Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Potts Enterprises to close

This is topic Potts Enterprises to close 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=011082

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-07-2011, 08:09 PM:

Just received an e-mail from Susie Bright. Potts will close by Nov. 30, 2011. Another one bites the dust! No one better than Susie! Louis

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 11-07-2011, 10:07 PM:

Sadly, with the demise of film projection, I am sure we will hear of more film-based companies going under or closing.

Change is not always good.....

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-08-2011, 08:47 AM:

And I had heard that Bob WAS working on a digital platter...

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-08-2011, 10:11 AM:

I kid you not; I had one prototyped for Christie about 7 years ago. (Self aligning and cannot wrap!) Louis

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-08-2011, 10:32 AM:

quote:
Potts will close by Nov. 30, 2011. Another one bites the dust!

Poetic justice.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 11-08-2011, 01:33 PM:

Tim, that was pretty damn rude and uncalled for.

Even though Potts was not my favorite platter for all the well-known reasons, my dealings with them were nothing but efficient and courteous. More than I can say for another company that shall remain nameless.

One also has to keep in mind that the Potts platter was actually very good for what it was intended to be, an economical competition to Christie and Kinoton/Norelco.

Posted by Peter Howard (Member # 3491) on 11-21-2011, 02:44 AM:

Very sad to read this. We have 5 Potts Alphas in service and have had very few issues with them in the last 15 or so years.

Quality gear at a great price.

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 11-21-2011, 09:07 AM:

Tim, Care to elaborate? I always stopped by and said hi to Susie whenever I was driving past Rantoul on I-57. Unless I missed something, I thought they were some of the "good guys"

Rick

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-21-2011, 10:14 AM:

Tim is always rude and uncalled for, would you expect any less!

quote:
(Self aligning and cannot wrap!)

Yea, Big Sky claimed that for theors too. The only one I've seen that can really claim that is Kinoton.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-23-2011, 11:15 AM:

Hey, Richard! Sorry, I wasn't implying that - I had good dealings with them, too. Only that Potts popularized the platter in this country and put tens of thousands of projectionists out of work. The irony just struck me as the tables were turned. If Bob Potts hadn't made the platter affordable, it might have been just another kooky idea that didn't take off here.

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 11-23-2011, 01:05 PM:

It was not the platter that did it, it was the xenon bulb.

I took Tim's comment to mean good bye to a truly Rube Goldberg implementation. I too had good dealings with Potts, but vacuum cleaner motors, jeez!

At least the Christie and Kinoton had some elegance to the design.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-23-2011, 02:43 PM:

The xenon bulb was also the death of the full service dealership since one didnt have contact with a theatre every week for there next carbon order that sometimes required bills to get paid [Smile]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 11-23-2011, 03:07 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Tim is always rude and uncalled for, would you expect any less!

Wow! If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-23-2011, 04:57 PM:

Nah, a Kinoton could wrap too, but I will admit it would be the most difficult for it to happen on. That being said the late model Christie AW3R platter was THE platter design that was never beat in my opinion. The problem is few people understood how to calibrate them, and as such many people hated them. If the platter is calibrated properly, it was magnificent and more gentle on film than any other platter.

And yes Steve, the Kinoton platter was also very gentle, but it has RETARDED setup requirements due to its design.

I never liked the Strong/Potts, but everyone knows that. Their flimsy center rings cinch scratched prints as they were moved, but many people were blind to it because their prints were dirty and it just looked like more dirt and/or they had lower light levels and couldn't see it. Their MUTs were like some of medieval torture device for film. I could start on a huge long rant, but at this point it really does not matter. Film is dead folks.

That being said I did deal with Potts a little bit and I will say those were some fantastic people to do business with. Absolutely great. Even if I didn't like their platters, it is sad to see "good people" shut down.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-23-2011, 06:24 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
The problem is few people understood how to calibrate [AW3s]

^ This right here. ^

That's not to say the AW3 was perfect. It wasn't. But it was the best of what did exist.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 11-23-2011, 06:33 PM:

What were the consequences when done wrong? I have only seen the AW3 in videos.
It looks impressive.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-23-2011, 06:36 PM:

I don't get the difficult-to-calibrate argument. Following the instructions in the manual and then slightly tweaking the pots by feel to get the smoothest possible acceleration from 0% to 100% always worked for me. My only brain wrap (ever) was my own fault due to a botched multiple trailer change.

