This is topic Century JJ vs. Simplex XL for reel to reel 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=010215

---

Posted by Kirk Futrell (Member # 5006) on 12-16-2009, 11:34 AM:
 
I am currently considering the merits of 2 Century JJ vs. 2 used Simplex XL projectors. We are setting up a reel to reel / platter booth. My criteria is mainly reliability and steadiness of picture. So, if you had to pick, which would you choose and why?
P.S. They will be used in conjunction with Strong super 80 lamphouses and IREM rectifiers.
Thanks for your time!
 

---

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 12-16-2009, 11:40 AM:
 
Both are great machines. The JJ is pretty much the next great line after the XL. Properly serviced, both have rock steady pictures. The XL is easier to service and probably a little gentler on film.

You can't go wrong picking either one, in my opinion.
 

---

Posted by Richard May (Member # 2627) on 12-16-2009, 11:53 AM:
 
I agree. We are running 70MM 3-D on 2 simplex 35/70 machines. That has to be as steady as possible. It's rock solid.
 

---

Posted by Fred Georges (Member # 505) on 12-16-2009, 11:54 AM:
 
This gets into the never ending argument as to which is the better machine. Century or Simplex. Since your dealing with used machines I'd want to know the condition of each. I "prefer" Centurys (Especially JJ's) because a good one is Rock steady on screen & very easy on film. Plus..BONUS..It can run 70mm! Also, depending on vintage, you might have the Cinefocus feature which can be invaluable with your high wattage lamphouse & of course, a water cooled trap. The downer is the combo 35/70 sprockets are going to cost much more to replace when the time comes. I like the Simplex XL's conical shutter. They can also be rock steady on screen. I don't like the fact that they tend to piss oil all over the booth.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-16-2009, 12:01 PM:
 
Either machine would be perfectly good.

In favor of the X-Ls: the machines are smaller and don't typically come with mag penthouses, so they would be preferable if you have a ceiling height limit. Operating cost will likely be lower, as there are some JJ-specific parts that are expensive (trap bands, sprockets, etc.). If you get some random operator who has never been in your booth before, there is a better chance that he's run X-Ls than 35/70 machines like the JJs.

In favor of the JJs: they will run 70mm film as well as 35mm, should you ever feel the need to do that. They are typically better with shrunken or damaged film than X-Ls. They have double-shutters and water-cooled gates, should you need to light a very large screen. Lenses can easily be shifted for silent or mag prints. The soundhead does not have any parts that touch the picture area of the film (unlike Simplex and RCA soundheads).

All other things being equal, I'd probably take the X-Ls for a 35mm-only installation.

I know of a good pair of JJs with bases and reel arms for sale if you end up going that route and don't already have a particular set of machines in mind.
 

---

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 12-16-2009, 01:20 PM:
 
As Scott said if you ever plan to run 70mm id take the JJ's if you only plan to run 35mm then take the xl's imo.
 

---

Posted by Kirk Futrell (Member # 5006) on 12-16-2009, 02:05 PM:
 
Great. As it turns out JJ's are out of our price range. So the X-L's win. Thanks for the suggestions.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-16-2009, 04:04 PM:
 
One warning: all JJ's are curved gates. Some XL's are curved gates; NONE are curved from a military origin.

We remanufacture both of them and operationally can add nothing to the above. There are about half the parts in any Century compared to the XL and the soundhead is superior in the Century. I, too, have a slight preference for the Century.

Parts: all XL parts are available and the JJ shares 95% of its parts with the regular Century, which are commonly available from multiple sources. Louis
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-16-2009, 07:18 PM:
 
Truth be known the Simplex IS NOT a 70mm projector. It was and still is actually a 65MM projector(originally hand built for Panavision and Canera 65) and it was never updated during it's production life to be a real 70mm projector. It has 65mm sprockets, 65mm gate bands, etc. All they've to allow 70mm to be run is to widen the lateral guide roller in the trap and widen the spacing of the pad rollers. The intermittent is also a bit smallish for alot of 70mm use and will wear much faster. The film overhangs the edges of the gate bands and curved runner.... bad thing! The penthouse (all versions) is a dragger meaning there is no driven sprocket so you may experience much higher wow and flutter running reel to reel than with a driven penthouse which better isolates the feed reel motion from the penthouse stabilizer.

