This is topic Advice Needed For Historic Theatre 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=009031
Posted by Adam Holland (Member # 4539) on 12-16-2007, 06:09 PM:
I am the Chairman of the Fiske Theatre Committee in Oak Grove, La. and we are in the process of returning the Fiske Cinema to a Movie House. I found a complete set up of equipment in Andrews Texas that I can buy for about half of what the consultant priced for me. It is Simplex XL Projectors and the processors etc that come with it. I am wondering if this would be a good route to go or would it be best to buy rebuilt equipment that would have a warrantee with it.
The theatre was state of the art when it opened in 1950 with Motiograph projectors and sound equipment, cry room, air conditioning, and the works. I have sold the motiograph sound equipment and still have my old motiograph projectors still set up that I have been told aren't worth repairing. For the right price they may be for sell. I also have a lenses that go with them both flat and scope they are for sale as well. According to a note posted in the both by Mr. Donald B. Fiske these lenses were worth 3,000 a pair when they were bought.
Would love any advice some of you may have and if you are intrested in any of this equipment feel free to send me an email.
[ 12-21-2007, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: Adam Holland ]
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-16-2007, 06:25 PM:
This did not belong in the Equipment Sales forum. Moved.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-16-2007, 06:44 PM:
First threaten to the city that you're going to tear it down and that you're going to build condos on the site.... you'll get all sorts of free publicity and no one's going to want the condos! But really you're going to renovate the theater... just don't tell them that and then a group will form to save your local theater. These folks will become invalualable in raising money and assisting you with the renovation.
There ya go!
P.S. Study the booth equipment because Christie never made an X-L projector... Tim will have a heart attack! Its probably a Christie Lamphouse or console with an X-L projector hanging on the front. Either Strong or Simplex built the actual projector. Older lamphouses no matter who built them are very inefficient by todays standards.... meaning low light output. Christie has a kit to upgrade their consoles to todays light output standards. Big Sky has one for the Xetron Lamphouses and so on...
Know what you're buying... be careful what you buy even if you do know.
Mark
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-18-2007, 12:35 AM:
quote: Adam Holland
According to a note posted in the both by Mr. Donald B. Fiske these lenses were worth 3,000 a pair when they were bought.
Old lenses aren't worth anything. Lenses depreciate rapidly; technological advances make them old news fast. Those lenses were outdated by 1958. If someone offers you something for them - anything - take it. Same with the Motiographs, $75-100 tops... if they're AA's. But they're essentially worthless.
One thing not to get painted into a corner on with these community project jobs... everyone thinks the existing equipment is worth a fortune - because it's old, if anything (fwiw, projection equipment has to be nearly 100 years old to be considered antique) - and they hold out for a buyer, thinking that will fund the new equipment. Meantime, it just sits there.
There are still too many Motiogriefs (sic) and Snaplite lenses lying in junk piles for them to be unique. Just look on Ebay at some of the ridiculous prices people try to get for this stuff! There are people, however, who do collect tube-type amplifiers, which you have discovered, but no such sub-culture exists for the other items. quote:
Christie never made an X-L projector... Tim will have a heart attack!
That's funny. ![[rofl]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
I would be very leery if you're looking at a Christie console. I wouldn't consider anything that isn't a model SLC from Christie. Even the Phoenix kit conversions Mark mentioned still have the rest of the console (transformers, tap switches) remaining as original equipment.
The XL projector is okay if it's black; if it's blue, not so much. The soundhead section of the combine should be taken into consideration, too, but you did not mention that?
The rest of Mark's idea about creating a panic sounds very good! ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-18-2007, 08:02 AM:
Nothing wrong with the the stuff on an old CH series console... its more or less identicl to whats in the SLC. The inclusion of a Phoenix kit will net you the same long lamp life you'd get in an SLC, and at a fraction of the price.
Mark
Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 12-18-2007, 09:37 AM:
Maintain the vintage appearance of the building and keep the technical side as contemporary as the budget allows. Contrary to what your committee may believe the movie customers are not coming just because of the building. If the movie is crap they will not come. Like it or not you're competing with the multis if you are doing first run and against video sales and rentals if you are sub run, classics, or artsy. Ditch all the ancient carbon arc lamps, all the tube amps, the '50s vintage speakers. We found a collector who paid us for all that stuff and took it down and hauled it away, a modest amount but considering he did all the lifting and moving an excellent deal for both. The only thing we stil have is a Brenkert C-14 follow spot that the board wants to put on display. You'llneed a digital projector too.
[ 12-19-2007, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Bill Enos ]
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-18-2007, 10:13 AM:
Everything Bill says is true. My 'modernization' rule here (for the lobby and outside, at least) has been: If the customers can see it, keep it old-fashioned; behind the scenes, get it as high-tech as possible. The exception is the auditorium where we ditched the old seats because they were uncomfortable, too close together and completely worn out. We rearanged the seating into continental style to improve the sound quality for the listeners, and we "soundfolded" the walls because the room was too echoey.
Part of my refurbishing here has been to remove some of the "modernization" that we wrong-headedly did in the early 80s. We're going to take down the phony brick paneling and return the lobby to the original drywall look. It's the first project I've done about in 2 years that Mark G.'s company won't get any money out of! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(Unless they suddenly jump into the drywall business, that is.)
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-18-2007, 12:14 PM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Nothing wrong with the the stuff on an old CH series console... its more or less identicl to whats in the SLC.
Except that their 30+ years old, worn, and drying out.
Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 12-18-2007, 05:18 PM:
I believe the theatre in Andrews had Simplex heads. It was a twin mini-cinema.