In this area, Christies are by far the most common platter. I have also worked with the Speco, the Xetron, and the dreaded Super Platter. None of these comes close to the Christie in terms of gentle film handling. I have not used the Strong platter, but it looks similar to the Xetron (complete with annoying MUT).

I did see a very mis-timed Christie almost toss a print once, but that was in a theatre where I was officially only present to run videotapes for a film festival (I did show the theatre's manager-operator how to time the platter properly).

My only real complaint with the AW3 was that Christie has had some bad runs of control cards (the "C" version) and drive pucks (the white ones). The current generation of cards and pucks seems fine, however. Oh, and the current MUT motor sucks, but the older ones are fine.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-23-2011, 07:12 PM:

quote: Sam Chavez
It was not the platter that did it, it was the xenon bulb.

Sam, I'd venture to say it was in concert with xenon? If there had been no platters to speak of, there still would've been the need for projectionists who at least knew how to make changeovers - or, at minimum, someone present in the booths even if automated. Norelco platters and Christie AW-1 (a Bob Potts design, I understand) were so pricey that the concept might not have caught on in this country. They might have went the way of the bi-filar continuous loop.

Rube Goldberg, indeed... I never cared for the early versions, either. They were a bit too "shade tree mechanic" for me, although I made my peace with the late models. LOL!

quote: John Wilson
Wow! If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black.

I didn't see that comment, John, since I have him blocked, but thanks for stickin' up for me, my brother! After being away from here for over 2 years, I haven't made 3 posts yet and, already, he's trying to attack me. Incredible. [Roll Eyes]

To echo Brad's comment, I empathize with everyone at Potts (I'm out of work, too, so I know what that feels like --especially as the holidays approach). The news in Louis's post just struck me as wildly ironic.
[Wink]

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 11-23-2011, 07:37 PM:

Good to see you post up Tim.

It could have been worse, if there were no platters we would have had more and more of the V18's, those hideous projectors with 36 inch sheet metal reels that would rewind a whole feature in 13 minutes, and Allah help you if you were not around when it finished rewinding.

Shards of film sticking to the ceiling, polyestar leader entangled in the spokes of the reels.

Truly ghastly.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-23-2011, 09:09 PM:

quote: Sam D. Chavez
and Allah help you if you were not around when it finished rewinding.

Shards of film sticking to the ceiling, polyestar leader entangled in the spokes of the reels.

LOL .. been there and done that a couple of times with the V-18's that I'v ran ... why that twin added AW2 platters so we wouldn't use the large reel system...

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 11-24-2011, 12:50 AM:

quote: Sam D. Chavez
It could have been worse, if there were no platters we would have had more and more of the V18's, those hideous projectors with 36 inch sheet metal reels that would rewind a whole feature in 13 minutes, and Allah help you if you were not around when it finished rewinding

Spot on Sam, I spent a few to many years working with both the Vic 18's and the super platters, the best of no worlds [Smile]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-24-2011, 01:02 AM:

quote: Scott Norwood
I don't get the difficult-to-calibrate argument.

If you went to pretty much any theater that timed their AW3's "by the book" you'd also likely see print belts, trailer cores in the brain and sheets of static guard affixed to the tree. Of course the use of Filmguard and a Film-Tech safety ring would make even such a platter work just fine. But if you really get down to the nitty gritty, it will be nearly perfect in operation. But again, with the safety ring there's really almost no need to. But the other things about the platter make it a winner; the gentle and quiet operation due to the large, non-ball bearing rollers. Actual backtension. The superior MUT which you could actually rest a splicer on. Fully independent deck control... it didn't matter what the other two decks were doing, etc etc etc.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-24-2011, 06:16 AM:

If you want to know what closed down professional operators: Kerasotes went to Bob Potts (who had never seen a cinema booth) and offered him money if he could build a "$1000 platter like the Norelco." Repair parts from Montgomery Wards (remember them?).