My preference and in this order. IMHO there are no other viable 70mm projectors usable today so my list is short. I know Guttag will step in to add the Kinoton electronic projectors but I don't really consider any projector with a $35,000.00 intermittent to be a viable projector for every day use.
There is no better built 70mm projector that is as easy on film as a DP-70!

DP-70
Century JJ
Cinemecanicca Vic-8
DP-75
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-16-2009, 07:18 PM:
 
Truth be known the Simplex IS NOT a 70mm projector. It was and still is actually a 65MM projector(originally hand built for Panavision and Canera 65) and it was never updated during it's production life to be a real 70mm projector. It has 65mm sprockets, 65mm gate bands, etc. All they've to allow 70mm to be run is to widen the lateral guide roller in the trap and widen the spacing of the pad rollers. The intermittent is also a bit smallish for alot of 70mm use and will wear much faster. The film overhangs the edges of the gate bands and curved runner.... bad thing! The penthouse (all versions) is a dragger meaning there is no driven sprocket so you may experience much higher wow and flutter running reel to reel than with a driven penthouse which better isolates the feed reel motion from the penthouse stabilizer.

My preference and in this order. IMHO there are no other viable 70mm projectors usable today so my list is short. I know Guttag will step in to add the Kinoton electronic projectors but I don't really consider any projector with a $35,000.00 intermittent to be a viable projector for every day use.
There is no better built 70mm projector than a DP-70!

DP-70
Century JJ
Cinemecanicca Vic-8
DP-75
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-16-2009, 07:19 PM:
 
Truth be known the Simplex IS NOT a 70mm projector. It was and still is actually a 65MM projector(originally hand built for Panavision and Canera 65) and it was never updated during it's production life to be a real 70mm projector. It has 65mm sprockets, 65mm gate bands, etc. All they've to allow 70mm to be run is to widen the lateral guide roller in the trap and widen the spacing of the pad rollers. The intermittent is also a bit smallish for alot of 70mm use and will wear much faster. The film overhangs the edges of the gate bands and curved runner.... bad thing! The penthouse (all versions) is a dragger meaning there is no driven sprocket so you may experience much higher wow and flutter running reel to reel than with a driven penthouse which better isolates the feed reel motion from the penthouse stabilizer.

My preference and in this order. IMHO there are no other viable 70mm projectors usable today so my list is short. I know Guttag will step in to add the Kinoton electronic projectors but I don't really consider any projector with a $35,000.00 intermittent to be a viable projector for every day use.
There is no better built 70mm projector that is as easy on film as a DP-70!

DP-70
Century JJ
Cinemecanicca Vic-8
DP-75
 

---

Posted by Richard May (Member # 2627) on 12-16-2009, 07:48 PM:
 
We heard you the first time.
 

---

Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 4255) on 12-16-2009, 08:20 PM:
 
Dual gauge Vic 8s are acceptable and cheap.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-16-2009, 08:34 PM:
 
The "dragger" penthouse is not in and of itself the problem...the problem is that they didn't get the design right. The spring they have to overcome gravity, doesn't so the rollers move to the bottom every time...

They also don't have a proper head shield for either the 35mm or 70mm mag heads.

As to 70mm projectors...yeah, I will say the FP75 is THE projector and where did you get your $35K price on the intermittent...I defy you so show any quote from Kinoton for it to be anywhere NEAR that price. Whereas I've sold that intermittent for key locations that demand spares for key components, I can assure you, it isn't even 5 digits past the decimal (at least none I've sold). Why do you make up things?

The only thing I don't like about the FP75E(S) is the double dissolving shutter. It inherently puts a strobe on the screen like all double shutters. In 3-wing mode, the strobe virtually goes away. That image is spooky steady in 35mm or 70mm.

As for everyday use...they are in use everyday at many locations (both conventional theatres like Arclight and at special venue like Museums...including in dual-strip 3D 70mm) and not a problematic machine at all.

As to the poster's question, I tend to agree with the other opinions. Either will do a good job and the XL is fine for 35mm only. The Century JJs do better with 35mm than SAs, image wise.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Richard May (Member # 2627) on 12-17-2009, 09:42 AM:
 
I understand the whole thing with Simplex being 65MM, but we run 70MM on it all the time. The picture is rock steady and the mag head works fine. I don't see any issues with it.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-17-2009, 03:16 PM:
 
70mm is an inherently steady format...most any 70mm projector will look exceptional compared to 35mm.