Posted by Tony L. Hernandez (Member # 3524) on 12-19-2007, 02:16 AM:
After reading the original poster's message, I'd like to write a few things for him to think about. I'd like to sincerely applaud you for attempting to return films to your theater. First of all, as a couple other folks have said, I don't believe there was ever a Christie XL. There is a Simplex XL but I can't tell you what I personally think of those machines as I have never worked with one.
It caught my eye that you mentioned you had Motiographs. We have a Motiograph AAA with CFS platters at one of my theaters that has given us 60 seasons of trouble free, quality service spending the first 40 years of its life on carbon arc and changeover and the last 20 years on xenon and platters. I've worked with many different types of 35mm projectors in my life and this is my all time favorite. Easy to clean and thread, almost impossible to thread out of frame, VERY reliable and with a rock-steady image. This were also a machine that my very dear, late friend (who was in this business 60 years) loved and had in all of her theaters and drive ins.
That said, parts are almost impossible to find as Motiograph has been out of business for at least 40 years. We are OK at the theater I mentioned because of the fact that we have at least 3 picture and sound heads in storage, although we have only had to replace a part once, in my time there. That's another issue I should elaborate on..that part was a sound roller and our technician had quite a bit of trouble physically replacing that part since the unit was so old and everything had sort of settled into place.
So to summarize, you have a couple EXTREMELY nice units already but if you choose to restore them, keep in mind what I said about parts. They will need to be upgraded to xenon lamps, the soundhead will have to be upgraded from the old exciter lamp to an LED reader and these units will also need some cleaning and mechanical restoration, especially if they have sat idle for over ten years. As others have said, it is hard to get a good price for old projection equipment. If you could find them a good home where they would be treated as museum pieces (they are very beautiful machines) or to a theater who needs them for parts and MAYBE get a small donation to your theater in the process, I'd be more than happy if I were you. And old lenses are good for nothing more than a boat anchor.
If you do decide to scrap the Motiographs and replace them, I would suggest you allow some of the folks on this forum advise you on what to purchase. There are many dealers who would be more than happy to sell you a $20k booth full of unreliable, worthless ![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif)
Also, unless you are going to be running a feature at least 5 times, I would have to recommend you go with changeover rather than platters. You really don't want to spent 1 1/2 hours building up a print, showing it twice, then spending another 45 minutes breaking it down. Besides, many archives (for classic films) and independent film makers who only have a handful of prints will not allow their prints to go to a platter house as you must cut off heads and tails to build up and show. If you are showing a film more than 5 or so times, however AND have a limited staff, I would investigate platters. Platters also have many more problems (example, brainwraps, jams and horizontal scraches) than reel to reel changeover. I have platter at only one of my theaters and that is OK with me only due to the fact that it is only myself and the owner running the theater most of the time and we are a first run house showing any one film, every night, for 2+ weeks. So obviously I cannot be up there for the whole show running the booth being one of two staff. The rest of my theaters are changeover, mostly because we only show a film twice or four times and there is a projectionist (myself) in the booth at all times.
I agree with the others that up-to-date sound and lamphouses are a must but disagree with the statement that the projectors must be state of the art. I've honestly seen a pair of 70 year old Super Simiplexes put out a nicer image than the new Christies. And of the projectors I've dealt with ranging in age from a 1937 install to a 2006 install, I've found older units to be more user-friendly. Another reason 35mm is better than digital cinema...a 35mm unit can be used for 60+ years with only minor upgrades to keep with the times...10 years with digital cinema will be pushing it before you have an obsolete boat anchor you have to tear out and replace.
You may (once you get everything else done) eventually want to get a digital projector for DVDs and special usues and a couple 16mm units to make your theater a more versatile venue.
Sorry to ramble...if you have any more questions just post or message me. There are lots of very well seasoned and bright folks on here to help and I'll keep an eye on this thread too.
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-19-2007, 07:38 AM:
quote: Tony L. Hernandez
Platters also have many more problems (example, brainwraps, jams and horizontal scraches) than reel to reel changeover.
...and...cue Brad. ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 12-19-2007, 07:41 AM:
While it is OK to spend time on your own equipment, you can't expect an outside service tech to spend a long time finding old / discontinued parts without charging. Most theater owners would probably get upset at receiving an invoice that said, in effect; $50 for a barrel shutter gear, $240 for finding it, $60 for getting the pre-stripped screws out so it can be replaced, $60 for replacement. Exactly when to replace something is always a matter of opinion, but if you can't do the work yourself it might be the better option.
I agree with Tim on everything. Also, I have been involved with several 'historic' theater projects where the people running the project want the parts and labor donated for free or cheap, usually bringing it up after payment is due. I am NOT saying the original person who posted this topic would/will/might do this; don't even know him.
I like Mark's idea about threatening to put up condos, too! I saw it done one, only it was a warehouse ... it worked!
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 12-19-2007, 07:49 AM:
That's very good advice re. Changeovers and it gives real programming flexibility, particularly with a single screen.
This is a long shot, and it depends on your screen size, but you could also think about dual-gauge 35/70mm with additional provision down the line for 2K DLP as well to do 3-D and alternative programming.
70mm would give you commercial leverage in terms of a "unique selling point" that multis would find hard to emulate. There is a fine libary now of classic product, and it has the "wow" factor that would draw people in.
It could be quite realistic to buy a pair of say, second-hand Philips DP70s or Century JJ's for possibly not much more than the 35mm package referred to above. There are more overheads of course, but taking a longer view it could work very well. I guess your auditorium and available screen size are the governing factor. You need 60ft minimum width to do 70mm justice.
Good luck!
Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 12-19-2007, 07:59 AM:
Go with something common and reliable... Century SA's come to mind...
Go with a changeover setup but also have a tower system for long play runs. Its easier on the film then a platter and takes up less room. Then you can start the trailers on projector 1 and changeover to the feature.
