others to prevent them.

But I have run Potts platters for over 10 years and I teach "stupid" college students how to run them too. I have not had ONE incident where film was scratched because of a misthread like that. Not even one frame!

Why? Because I teach my students to check, recheck and TRIPLE check their work!

If you get scratched film because you didn't check your threading before starting the show, it's YOUR OWN damn fault! Not the platter's!

P.S. Chad -- I'm not yelling at you, per se. You're the one trying to figure out the solution to this mess. But if it helps your case to say, "Some guy reamed us out for not double checking our work." Go ahead. I'll be the bad guy if it will get people to listen to you.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-27-2007, 12:25 AM:
 
Randy, Christie has admitted their design flaws in the past and taken corrective steps by making revisions to their product to prevent that from happening as I clearly stated above (yet you are choosing to ignore that fact).

Part of a manufacturer's responsibility in making a product is to make it as foolproof as possible. Maybe Chad's operators were in a hurry and didn't catch the mistake, but people ARE human and they DO make mistakes.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-27-2007, 01:20 AM:
 
One thing one has to admit is that the Christie products were designed for the talented projectionist in mind ..like the complexes that I used to work in was designed for.

But, you put this booth in the hands of booth clowns and that really spells trouble for sure..

Prob why a lot of circuits like the STRONG products .. for the "K.I.S.S." booths .. such as ours and a lot others were designed for.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Peter David Bruce (Member # 4447) on 11-27-2007, 04:58 AM:
 
well we had the same scratches sadly on ALL our prints when my colleague laced it up through the cue detector wrong. instead of going around the rollers he went over them, causing the film to drag against the metal casing of the failsafe. not a good thing. he was forgiven as he had only been in the job for a few weeks.

once again it was on the base so film guard sorted it out.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-27-2007, 01:18 PM:
 
Maybe we have made things TOO SIMPLE; we have enabled the retention of said booth clowns. NOW we have to make it simpler still to enable an even less qualified person.

Super Core Lites, JJ's and motor generators did not tolerate the stupid or careless. Louis
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 11-27-2007, 05:42 PM:
 
I find myself in accord with Louis.

The overall issue that makes this abuse of film possible is Mylar instead of acetate.

A "booth clown' would be exposed in days rather than weeks if we were still using acetate.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-27-2007, 07:00 PM:
 
I'm not a big fan of the Strong platter. But I have to use one and that's not going to change any time soon.

It is part of my job to maintain the computers in the office where I work. Eighteen of them. If it was my choice, I'd erase Microsoft Windows off every one of them, reformat the drives and install Linux but it's not. I have to work on the computers as they are.

I'm not saying that simply because I'm a Linux geek or because I like Macs better. I'm saying that because, in my opinion, Linux is a better operating system. People try to minimize me by saying that I just hate Microsoft but the truth is that I can use Microsoft Windows better than 90% of the people out there and I STILL don't like it.

For YOU, Brad, the platter issue is the same as the operating system issue for me. You could run a Strong platter better than most people can operate Christies. Cripes! You could probably operate an Eprad better than most people can operate Christies!

But, no matter what platter system you have to operate, you are a professional and you will do whatever you need to in order to do your job well.

While it is permissible to say, "If you would have used "System X" instead of Microsoft Windows your system wouldn't have crashed.", it is not permissible to advocate that nobody should use Windows.

While it is permissible to say, "If you had a Christie Platter in stead of a Strong it wouldn't have been so easy to scratch film.", it is not permissible to say that nobody should use Strong.

To be very honest, I believe the Strong/Potts platter is a decent product for its price. Yes it is cheap. It doesn't have the features and the polish that Christies do. But a conscientious operator can do a good job with them, without scratching film. It's not difficult. You just have to pay attention to your work. That's all.

I think I agree with Monte and Louis. While the design of the platter is a contributing factor in the problem, it is far outweighed by the fact that most booths are staffed by clowns who don't pay attention to their work.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-27-2007, 08:09 PM:
 
Sorry, but Strong platters are so poorly designed that it is extremely difficult not to cause damage when using them.