Bob's platters include: Christie AW1, Aw2, Super Platter, ORC, Simplex Aeromatic, all the Specos except the last one. At one time ALL platters (except Norelco) were Bob's.

Certainly xenon (Frank Riffle at Xetron/Carbons Inc/Cinemeccanica) was the other factor. Cheaper to install, operate, and with less labor. Louis

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 11-24-2011, 07:23 AM:

Red Diamond was also his design. I bought my first platter from him in the early 1970's which he delivered in a econoline van...he was deliving three at a time. Great guy, told bad jokes; and after dropping my platter & training in Tampa, took his family to Disneyworld....

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-24-2011, 02:09 PM:

What made him design the Super Platter with the dish-shaped decks? Why only that platter (and the orange ORC spin-offs)? Was he retarded? Why can you only load to the middle on the Speco? Why only the Speco? He may have been a swell guy, but his designs sure sucked.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-24-2011, 02:29 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Why can you only load to the middle on the Speco? Why only the Speco?

I seem to recall someone said the AW2 also could only build from the middle... and based on the above comments on which ones he designed, he apparently didn't have that be a "Speco-only" feature.

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 11-24-2011, 02:38 PM:

The AW2 was designed to load to and from the middle mainly due to a horizontal payout spindle on the top of the Mutt.

I did some mods to allow tear down from any platter as it was interfering with my bar time after hours.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-24-2011, 03:05 PM:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
Bob's platters include: Christie AW1, Aw2, Super Platter, ORC, Simplex Aeromatic, all the Specos except the last one. At one time ALL platters (except Norelco) were Bob's.

Louis - I didn't see the AW3 in there. That was the only truly GOOD one. I'm assuming someone else went in and improved on his poor designs to create the AW3.

I was always ok with the LP270s from SPECO if they were handled just right, but their flimsy ring, lack of keepers and godawful horizontal MUT had much to be desired. Everything else on that list was crap.

Joe SPECO's horizontal table DID have rollers to load/unload from the top or bottom deck, but they didn't have keepers and the design was such that if you didn't sit there and physically hold the reel on loading to create backtension the film WOULD jump off of the track. Similarly on breakdown as soon as you stopped the platter/reel the film would fly right off of the rollers. Every SPECO user I know just said to hell with it and only loaded/unloaded from the middle.

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 11-24-2011, 07:36 PM:

We did a field mod kit for 20+ SPECO makeup tables to do a "fix" for a Latin American cinema chain....

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 11-24-2011, 07:42 PM:

As far as reliability and ease of operation is concerned, the Eprad Dbl Mut is still my favourite long play device, bar none.

In the realm of the platter, the best IMHO is the Speco LP 270 and the absolute worst piece of crap has to be the ORC Maxi.
Now whether Bob Potts had anything to do with either of these I wouldn't know, but as mentioned previously any company involved in film gear that ceases to be is sad indeed.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-24-2011, 08:35 PM:

So why didn't Speco realize the design failure of no keepers and fix that after the first batch was sold? Instead, they continued to sell them with the flaw. So many companies in this industry have/had absolutely no business being in it and yet somehow they flourished. Now I'm not sure if I should have contempt for the shitty companies or the shitty theaters who kept buying that stuff. Aw hell, why not both?

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-24-2011, 10:21 PM:

Bob's involvement was on the early side. The aw3 had the honor of building on the earlier mistakes; they knew what not to do. I asm not certain of the name (Clark Kreitz???) but the aw3 guy was once part of the Pussycat chain of porn theatres.