A high end video projector would be a good investment for local video's and rentals
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-19-2007, 08:15 AM:
quote: Tim Reed
Except that their 30+ years old, worn, and drying out.
Tim,
Now you're beginning to show ignorance and I know you're smarter than tha. There are huundreds of CH consoles as well as lamphouse/rectifier combos just in the service area that I cover. All of them still function 100% and none of them have any dried out wiring. In fact the wiring has always been one of the best parts of the Christie gear... even out here where humidity is really low you won't find any with dried up stuff except possibly the nylon adjustment gears... but there are metal replacements for those if you look hard enough in the right place... again if the part doesn't exist improvise or have it made! Most of the CH's out here have Phoenix kits in them but a few still chug along with the old reflector. Mike Blaksley runs an old CH with a Phoenix kit and I don't think he has anything to complain about it. His on screen image is outstanding and lamp life can approach 20K hours if you want to run them that long... and some do.
Mark
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-19-2007, 09:39 AM:
I usually pitch ch consoles they are not worth the cost of maintaining them.
The rectifiers tend to get noisy with age
In fact I try to avoid consoles as much as possible
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-19-2007, 09:52 AM:
Will this be a full-time cinema or a multi-use PAC type of facility with occasional film programming?
What type of film programming will you be presenting: first-run mainstream titles, late-run mainstream titles, art-house, repertory, festivals, something else?
If you are running film only occasionally, where will you find your operators and what type of equipment are they most familiar with?
What is the balance of cost vs. quality? Do you want the best presentation that money can buy, or do you want something cheap that can (hopefully) be upgraded in the future as funds allow?
All of these considerations will affect what you need to buy.
Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 12-19-2007, 11:04 AM:
Get rid of equipment that you can't get parts or service for on a phone call. If you're running a platter that is even more important since you will be closed until parts can be found. As for those parts machines, forget them, at the cost of service time do you want to be paying the tech do do the job twice? (Once for the machine being repaired and once for the disassembly of the donor machine). Additionally, there is good chance those old machines were taken out of service because they are broken. Not going to be a service warranty on those used parts either. Got a boat? Use one of them for an anchor.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-19-2007, 11:25 AM:
Also on the issue of consoles some may not fit through older doors and if it is a historical building you probably will not be allowed to remove door frames or open new openings to get one in
Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 12-19-2007, 11:39 AM:
quote: Brian Guckian
70mm would give you commercial leverage in terms of a "unique selling point" that multis would find hard to emulate. There is a fine libary now of classic product, and it has the "wow" factor that would draw people in.
70MM does draw people in, but you are limited to what worn 70MM prints that are available. The newer restored prints are only available to Special venues that are change-over and that have a Great track record on films from the studios.
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 12-19-2007, 02:13 PM:
Sure - my comments were made in the context of putting in twin machines (even Kinoton MP75E's!) and it is understood one would need proper training and some kind of accreditation to get the prints. But it can be done. If the attitude is right, and if the respect and appreciation is there, then it can be done.
But only if the venue is suitable! Otherwise 35mm and DLP would be just fine.
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-19-2007, 06:19 PM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Tim,
Now you're beginning to show ignorance
Well, that's a two-way street, my friend!
What Gordon said.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-19-2007, 06:54 PM:
I can't think of a renovaton or rebuild of an existing theater that actually didn't install new doors and windows, granted its warmer where he is and he may not need thermal pane windows. He's not in Canada... he's in the land of the free where they let ya do stuff like that if ya want to....as long as it meets local buldng code. We even had a 10X10 hole cut in a roof once to get 15/70 equipment in by crane.
Mark
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-19-2007, 07:51 PM:
Well, well. Here's that ignorance thing working back at you, Mark. I just did a renovation in NJ, and none of this happened as you say. We had to finagle the old equipment out and new (standard pedestals) in through existing (narrow) booth openings. No such luxury. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-19-2007, 08:21 PM:
Mark any building that has a historical landmark status can not be altered
I have even had to conceal surround speakers into the walls behind old brocade fabric because os a desigination (even in many theatres I have done in the USA)
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-19-2007, 08:45 PM:
There are two types of restoration done... true to original, and restoration done to make better use of the existing property. A building still holds it's "Historical" status if done either way although I've been told that the Historical Status folks will certainly whine about it. While the people doing the renovation might want to keep things as they were... the Historical Satus ONLY holds in regard to the buiding exterior. Many a theater building has been drastically altered inside to accomodate among other things a complete working stage and or fly, stadium seating, elevators, HVAC, electrical, and so on. I can think of at least three Historical Sites, one in SLC, one in Orem UT that had flys added to the buildings, the Orem location had a second theater (screen) added attached to the south end of the "Historical" building. The Ogden Egyptian Theater restoration is also another good example of this where the main stage, dressing rooms, and too many other aspects to mention here were either altered or added to the interior. The projection booth was drastically altered and offices were built upstairs an elevator added and so on. All three of these sites still have "Historical Landmark Status".
Should I list others... Oriental Theater Chicago...Oriental Theater Milwaukee, twinned... Palace Theater Chicago... Chicago Theater and on and on... all these locations maintained their major significent features but they also underwent major use, upgrade, and safety changes, and many changes to allow the operators of these buildings to make money to keep em going.
Mark
Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 12-19-2007, 11:30 PM:
Don't get hooked into 70mm unless you are ready to commit to buying DTS equipment. Unless you want to be running mag with red prints, all of the new prints of 70 flicks are DTS.
Also, if you're planning to do repertory, you MUST run reel-to-reel, unless you want to limit your selection of classic films to a few dozen titles. Prints are expensive and most studios will not book to you if you're running platter.
If you're a PAC, my guess is that you will have little to no money to spend on this. Get yourself a good set of Simplexes, which can be had at a reasonable price, and make damn well sure you have a good set of lamphouses and lenses to go well with any projectors you get. No one pays for a dim image.