Now before everyone starts hollering about how great their presentation is and how they have never had a scratch, I am talking about any film damage...NOT just damage that doesn't show up on YOUR screen. Trust me, I've seen many, many, many prints that show lots of wear when I look at them in my screening room or at well equipped theaters, but they look fine on Strong systems because there just isn't enough light on the screen to show off the film damage. (Cheap owners who buy Strong certainly are going to use the bare minimum xenon power they can squeeze by with.) Plus those flimsy center rings are a primary example of the cause of cinch scratches, everything else being operated perfectly. (If the film was built to one platter and it never was moved, then that wouldn't be any big deal, but what multiplex doesn't move prints?) Also then there is the shitty breakdown table that usually causes film damage if not modified in some manner. We've been over this countless times before on these forums, so anyone with questions can do a search.

Film damage is film damage. It's time for some people to raise their standards.

BTW Sam is certainly right that this sort of nonsense wouldn't be so widespread if polyester base film was not a reality, but then again presentations in general have improved with the switch since fortunately today's polyester film is less prone to scratching. Theaters could always splice in a 5 foot stretch of "Neumade Fiesta" black leader at the ends of their leaders though if they wanted to. That stuff would break immediately in the event of a misthread. (There was a time when I used to splice in sections of acetate leader into interlocking leader to achieve the same effect.) In a pinch, I've known some operators to make a single sided splice joining the leader to the first trailer as well with that same theory being that IF there IS a major misthread somewhere that would trash the print, the single sided splice would break and shut down the movie before it even started. Jack Roe USA makes a 2 perf "economy" splicing tape that is ideal for this purpose if anyone wants to use that little trick.
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-27-2007, 08:28 PM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

Now before everyone starts hollering about how great their presentation is and how they have never had a scratch, I am talking about any film damage...NOT just damage that doesn't show up on YOUR screen. Trust me, I've seen many, many, many prints that show lots of wear when I look at them in my screening room or at well equipped theaters, but they look fine on Strong systems because there just isn't enough light on the screen to show off the film damage. (Cheap owners who buy Strong certainly are going to use the bare minimum xenon power they can squeeze by with.)

---

As much as I've grown tired of strong platters... the above is entirely dubious.

Anyone who uses a product you don't like and claims to not damage prints with it is guaranteed to have damage that they just don't see yet. It's too strong of a claim to make; someone who really rocks could use the stuff to it's full potential.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-27-2007, 09:02 PM:
 
Stupid question: I've never run "Strong" brand platters, but I have run the 3-deck and 5-deck versions of "Xetron" brand platters, which appear to be more-or-less the same thing. Are these essentialy identical to the current Strong platters, or are they a different beast entirely?

(In case anyone cares, I am no particular fan of these machines, but they did wind tightly and didn't seem to damage film. I agree completely with Brad that the Christie is the best platter in general use, with the SPECO being a distant second.)
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-27-2007, 09:11 PM:
 
Chris, I don't expect people to understand without a first-hand demonstration. It's just like most things in life, people just don't know any better until they are proven otherwise. To quote the Matrix, "ignorance is bliss".

And yes most platters cause some degree of film damage. But then again, most reel to reel operations damage film too, just in different ways.

Still Chris you are missing the point here. The entire point of this argument is that Strong could've easily put keeper rollers on everything in their design to prevent such mistakes, yet they don't care enough about their product or their end users to do it. A company like Christie (who just happens to have a spectacular platter design) listens to the field and makes improvements over time. Anything past that I am afraid is simply more critical of a presentation than you care about, and you know what, if the print leaves your theater in what YOU think is a good, or acceptable or even what you think is perfect condition, that's all that matters because outside influences probably won't change your mind on the issue anyway. You have to open your eyes and raise your standards to see what I am talking about.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-27-2007, 09:50 PM:
 
I can't argue with you, Brad, on the keepers. It's really such a simple thing to do and it wouldn't have cost much to add them.