The early speco were actually built in Illinois at the Potts factory; later made in Kansas City. The later (metal) tables were about as good as the Christie. The wooden ones were terrible.(Yes, the platter decks WERE actually picnic tables from K mart. That is why they were steel. Louis

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-24-2011, 10:41 PM:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
The early speco were actually built in Illinois at the Potts factory; later made in Kansas City

Wow, that actually brought back a memory for me. When I was working in my first theater, we had a union projectionist who would spend a few days at our theater and a few days at another theater a mile away (same chain). He always referred to the platters in the other building as "Kansas City Platters". I never understood this. I figured that they had passed some sort of law where all theaters in Kansas City must use those platters or maybe all of the citizens of Kansas City united to design those platters. We used AW3s.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-25-2011, 01:52 AM:

Ah yes, the late model SPECO "metal" tables were good. I had no issues with them at all. Of course they were an almost direct knock off of the AW3 MUT (not the Bevan "hand truck MUT"), but it was a simple design that worked extremely well...AND actually promoted the proper use of a splicer during breakdown like the AW3.

In the last 10 years I haven't found a single theater that used Strong/Potts platters that DIDN'T use masking tape to re-join the leaders. When you ask why, it is always "there isn't enough room on the MUT for the splicer". [Mad]

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-25-2011, 08:49 AM:

Potts makeup tables: we actually made a wooden shelf for these. It fit over the arm. Only problem is that you had to move the splicer back and forth from makeup to ship out. (I wish I could tell you that I thought of this; stolen from a customer in Jasper, Indiana.) Louis

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-25-2011, 09:27 AM:

quote: Ian Parfrey
As far as reliability and ease of operation is concerned, the Eprad Dbl Mut is still my favourite long play device, bar none.

Totally agree... better then anything else out there!

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 11-25-2011, 01:03 PM:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
...The aw3 had the honor of building on the earlier mistakes; they knew what not to do. I asm not certain of the name (Clark Kreitz???) but the aw3 guy was once part of the Pussycat chain of porn theatres.....

Louis , the guy was Clark Crites, he also invented the Christie ELF platter. (Clark even looked like one of the Keebler elfs.) The "A" version was terrible, not responsive to film shrinkage and stock differences, but the later versions corrected that. Laemmle theatres used them heavily in virtually all locations, and it was their chief projectionist (who has a good engineering background) who helped iron out the bugs.

The ELF was ideal for locations where the movies tended to stay in the same house for extended periods, and despite claims to the contrary, if left alone, (and the projectors were cleaned out regularly,) they did NOT scratch film.

BUT, the major drawbacks were that people tended to mess with them all the time (especially when a sudden humidity change made it go from three "cusps" to one) and of course the lazy never cleaned out the projectors. Result: damaged film and missed shows. They were also a pain as it took planning to move shows around, as you had to break off of the ELF deck on the show before you wanted to move it, and then you had to re-lay the sandbags and reload the ELF feed after the move. Trailer changes were also a pain, but the Laemmle chief worked out a decent solution to that (But it still wasn't as easy as dropping in/cutting out the trailer pack like with conventional platters).

So there was a daily savings in labor, but other complications came along with it.

Ultimately Laemmle stopped using the ELFs.

I had one of the early ones set up at Knott's Berry Farm (running the 3-d film "Sea Dream") and it was very reliable for that purpose and saved a lot of trouble.

It was a brilliant execution of a good idea, but it really was a niche market device.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-25-2011, 02:05 PM:

How did the Christie ELF differ from other ELFs other than just being a Christie version? Didn't they all work the same way by whacking the film towards the center, making kind of a star shape?

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 11-25-2011, 02:05 PM:

What was your take on the Christie Mini-Winds? The smaller set of platters for cramped booths?

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-25-2011, 03:24 PM:

They worked just as well as the aw3. (and if mylar had been made thin enough, they would have become the standard. Mylar should be 30% less thick than acetate in recent years. That is why reels are never full anymore.) Louis

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 11-25-2011, 05:01 PM:

Joe:

The Christie, unlike the Kinoton and other endless loops that used push pins and the like to form the film into the required shape, used the metering arm and the eccentric deck shape to lay the film down, one layer (film thickness) at a time, which in theory meant that the film was never rubbing or sliding against the adjacent layers. The odd shaped rubber pieces and nylon runner rails also assisted in forming the correct "cusp" or "hump" pattern.