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 12-20-2007, 01:21 AM:
quote: Jack Theakston
Don't get hooked into 70mm unless you are ready to commit to buying DTS equipment. Unless you want to be running mag with red prints, all of the new prints of 70 flicks are DTS.
But there are more 70mm titles available in mag than in DTS, and not all are red. 'Hamlet' was mag, and that was long after low-fade stock was introduced. There have also been odd mag prints produced since then. I think anywhere that plans to run 70mm today really needs to be equipped for both.
Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 12-20-2007, 01:55 AM:
Indeed, you're correct, Stephen. There were a number of post-LPP titles that were released in 70mm, but my understanding is that the number of these prints that exist are quite slim (do any studios even have runnable prints of these titles for booking?).
But if someone wanted to run, say, SOUND OF MUSIC or OKLAHOMA! (the titles that people would rather see in 70mm), they'd either have to settle with a faded 70mm from original release, or run the new DTS 70mm (and with the latter, be able to run 30 fps). Of course, they could always run interlock, but that's a task in its own and I wouldn't recommend it unless they've got some super technicians and projectionists.
I also agree that a good booth should be set up to run any number of formats, but my point was that a theater on a budget that is just starting out might be limited in the amount of equipment they can purchase. A good theater starts small and works its way up. So to purchase 35/70s for the booth may be a good idea if this theater plans to invest in more equipment, but if they're just looking to start something up in general, it makes more sense to pick up a couple of 35s and upgrade later if it works out.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-20-2007, 05:01 AM:
There's a 70mm DTS print of Oklahoma? I thought that there was only one 70mm print of this title and that it was an early '80s LPP mag print (I've seen that one).
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-20-2007, 07:58 AM:
Just a couple of locations even break even running 70mm stuff. The shipping is so very expensive that it alone eats up most of the profits... if there are any. Just about everyone wants to ship the stuff by air freight because there are so few prints and many booking, some on other continents.
Mark
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-20-2007, 08:42 AM:
At one point when our retrospective film program was going very well, much better than just breaking even, at least for subsidized non-profit, I was looking into putting in 70mm equipment. BTW, when I say we were doing very well, for us that just means not LOOSING any money; for a commercial operation that can't be the water mark. Luckily for us, we don't have to pay for electricity, heating/cooling, projectionist's salary as well as any of the key personnel who are on the Performing Arts Center's staff. If we had to cover those expenses and without corporate sponsorship, we probably would have folded after the first month.
Point is, at that time I had to come to the conclusion that I couldn't justify the expenditure for 70mm installation given the paucity of prints available. That handful of titles simply wouldn't be a good enough reason to jeopardize the rest of the operation. Once the studios stopped shipping via the Bonded film depot in NJ where we could have LI Film Delivery ship prints for $25 round trip and started shipping from CA via Air Borne and FexEx, at nearly $100 roundtrip, we were in big trouble. I can't imagine what it would cost to ship 70mm prints (most titles of which are LONG runtimes) across the country. And there are, what? a dozen available titles in 70mm that have decent color prints? As much as I love those titles, how many times can you run SOUND OF MUSIC and still draw an audience?
It is one thing if 70mm equipment is already there, bought and paid for, then sure, then you MIGHT be able to play a 70mm engagement IF a number of other cost factors can be made to work. But for any theatre that doesn't already have 70mm installed and operational from earlier days, I think it would be very hard to make a convincing economic argument at this point in time to take on the cost of a 70mm installation. If you are thinking seriously about it, then you need to do really objective research as to what titles are bookable with prints that are worthy of showing. Find out exactly how much shipping will cost you and what kind of guarantees and percentages will the studios be charging, and then what size audiences do you REALISTICALLY think you can draw on any of those given titles.
Yes, we would all love to have booths that are 70mm capable and we would like to book all those released-in-70mm titles, but just because you and I get heart palpitations at the thought of running 2001 or OKLAHOMA! in 70mm, that doesn't mean there will be enough people with our extraordinary good taste who will come out and pay good money to see it just because it is in 70mm....fools that they are.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-20-2007, 10:10 AM:
The only prints I know of Oklahoma! in 70mm are mag, including vault copies. Odds are, if there are going to just be a couple of vault prints struck, AND they want a composite print, it will have mag stripes. I wouldn't want to have just DTS as my only 70mm sound format. However, in the big picture, DTS is rather inexpensive, 35 or 70mm. DTS-70 now has (with firmware 2.1.x.x) separate lip-sync settings for 35 and 70mm programable for either manual (via menu) or automatic (via I/O port on back).
As to equipping for 70mm...That isn't too expensive really. It all depends if you are going for new or used. In the used market, JJs, AA2s and DP75s are not fetching high prices...in fact, they are often much more slow movers than their 35mm only counterparts. So, going half-way to 70mm is not such a hurtle. In the case of JJ, I think its 35mm picture is better than the SA's. If you are going used...you need to look at the wearable parts to see if obsolete is close at hand. The AA2 is blessed in that it rarely has major failures and most any consummable is available for it. Becuase the US-Domestic machines (Century/Simplex) share most of their drive trains with their 35mm counterparts, very few things are unique to the 70mm models which goes a long way to keeping them viable. Someone else could speak to say the Vic-8 which may very well be in production still (the best sign of parts availability).
Now if you are talking NEW machines...your choice is very slim...Kinoton's FP75E and possibly the Cinemeccanica V8. The Kinoton FP75E is a jewel and now in premiere form (faster electronic intermittent than previous models) is one of the steadiest picture on the planet...35, 70 (or digital). But it is a low-volume machine that costs quite a bit...considering the Dollar is trading to the Euro at about $1.45...depending on the day/hour. So yes, that would be a big pill to swallow on a hunch that you may run 70mm. But this machine can also switch between 3-wing shutter slow motion (silent films), 2-wing shutter 24fps and 30fps (Todd-AO) on the fly, if so equipped...quite handy for a PAC that might run anything, including silent films.