As for the Mag Penthouse...do you fire your changeover? If so, I'll wager you get hum in the sound when the coil is active. You are also going to get more flutter in the sound due to the mis-sprung tensioners.

As for the gate, the lateral guide roller is doing very little.

Look at your mag tracks, if your intermittent shoe is not set with about 2-thicknesses of clearance, you will be rubbing oxide off on tracks 2 and 5.

That said, yes, you can get decent results from the Simplex 35/70...the only area they really SHOULD have fixed the 65/70mm thing is the gate (wider runners and shoes)...the rest isn't as big a deal.

The penthouse needs a simple spring fix to get them to center correctly and there is no excuse for the omission of a mu-metal shield (full head and tongue).

Steve
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-17-2009, 10:22 PM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

where did you get your $35K price on the intermittent

---

Actually Larry Shaw posted a price for the electronic intermittent that was in that price range several years ago. No matter what it's actual price is today it's still more then likely rediclous expensive just because of its manufacturing origin. I never said tey were not reliable but so is the DP-70, DP-75, and Vic 8 for that matter.

As for increased wow and flutter in the X-L penthouse it was defintely audible from the X-Ls that were installed at McClurg Court Theater in Chicago. They ran them reel to reel with automated change over. You always knew when the end of reel was near because of the audible increase in wow. Almost as though the davis rollers were asked to operate out of the usable range. If the feed clutch is this sensitive then the dragger design is inadaquate for this gauge film.

While the Simplex can put out a good image I don't believe the over hanging film edge in the gate is good for the film itself. You won't get several thousand runs out of a 70mm print running them in an X-L but you will in a DP-70 or 75. The X-L's curved runner being narrower also does not place even wear on the mag tracks.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 12-18-2009, 07:12 AM:
 
This begs the question why XL 35/70s were installed at Radio City? Why not DP70s or JJs?
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-18-2009, 08:29 AM:
 
Because they were free, as was the ORC lamps and rectifiers. Louis
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-18-2009, 09:01 AM:
 
Not to harp too much...but, please show any posting by Larry or anyone else with an actual price that comes anywhere NEAR $35K. Or even near $20K or near....It just isn't so and never was.

The FP75 intermittent has traditionally been just under to just over double an American 35/70 intermittent...certainly not cheap but not $35K either or anywhere close. If comparing to another Euro intermittent, the price gets even closer since one of the things that affects the price, right now, is the weak dollar (averaging near $1.50 to the Euro for the last quarter of 09 but seemingly making ground in December with all of the Xmas business).

Remember too, the Kinoton intermittent is many times steadier and now with the current FPS system, it is also nearly 20% more light efficient too...which translates into continual operation cost savings.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 12-18-2009, 01:59 PM:
 
Louis: I suspected that might be the reason.
 

---

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 12-18-2009, 02:54 PM:
 
Steve.

I have never had the pleasure of playing with or seen on-screen results of an electronic intermittant but I have heard nothing but praise for them. Can you recommend any publications, videos or photos that I could study to gain an insight into these beasties?

Cheers
Ian
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-18-2009, 05:24 PM:
 
Pictures of them have shown up from time-to-time in the trades.

You might try contacting Kinoton for any other info too. There will be pictures of them in an upcoming photo tour I'm doing for Film-Tech (see my "teasers" in the Film Yak section under random pictures...which deliberately have not show much detail...they are teasers after all...the last one shows just a glimpse of the FP38ESs though. Nothing to gain info about the technicalities of the electronic intermittents.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-18-2009, 11:26 PM:
 
Steve,

I'm not faulting the Kinoton in any way. Its a really good projector without doubt, I do howver remember Larry kindly posting the price because I had asked how much it cost. The only down side to electronic projectors is that every one of them that has been out is now obsolete... The list isn't all that long but they are all gone! To me an electronic film projector is a similar risk as one takes installing D-Cinema.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-19-2009, 07:17 AM:
 
Mark, I'm not saying you are faulting them...I just call into question the outlandish statement that somehow the intermittent is $35K or anywhere near that or ever have been.