BTW, the trick of ANY endless film handler is that the inside diameter of the film pack MUST be exactly the same as the outside diameter for the film to feed properly without pulling or sliding on itself.

James: What Louis said. [Smile]

I have even run a 70mm feature on a miniwind (short feature and I rigged a version of a platter ring for safety).

If you can get one of those miniwinds, grab it.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-25-2011, 05:25 PM:

Tony,

Kinoton's endless loop, the ST2000 "meters" its film on/off.

Personally, I've never had much respect for the AW3. Its speed control design was way too crude and hence the need for folks to develop their preferred settings for "safe" operation. Their large rollers with either no or nylon bearings inherently put a bounce in the film feeding to the projector...leading some to get rid of the back tension spring that was also ill conceived. The AW3 only stands high to other less than good designs. Most platters are things that react to film rather than handle it.

Of the American platters...I probably like the SPECOs the best...they definitely have the best service life. The fins under the platter decks did create too much of a wind-storm if one was paying out below the build/tear down deck.

As for MUTs...I do like the Christie the best...simple and easy to make up/break down to any deck. Christie also got back-tension right. With SPECO's horizontal table, I've either installed a clutch (better than the factory one) or used a sponge to rub the flange of the supply reel to act like a clutch. We even mounted a D&M supply arm in a SPECO wooden table to provide a good supply spindle with a suitable clutch. Worked really well too.

The only platter I really think is worthy of handling film though is the Kinoton ST200E...Its operation is just about as flawless as one could get and it seemingly never needs attention. It is not perfect as its film path overly complicated and non-uniform. The use of the payout module as the selector for which deck is paying out is silly, in my opinion (I would rather leave the payout head in all decks unless a print is being moved). Their make up tables are pretty decent as horizontal tables go...tension is PERFECTLY maintained at all speeds. The vertical table (MUU2000) is a near-miss as it does not make up on the bottom deck...it is very Christie like in operation.

-Steve

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-25-2011, 11:24 PM:

Anyone have any pictures of an endless loop system they could post? I have never seen one and can't picture how it works, even with Tony's description.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-26-2011, 12:08 AM:

There are a few Christie ELF photos here.

And here is a video of one running. The rewind arm follows an eccentric path on the underside of the platter; the deck itself is not eccentric as Tony's post might suggest.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-26-2011, 12:30 AM:

Thanks Adam.

I must say, it looks a bit scary!

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 11-26-2011, 12:33 AM:

... and here's a link to a great vid on the Kinoton Endless loop. Kinoton Endless Loop Platter

Posted by Peter Howard (Member # 3491) on 12-02-2011, 10:12 PM:

quote: Ian Parfrey
As far as reliability and ease of operation is concerned, the Eprad Dbl Mut is still my favourite long play device, bar none.

Haha, agreed, my dad loves them and consequently we have 6 or 7 of them I think. Each cinema has a Potts A3 and an Eprad dbl mut installed, and aside from the odd adjustment to the limit switches when the arm starts to do a happy dance they are very very good.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 12-02-2011, 10:31 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Kinoton's endless loop, the ST2000 "meters" its film on/off.

Steve, watching the video Ian posted, there are obviously "pins" or "hooks" that hold the film back, and then are released after so many layers are built up. That is not the same as the continuous metered laydown of film on the Christie ELF. The idea with the ELF, according to Clark, was that the film was laid down one layer at a time, with no sliding or rubbing against adjacent layers of film.

However, Kinoton's equipment is generally very good, so I do not doubt that their design works well. But IMHO it would NOT be as gentle on the film based on the use of those "hooks" or whatever you want to call them.

And Adam is correct, I should have said eccentric rubber mat on the deck, not implied that the deck itself was eccentric. (Actually, thinking back, the "A" model's deck itself might have been eccentric shaped..been too many years since I saw one.)

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-02-2011, 11:20 PM:

Is it just me, or does hearing "pins" and "hooks" in reference to film make everyone cringe?