Steve
Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 12-20-2007, 03:24 PM:
I was under the impression that Fox had struck a new print of OKLAHOMA! within the last few years. Maybe I'm wrong.
But most of the newer struck titles (ie. what Fox is striking up) are DTS. Having mag installed is great, but I would imagine the number of rentable (or something you'd actually want to run) films in 70mm at this point have digital tracks (not from experience, just a guess).
My advice, as I said before, would be to go with something inexpensive and see how shows on those do. If there is enough of a following and money behind it, THEN add the bells and whistles. But get it going first before you start throwing money at it.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-20-2007, 05:41 PM:
quote: Frank Angel
Yes, we would all love to have booths that are 70mm capable and we would like to book all those released-in-70mm titles, but just because you and I get heart palpitations at the thought of running 2001 or OKLAHOMA! in 70mm, that doesn't mean there will be enough people with our extraordinary good taste who will come out and pay good money to see it just because it is in 70mm....fools that they are.
Frank is 100% correct. However if you ran the 70mm version of Oklahoma instead of the 35mm version you might get a couple of extra fans out of the wood work because its 70mm. But that extra handful of people still isn't going to pay the shipping bill.
My experience has been that Oklahoma ALWAYS does very poorly when brought back in 70mm. One location I know of that ran it barely made enough to cover the almost 1200.00 Air Freight Bill. One of the better performing 70mm prints available is Mad Mad World but again... shipping on what... 14 reels of 70mm is goin to be a killer and when is it available and what condition has the print gotten to be in. Today 70mm is nothing more than just a curiosity for just a very few.
Mark
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-20-2007, 06:26 PM:
My experience on 70mm differs greatly from yours Mark...perhaps it is the markets. I know that even the DC area on the same title in 70mm will do better than the same title (or even the same print) as in Baltimore. The Baltimore theatre is no slouch either. But in either case, 70mm gets more than it would otherwise draw, just because it is 70mm. As for Oklahoma!...it always seems to draw business in this area...when it has been available. One nice thing about that title is that it isn't overplayed like Lawrence...which will get you diminishing returns if you play it constantly. I think that the AFI playing every summer kinda takes away from the novelty...that said, they will draw a large crowd on Sunday evenings (100s of people per show).
But back on topic...if one were to use used equipment...the comparative cost of obtaining a Century JJ versus an SA in this day and age would be almost the same and the JJ does a better job with 35mm than the SA, in my opinion. It is only if one were to go the NEW route that the cost of equipping 70mm (at least part way...the projector...nothing is being said about the sound).
Steve
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-20-2007, 06:59 PM:
Steve,
There will always be ok markets for 70mm with the LA Area and NYC probably doing the best... the hundreds of people you claim on a weekend night just don't cut it though, although that is my size crowd. You have to pay for overhead somehow and hundreds of people just are not going to do that... you need thousands over a weeks time period.
quote: Steve Guttag
the JJ does a better job with 35mm than the SA, in my opinion.
Absolutely! And that is rare in a projector. Usually 70mm does better than 35.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-20-2007, 07:41 PM:
Mark, are you blind? I didn't say 100s/weekend but 100s per show. The results have been happy enough to bring the films back time and time again.
Steve
Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 12-20-2007, 08:14 PM:
quote: Gordon McLeod
Mark any building that has a historical landmark status can not be altered
In the U.S., there are two types of landmarking and it is usually only the exterior that is landmarked. Interior landmark happens, but is very, very rare.
And even buildings in which the interior has been designated as a landmark can be changed, but they have to be changed in a way that is consistent with the original design and usually has to be approved by some local landmark commission.
Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 12-21-2007, 12:44 PM:
There are a couple of designations from the Dept. of Interior. One is being place on the register of historic places which is not especially difficult to get. If affords little if any protection since it can be kept by retaining the part of the building that is visible from the street, anything else can be changed. Federal landmark status is more difficult and can be very restrictive. Once awarded it is permanent, you can't give it back and from what I've been told and changes have to approved. Can't knock it down either.
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 12-22-2007, 11:06 AM:
quote: Jack Theakston
My advice, as I said before, would be to go with something inexpensive and see how shows on those do. If there is enough of a following and money behind it, THEN add the bells and whistles. But get it going first before you start throwing money at it.
Indeed, this sounds logical - BUT - in practice it rarely works out like that. Essentially once the original investment is made on start-up one is stuck with the installation - however it is specified - more or less permanently. The idea that good box office over time facilitates further investment (in this case say, replacement of 35mm equipment with dual-gauge 35/70mm) is illusory as the income is generally used to offset running costs and reduce dependency on subsidies. It very rarely leads to massive investment in new equipment.
BTW this is not to blindly advocate 70mm in this case, as the auditorium and screen size mightn't justify it.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-22-2007, 11:47 AM:
Brian is on the money here. This is NOT advocating installing 70mm in THIS venue but IF it is under consideration, getting the projectors NOW is smarter than replacing 35mm machines at a later time (presumming used equiment, since the prices will be similar). However changing out the equipment at a later date will effectively have one buying equipment twice. If the 35/70 machines never see 70mm, oh well, they will still run great 35mm and there is no loss there.
With multipurpose theatres, I normally advocate being as flexible as possible. Offer people what they CANT get at home or other venues. Silent films also come up on that list...especially if you have a place to put an orchestra or organ (or even a piano) in addition to showing the movie.
It is hard, but you need to really look deeply into your crystal ball and imagine what you COULD do in the venue and take the necessary steps that send you in that direction, even if you don't do it all at once.