As for obsolete...everything electronic faces that and I agree that an electronic intermittent machine will not have the life of a mechanical one...a qualified machine shop can always make a mechanical machine.

Then again, electronics tend to get better/smaller with time, as technology allows. That applies to the electronic intermittents too. In fact, Kinoton, just in 2007, brought out an improved intermittent that yields about 20% more light (faster) while improving stability about 10-fold. It doesn't make the older design obsolete either...same bolt-up motor, same sprocket. The FPS controller also fits where the MDE controller went. Note too, the device likely to wear, the motor, is repairable like any other motor.

A problem DCinema has that an electronic projector doesn't is that film's technology is very mature. The Premiere line of projectors from Kinoton already eclipse all others in image steadiness...it us unlikely any new designs will improve upon that in film's current situation.

DCinema is an emerging technology where one faces obsolescence continually. We haven't seen all DCinema has to offer yet and hopefully we won't for some time. As such, anything you buy today, will seem like an antique in 10-years. If the industry switches to 4K production in say 5-years, all of the 2K projectors will seem like "home theatre" quality. I do think that as we go above 4K, the improve image quality be less of a concern except for the larger theatres, where likely 16K or so will suffice in terms of perceived improvement.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Richard May (Member # 2627) on 12-19-2009, 11:03 AM:
 
These projectors have been here running 70MM since the 70's without any issues. I doubt anyone has ever walked out demanding their money back because we were using Simplex projectors. I have also run and seen 70MM run on these machines at many other places with no problems whatsoever.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-19-2009, 09:55 PM:
 
Steve,

I pretty much agree with you on the points.

Richard...

Many parts are NLA for the Simplex 35/70 and they are not all that common. The guy asked for opinions and I gave him the facts. Sure Simplex's are capable of good images but they're just not all that easy on 70mm film, keeping them running may proove difficult since Strong is now in the habit of discontinuing infrequently ordered parts once stocks are depleted. It is much much easier to get parts for DP-70s or Century JJs.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-19-2009, 11:58 PM:
 
...another dinosaur controlled by STRONG is in the works then...
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-20-2009, 09:25 AM:
 
As for DP70s...the truth is...you just don't NEED many parts for it. It has very few weak areas. Most places only ever need oil and tension bands. Now if you let a band pop off its hook, more than likely, you'll grind down the teeth of the intermittent sprocket.

Opening the gate before it has stopped is another. Oddly enough, the oil strainer is NLA...as such, one should check it regularly to insure that particles are not clogging/destroying it.

On the Simplex 35/70...Since it shares almost all parts with the XL...I can think of very few unique 35/70 parts that one would need to get. What Simplex 35/70 parts are no longer available? Furthermore, the Century JJ would have the same issues (on the unique JJ parts). Both machines have unique pad roller assemblies.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-20-2009, 10:41 AM:
 
Mainly gate/trap parts, penthouse parts, and some pad roller parts. There are some minor parts differences between the 35 and 35/70 machines. Ditto for the JJ and Pro(?) 35. Monte is correct! Over the last few years we needed a 70mm JJ trap part... I don't recall which part off the top of my head but Strong no longer had them so we took one off another machine, same thing for Ballantyne. Many locations keep a spare "parts machine" around. Some DP-70 locations also keep a soares machine around just because the whole machine is cheaper to aquire then some of the gears.
 

---

Posted by Richard May (Member # 2627) on 12-20-2009, 10:57 AM:
 
I havent needed any penthouse parts so that may be an issue but I have gotten gate and trap parts and had no problems. I have also not had a problem getting any pad roller parts for the Simplex. The gear train seams to be completly identical so I don't see an issue there. I just think it's a good machine and I have no problem using them compared to the price of others.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-23-2009, 12:59 AM:
 
..for those who never seen an XL-35/70 unit:



I had to do a INT sprocket changeout on one of these things and there sure aint much metal for them narrow 35mm teeth... and even then, I could see the weakness with this add-on concept - just like GM did with their V8's in the early 80's by converting a gas motor over to diesel without doing any beefing up the mains for the extra work.

..but, hey - if it works, let it be then....

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-23-2009, 03:47 AM:
 
More pictures please...including the penthouse and optical sound. Also, was there a 24/30fps ability in this version?