I can't tell you how many times I have thought about taking off those small black rollers and replacing them with some good Christie or Kelmar rollers. But that would involve reworking the entire film path of the system and I just don't have time to do that.

I'm not dismissing what you say but neither am I going to simply believe that all Strong platters damage film all the time unless I see some evidence.

Do remember that I make my students check the projector and the entire film path every time a splice goes through. My movies get a lot closer attention than the average multiplex.

I would have loved to have a better platter in that booth but I've got to play the hand I'm dealt. Still, with conscientious operators, I don't believe they are all THAT bad.

You just have to pay attention to what you're doing.
 

---

Posted by Chad Smith (Member # 2130) on 11-27-2007, 10:16 PM:
 
Brad - Pictures of that setup for the additional keeper rollers would be great if you had them, I think I could pry some money out of some cold dead hands to do that modification, haha

Monte - Yes, I found white dust there which is actually what peaked my interest for that particular misthread

Randy - Yell away, yell away I wish your guys' names carried weight at the theater I work at. Unfortunately I think I'm the only one that cares enough to reach out beyond the company and learn from others

What really got me was that nobody noticed it during the projection walkthroughs that they're SUPPOSED to be doing. Sigh.
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-27-2007, 10:49 PM:
 
Brad,

I wasn't disagreeing with you on the whole thing with being annoyed that they didn't put keepers on the rollers; it's annoyed me too. Or the fact that the platter itself is so thin that they have to put in the stupid fins.

Also, I fail to see why I have low standards for saying that someone who's extremely good like yourself would do a good job even with crummy equipment. Furthermore, how in the hell does this mean my mind isn't open?

Hell, I agree with you that Christie makes the better system. I was just saying you were making a far too general statement; but I'll admit that you have more experience than I so perhaps your statement was "on the money."

edit:
And to the original topic/problem; in the last little while I've caught myself making the same mistake when threading though I'm shocked that the person didn't catch it while they were threading way before they even considered starting.

2nd edit

quote: Chad Smith

---

What really got me was that nobody noticed it during the projection walkthroughs that they're SUPPOSED to be doing. Sigh.

---

quote: Chris Slycord

---

Or the fact that the platter itself is so thin that they have to put in the stupid fins.

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

Stupid question: I've never run "Strong" brand platters, but I have run the 3-deck and 5-deck versions of "Xetron" brand platters, which appear to be more-or-less the same thing. Are these essentialy identical to the current Strong platters, or are they a different beast entirely?

---

They're different - I used Xetron's when I worked for Crown Theatres, and Strong AP-3 platters when I worked for AMC. Below are two pictures for a rough comparison (feel free to remove them if you feel they're unnecessary). The first I took, and the second is slightly smaller version of a picture I grabbed from the gallery of the UA Greenwood Plaza.




I noticed in my picture of the Xetron platter it was threaded soundtrack down - that was the rule when I started there, but was later changed when it was discovered the rule conflicted with corporate procedure.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-28-2007, 02:22 AM:
 
I used to work at a 4plex with Cine V-5's and Drive-In (SPECO), LP-270 "K-Mart, Bluelight special picnic table" platters were we would wind soundtrack down...and had no problems with that threading procedure - handled film with no problems and no scratching to think of. We ran, in 1990, "Pretty Woman" for 25 weeks and the print left as clean as when it came in on being handled by these LP-270's.

Now, that was one great platter to handle. Granted, the platter drive tire contraption was a little odd, but still was acceptable. Only probs with the LP-270's that I experienced, was that diode in the control panel would short across and would blow the unit's glass fuses without notice.

Thus,if it works either soundtrack up, or down .. go for it for no one can say differently.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-28-2007, 07:32 AM:
 
Monte, yet again you need to read much more carefully before you go saying "pooh", because you missed the point too.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-28-2007, 01:38 PM:
 
Okey, gotcha - Monte
 

---

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 11-29-2007, 09:05 AM:
 

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

if one misses that lower roller on the DTS reader, film can be scraping against the upper casing of the machine

---