At one of the venues I service, we installed Kinoton FP30/38E projectors (one of each so they could handle 16mm too) but with variable speed...it was nearly 4 years before they started running silent films (and have been increasing the showings in that category)...we didn't install the lenses at the onset but the projectors were equipped for variable speed with readout, 3-wing mode below 20fps. Had they not ordered the machines for this feature, the cost of installing it (and it was not available as a "subsequent installation" item when they were ordered), would have probably have tipped the scales to not running this type of film. It is much easier to take small steps than one big one (unless you have a grant or other pile of $$$ to do it all at once).
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-22-2007, 03:42 PM:
I tend to agree about it being much easier first time around. Once the thing is up and running, it is much harder to get all the forces lined up to make a change. Inertia is a very powerful thing. If I had put in 70mm when I first got them to put in projectors my very first year there, it would have served us all these years and we CERTAINLY would have run many 70mm enagements thru the years (and when the prints still had color, too!).
As it turns out, I did asked and got 4trk mag sound with that first installation; had I not, a few years after the fact I never would have been able to convinced them to upgrade since the (il)logic is, hey, you're up and running...why do we need to invest more money when it's working fine?" I can't tell you how many 4trk enagements we ran to great success during that whole period before optical stereo. If I hadn't told a white lie way back then -- "4trk mag is essential to be able to run modern day sound films...you want to be able to play sound films right? They we need this mag system" (what did they know ), I would have been playing mono engagements for over a decade.
Just as in Steve's example, if they had to find money later down the line in what is ALWAYS a tight budget, there are a million other things they will find more pressing to invest in rather than additional equipement for something that is not broken. Any new project, like running silent films would, in more cases than not, be abandoned in favor of fixing that house light dimmer system or whatever, which IS broken.
But again, I would caution that really thorough research be done to find out if the cost of actually booking and running 70mm prints (not so much the cost of getting 70/35 projectors as opposed to standard 35s) is viable in that location.
Posted by Adam Holland (Member # 4539) on 12-22-2007, 04:39 PM:
Thanks for all of your intrest in our project. I must make one correction in my orignal post. The equipment I found in Andrews texas was Simplex XL's instead of Christie.
What are plans are is to show a movie once or twice a month. For funding we are currently working on getting a state grant as well as a grant from Hamburger Helper that they give to organizations such as ours as we are the West Carroll Chamber of Commerce.
To reply to the guy that said to threaten the council that we were going to tear it down and build condos, I have to say that I prolly would wouldn't above doing that as I do play by the play book of JR Ewing sometimes but it would be hard to do that considering my family is deeply intrenched in city government and my father has plans for me to replace him as mayor in 2010.
If any of you have any suggestions or contacts that would be good for me to contact feel free to shoot me an email at coachhollandt@hotmail.com
Once again thank you for your words of encouragement.
Thanks
Adam T. Holland
Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 12-23-2007, 06:18 PM:
quote: Brian Guckian
Indeed, this sounds logical - BUT - in practice it rarely works out like that. Essentially once the original investment is made on start-up one is stuck with the installation - however it is specified - more or less permanently. The idea that good box office over time facilitates further investment (in this case say, replacement of 35mm equipment with dual-gauge 35/70mm) is illusory as the income is generally used to offset running costs and reduce dependency on subsidies. It very rarely leads to massive investment in new equipment.
Absolutely true, but it depends on what else the venue runs. If it's your standard PAC with other stage acts present, I'd say this is true.
But, if it's something else, with the focus being film shows, the investment is TOWARDS running film. So starting small and building up makes sense (and as we all know, good projectors are not hard to get at a good price these days).
But now I see Adam is talking about one or two shows a month, so in that case, I would say to start off with the best you can get.
Posted by Adam Holland (Member # 4539) on 12-24-2007, 08:13 AM:
What is your opinion on Simplex XL Projectors?
Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 12-24-2007, 10:23 AM:
There will be a lot of pros and cons on these, but they are the old reliable machines in the production community. Most studio and laboratory screening rooms have been using them for years.
I used XLs manufactured as far back as their introduction in 1949 in company screening rooms, with total reliability.
RPM
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-24-2007, 10:40 AM:
You will need to find a person or dealer who you can trust. The minefield is real.
Sometimes you just have to pay for good advice and quality equipment. No one is going to do this for free, however. You do want to avoid the "sales bozo's." Stay with a technically based dealer. Louis
Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 12-24-2007, 02:12 PM:
When the time comes to buy something, buy it from the person or company you got all the advice from or at least give them first shot at it.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-24-2007, 02:42 PM:
"You will need to find a person or dealer who you can trust. The minefield is real.
Sometimes you just have to pay for good advice and quality equipment. No one is going to do this for free, however. You do want to avoid the "sales bozo's." Stay with a technically based dealer."
Louis
Hear and heed this advice. There is a LOT of junk out there.
Simplex or Century are both fine choices and good values can be had on either. There will be spare parts forever for small money with either of these so I would hesitate to go with anything else at this late date.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-24-2007, 02:55 PM:
quote: Adam Holland
What is your opinion on Simplex XL Projectors?
My opinion varies from machine to machine... all of them even within the same model and type are very different! There are good and bad versions of every model made! It can cost a ton of money to put an old lazy XL or Century back into proper shape. I still favor the Century SA if you're not running grind... it has best film gate and trap design of all projectors made. BE VERY CAREFUL of different X-L models... there are TOO MANY gate/trap varieties out there... some that parts are NLA for... and you should stay away from any straight gate version of any projector completely. Newer Simplex's with turrets... except the current version of the PR-1014... to make room for the lens rotating around... these have the disadvantage of having the upper sprocket moved up... too high. This causes many problems if not threaded correctly including film scratching and strange band wear spots.