Steve
 

---

Posted by Richard May (Member # 2627) on 12-23-2009, 07:38 AM:
 
We run 24/30 and variable on ours.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 12-23-2009, 08:15 AM:
 
I believe Simplex also built the Fox Grandeur projectors; was there anything at all in the design of these machines that was based on the earlier ones?
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-23-2009, 09:07 AM:
 
The reason I'm interested in Monte's is their vintage...they are based in the XL era rather than the Simplex 35/5-star era (the ones I'm familiar with).

http://www.film-tech.com/warehouse/wareview.php?id=1715&category=2

The cutsheet in the Film-Tech library for the old Simplex 35/70 clearly states that it will run 24 or 30 fps...I'm curious as to how it was done back then. On the Century JJ it was a double pulley system...merely move the belt to the desired pulley. Norelco had two motors and later a transmission, Bauer had a transmission of sorts too. On a modern Simplex with a 5-star, it would merely be a matter of using an inverter drive but on the SH-1012 series soundheads, back then, the speed thing would have been more of a trick.

On the penthouse side, I want to see more of the original since I know the 1980s version missed the boat on several design areas.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 12-23-2009, 11:14 AM:
 

quote: Stephen Furley

---

I believe Simplex also built the Fox Grandeur projectors; was there anything at all in the design of these machines that was based on the earlier ones?

---

They were based on the Super-Simplex model. 70mm 1929, unfortunately I could not get the link to work, but it's somewhere within: http://in70mm.com/newsletter/index.htm

In the Splendor of 70mm. It opened at the Roxy in New York, Fox's new Grandeur flagship theatre. Using hand built Super-Simplex 70mm projectors, a 42 x 20 foot picture was thrown ...
 

---

Posted by Richard May (Member # 2627) on 12-23-2009, 11:38 AM:
 
Mine are also the older ones. I will try and take some pics.
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 12-23-2009, 12:31 PM:
 
Granduer Projector

Article
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-23-2009, 12:38 PM:
 
I'll see if I can get over there and take more snaps - kinda did this one on the fly..

The two units sits on SH-1012 "4-star" soundheads.

Both units are mounted on Highlight consoles running 4k bulbs.

What's interesting that the 35mm runs with flat trap and gate asemblies using studio gates .. and the operator had mentioned of focus problems .. where I told him that with running that big of bulb, the assemblies should have been the curved gate variety.

The penthouses has dual 35/70mm mag clusters with the 35mm cluster in the middle of the penthouse and the 70mm cluster to the right of the roller assembly.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-23-2009, 02:38 PM:
 
Yes, that is consistent with the current design. I'm curious about the back side of the penthouse too (in the compartment where the flywheels and springs are). I want to see how the springs are configured. There should be one that ties the two tension arms together and there should be another that should be trying to overcome the weight of the arms so they always float in the middle of their travel. The current design has a spring that pulls the arms down!...which is wrong.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 12-23-2009, 02:49 PM:
 
Rick,

From that picture it doesn't look like they had much, if anything, in common. Since it wasn't very long, about 25 years, between the demise of Grandeur and the birth of Todd-AO I did wonder if they re-used any of the old design but it doesn't look like they did.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-23-2009, 05:05 PM:
 
Couple of more picts of this XL setup:



Contains the Teccon 70mm mag cluster and the stock Simplex 35mm mag cluster



There was no model or serial number on this bad boy to get some sort of vintage, yet with being grey casing and white enameled workings, I would say these units could have came from the NSS days.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-23-2009, 05:12 PM:
 
That was the version simplex marketed for a while in the late 60's and early 70s
The unpper magazine sat into the curve of the top of the penthouse
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-23-2009, 05:28 PM:
 
Yep, the cut sheet I referenced above shows it with the magazine and your choice of carbon arc lamps!

I can't make out the 35mm mag head in the picture...does it have any sort of shield over the clusters?

I also wonder about the balance on the tensioners...do they always float to the middle of their range or can you push them to the top of their range and will they stay there?

Steve
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-23-2009, 05:35 PM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

does it have any sort of shield over the clusters?

I also wonder about the balance on the tensioners...do they always float to the middle of their range or can you push them to the top of their range and will they stay there?

---