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 12-03-2011, 12:50 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Is it just me, or does hearing "pins" and "hooks" in reference to film make everyone cringe?

Nope, I am not keen on that idear either.

Posted by Matthew McBride (Member # 6598) on 12-03-2011, 03:19 PM:

Yeah when I saw the video of the endless loop for Kinoton I was amazed and afraid for the film. I would be scared that the hooks or pins would just rip the film apart.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-03-2011, 05:11 PM:

Having worked with the ELF...it most definitely slides film upon itself. Its metering of film is no different than the Kinoton in that they both have a sprocket that drives the film onto the platter at the same rate of speed it is turning.

WIthout a doubt, I'd put a Kinoton ST2000E up against the Christie ELF any day of the week.

-Steve

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 12-03-2011, 05:38 PM:

Say whatever you want Steve, but the fact is simple: The ELF does NOT use anything other than the metering arm and the varying friction of the deck pads to form the cusps, NOT any kind of mechanical pins or hooks. The videos posted make that crystal clear.

And you experience with the ELF doesn't match mine, I worked at several screens with the ELFs for quite a few years. And watching the motion closely the film does NOT slide against itself. In fact, Clark had to prove that to the Cheif projectionist before he would authorize them. He did it by sticking a tape flag to one layer and we watched it as it moved in. No lateral motion.

Metering methods aside, I can agree that the Kinoton would beat the Christie any day...endless loop or standard platter.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-03-2011, 06:21 PM:

The Christie has a "beater" roller like other endless loops. As I recall, the tension adjustment on the metering system had to be precisely set to get it to work reliably. When polyester hit...they did NOT do well out here...too much clinging...which is challenging for any platter but an endless loop just chokes...the ELF included. Reliability wise, out here, the Potts Endless loops did as well as the ELF in terms of reliability...if not a tad bit better. The Potts solution was pretty simple, as are most of his designs.

-Steve

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 12-03-2011, 10:27 PM:

Yep, the beater roller was a part of it, and had to be used most of the time...some prints worked without it but that was a crapshoot.

The tension setting of the metering arm was critical, but the biggest challenge was keeping people from messing with it. I also recall a LOT of experimentation with the tension springs....

Poly prints did indeed give it fits..between the sticking and thickness difference..aggravated even worse by the trailer pack which was for some time a mix of acetate and Poly stocks...that frequently made the ELF form one big cusp instead of three. [Eek!]

But it still ran that way and if left alone would eventually correct itself.

Never got a chance to work with the Potts version, but heard like you said it was actually pretty good.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 12-04-2011, 05:48 AM:

MoMi in London used several of these things. I was told by Charles Beddow that they didn't like black and white film, and that the prints which they used on them had to be printed on colour stock. Does anyone know why this might be? I didn't think to ask him at the time.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-04-2011, 09:00 AM:

I don't remember colour stock, but I do recall that we had to have a humidifier in all of the little booths to prevent wraps and jams, and that the prints had to be sent to Studio Film & Video (now Soho Images) to be waxed every few weeks. My first job there was go to round with a watering can, filling the humidifiers up!

There again, those MOMI exhibit screenings were a very punishing environment: the prints were only about 30-60 minutes of film each and they were running continuously, nine hours a day, six days a week (the museum was closed on Mondays). So each print probably did in excess of 100 passes through a projector per week. Even though every surface in the film path and projector mechanism was cleaned scrupulously at the start of each shift, the prints still got very scratched and dirty, very quickly.

That whole museum installation was way ahead of its time in some ways, and very ambitiously designed. Another innovation was that all the exhibits which used video monitors were fed from a bank of computer-controlled laserdisc drives in a series of 19" racks in the control room. Their life expectancy was very short, resulting in a basement full of dead ones.

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 12-05-2011, 11:59 AM:

I did see the Museum of Moving Image exhibit in London and noted the Potts looper platters chugging away. We used three units for coming attactions in cinema lobbies for six years before converting to video; they ran fine during the period.