Mark
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-24-2007, 02:59 PM:
quote: Sam D. Chavez
I would hesitate to go with anything else at this late date.
Except say Kinoton or even Cinemeccanica though Kinoton is certainly my favorite. I think the key here is going with something from a model and manufacturer that has a bit of a history and following behind it. Century and Simplex have that in the US and there are more than one source for parts on them (on the wearables, at least). Kinoton and Cinemeccanica are well represented in both Europe (their home) and the US (both have North American distribution arms). Note too, the non-US companies are not seeing the fall off in sales that the doemestic companies are so they are still, very much, in the new euquipment biz.
As to the question at hand, The Simplex XL has had a long and glorious life that owes excuses to nobody. Sure there are those that will like/dislike certain traits of it but 1/2 a Century of continious production can't be all wrong! The documentation on the projector is also one of the best of all time. While I don't consider it the best projector, it is far from the worst.
If you are considering new equipment, then I suggest the Kinoton FP30E Premiere...by far the best picture and sound on the market today and also, by far, the most flexible in terms of configuration.
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 12-24-2007, 04:48 PM:
Any chance of some more auditorium info, perhaps historical photos? What sort of style is the theatre, how many seats? Does it have a balcony? full backstage and flytower? any spare land, wasted space or car park? Any old equipment, old speakers, amps, seats (the real expense!)
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-25-2007, 01:55 AM:
Lest I be misunderstood. my favoring Simplex and Century was specific to this situation where it seems clear to me there very little money, so used projectors are the order of the day and there are very few low cost Kinoton laying about.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-25-2007, 08:27 AM:
FP20s or even DP75s can be found laying around...maybe not quite in abundance as SAs or XLs...they have XLs. However, an FP20 (or FP30) uses the same gate design as the current mechanical machines. I'm sure various Cinemeccanica machines are also available (V5s and V8s as well as others but those are still in production).
Steve
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-25-2007, 11:19 AM:
Again, inexpensive and practical is the order of the day and access to spare parts, familiarity and simplicity are also good things in this application. No one argues the quality of Kinoton equipment, but this is not the AFI.
Merry Christmas Steve.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-25-2007, 08:37 PM:
Gee Steve... You made a big deal out of telling a whole group of us at Showeast...Sam included... that you intended to sell nothing but Kinoton and you were totally done with all other brands of equipment... You must be getting alot of free airplane rides these days.... .
Mark
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-26-2007, 07:11 AM:
Mark: how can I get the free airplane rides? No company has paid my expenses anywhere since the introduction of the CP-50. Even with being the family of a pilot, I never see an empty seat so I have yet to fly free. Apparently I don't rate?? Louis
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-26-2007, 10:07 AM:
Gee Mark, what is your point? I don't recall holding court to make a "big deal" out of what I will or wouldn't sell. It is true that for new projectors, I find the Kinoton, paticularly the E-premier machines, so far and away superior to the rest that it makes the most sense for those that can afford it. I've always been about putting out the best picture/sound possible for a given venue...there is nothing inconsistant there.
In this thread, I've promoted Kinoton as a new option as it would offer an improvement as to what is already there. You may have noted on the 35/70 discussion that if used is to be considered, that I've noted the very small differential cost between Simplex and Century 35/70 machines and their 35mm only counterparts (with an edge to the Century JJ).
On the used subject, I've noted that it is wise to keep to the long established brands and models that parts will be plentiful from, including noting that Simplex/Century have multiple sources for parts. I have defended Kinoton as a used projector potential since such machines as the FP20 and the FP30 also have a long history behind them, the FP30 is in current production but that the FP20 uses essentially the same parts and both have an abundance of support, including a US division. Even though I don't care for Cinemeccanica, I have also noted that they too can make similar claims, particulalry on the V5 and V8 models.
So again, what is your point? Are you implying that I must be getting some sort of free travel from Kinoton to promote them? If so, then sorry no but perhaps that explains why you promote some of the things you post about...why else would you even bring it up?
Steve
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-26-2007, 12:19 PM:
Steve, it's a joke and a jab as you no doubt know. A thick skin is required in this forum.
AFAIK, the last graft was some years back at a well known east coast chain no longer here.
I go with Kinoton every time on new equipment, but of course money this is the whole point here.
Simplex and Century can both be had for the cost of a bad set of pots and pans or perhaps a run of the mill cheap stove which is a sad commentary. The original scope lenses back in the 50's, or as it's now known, mid century, cost something like $2,000.
We're coming to the end of an era.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-26-2007, 01:06 PM:
Sam, the joke/jab I can take and I certainly dish out...the jab on integrity, that I take extreme exception to. You just don't joke about such things so I wonder why he would mention it.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-26-2007, 02:50 PM:
Steve,
There is no jab on integrity at all. So whats wrong with JUST selling Kinoton? I wouldn't mind some plane rides myself! After all you were the one that told us that was your plan for the future... Vince and I both recall that you actually did seem to make a pretty big deal out of the decision... "Im totally through with all the others".
Mark
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-26-2007, 02:54 PM:
Oy Vey! This is Mark's warped sense of humor. Don't take it so personally.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-26-2007, 02:56 PM:
Hey Sam... I'm not the one that said those lines....
Mark
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-26-2007, 03:34 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
perhaps that explains why you promote some of the things you post about...
Heyohhh!!
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-26-2007, 04:41 PM:
I knew you were out there somewhere Mark. Well, this has been fun but it's a full time job keeping you two kids separate. You just rub each other the wrong way.
I think I've used this ditty before in this forum but a senior engineer at Dolby used to say "those of you who think you know everything are annoying those of us who do".
That statement could describe any number of us on this forum, present company included.
Posted by Adam Holland (Member # 4539) on 12-26-2007, 09:15 PM:
In response to Cameron, if I knew how to put up a picture on here I would. The theatre is in great shape to be 57 years old. Our weakest point is in equipment. Since it closed in 1987 as a first run movie house it has been used as a gospel and country music concert house. The guy who was runing rolled the old screen up and built a dressing room where the old stage was and took out a few rows of seats and built a new stage.
The building is physically in good shape and is one of the best buildings on main street. About 8 years ago the state gave him about $120,000 that he was able to put a new roof as well as a new heating and air system. At that time he also completly reworked the neon marque out side.
It has poor parking, however when we are open most of main street is empty and it is not a problem.
Thanks to everyone for thier advice.
Adam T. Holland
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-27-2007, 08:16 AM:
Adam,
To upload an image, look at the box where you typed in your message. There are three buttons below it (Add Reply, Spell Check and Preview Post). Next to them is a link that says "Click here to upload an image." That will send you to a page to upload the image and the RULES for image uploading...pay attention to the image size.
Steve
Posted by Adam Holland (Member # 4539) on 12-30-2007, 09:56 AM:
Here is a picture of the Fiske durring one of the first weeks we had the theatre. It was National 4-H week and we had nothing planned yet so we put this up to help the local kids advertise their week.
If you notice the white part of the sign has a lot of dark places. This area is back lit by flourescent lights and about half of them the bottom has rotted out. We are hoping that once we get a grant this will be one of the things we will be able to fix.
Is flourescent the best way to go back or is there something better.
[moderator edit: removed extra set of IMG tags - Scott]
[ 12-30-2007, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: Adam Holland ]
Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 12-30-2007, 10:24 AM:
Try editing your post and remove one set of img /img. Another possibility is if you used a word processor to check your post it may have changed the html tags to plain text. You should use notepad or some other dumb text editor.
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 12-30-2007, 12:38 PM:
Beautiful theatre - noted the traditional fin sign and the impressive marguee (even if a number of the fittings are out), and the design of the neon lighting. A great start - if only all theatres were like this! Look forward to seeing the interior.
Posted by Adam Holland (Member # 4539) on 12-30-2007, 08:23 PM:
Thanks for your compliments. Where you see Fiske in Pink it flashes that color and White. And the gold lights on the end chase each other as well it is a really beatuiful building with much history.
There is a brass award with a picture of the Oscar Guy on it from 1951 that says something about being recongized by its peers in the industry as one of the most modern and well equiped theatres in the nation.
I think it says something about being from the Theatre Eqipment and Something else catalog. When I get back up there tomorrow I will take a look at it and get who it was from. If any of you guys know anything about what this award is and have any information which could help us take better advantage of it please let me know.
Adam T. Holland
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-30-2007, 09:14 PM:
About the white part of your marquee. Ours is backlit by neon. We have 3 rows on each side - the top of each row has a red tube, and the bottom of each row has a white tube.
I think enclosed neon would be a lot more reliable than flourescent and cheaper in the long run. At my day job we replaced all the ceiling lighting about 4 years ago and hardly a month goes by that we're not replacing a ballast or a couple of bulbs. In contrast, the interior neon of the theatre marquee hasn't been touched in about 10 years or more since we replaced a few of the transformers. Since then, it's just a matter of fixing the occasional broken tube on the outside.
Posted by Adam Holland (Member # 4539) on 12-30-2007, 09:16 PM:
What color does it look like doing it that way with a red and a white. I like that I idea if it will work. How much does it cost do do it that way.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-31-2007, 11:35 AM:
Well it makes each row look white, fading to red at the top. For yours you would probably want it to all be the same color since you just have one big section. You would need several rows of neon to get the coverage. Cost? I have no idea...a sign company can advise you, or maybe Bobby Henderson will pop in here with a guess. Measurements would be needed!
Posted by Adam Holland (Member # 4539) on 12-31-2007, 12:13 PM:
It is probably 60 feet long and about 4 foot tall. If this helps with size you can put two rows of the big letters or three rows of the little letters.
About how far apart do you need neon to make it look like it is fully lit.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-31-2007, 01:23 PM:
Ours are about 7" apart...but again, we're not lighting a huge white area like you are. You need a sign expert for these questions. You can usually get a no-obligation quote or at least a ballpark guess from any reputable sign company.
Posted by Adam Holland (Member # 4539) on 12-31-2007, 01:58 PM:
Thanks for your help. Do you have a phone number of one I can call.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-31-2007, 02:29 PM:
Uhhhh, you need someone in YOUR area. We're at least 2500 miles from you. Just run a Google for sign shops in your area, or look in your phone book yellow pages under signs.
Posted by Adam Holland (Member # 4539) on 12-31-2007, 04:45 PM:
For those of you who were wanting a shot of the interior of the Fiske here is one that was taken as it was when we got control of it back in June. I know the shot is dark and hopefully you can make a little out of it. You will notice that the stage is still set up for a concert. We now have painted the paneling wall black and have a temp. 15ft x 9ft screen up on the wall that we are currently using to show our movie of the month. All comments with suggestions or ideas are welcome.
Hopefully I will take an interior shot of the lobby and post it here soon.
If I didn't do this right if the moderator will please fix it, it would be appreciated.
[ 12-31-2007, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 01-06-2008, 05:01 PM:
Keep those photos coming! Was the last one taken from the booth or balcony? Does it have a balcony?
Posted by Adam Holland (Member # 4539) on 01-08-2008, 04:04 PM:
I am wanting to say it was from the top or an upper row of the balcony just looking at the angle of the shot. This picture was taken in June as said.
I will try to get some pictures of it with our temp screen up and one of the lobby since we have decorated it as a theatre again.
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 01-08-2008, 07:55 PM:
I look forward to seeing them. Thankyou
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2