Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: why did so many theatres buy new projectors in the 1950s?

This is topic why did so many theatres buy new projectors in the 1950s? 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=011249

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-14-2012, 12:10 PM:

Weird question: Why does it seem that many theatres upgraded their projectors around the time when they would have installed Cinemascope?

I have seen this pattern in a number of theatres that were built in the 1920s and 1930s. Now, it is not uncommon to walk into a theatre of that vintage that still has 1950s-era equipment installed, whereas equipment from the 1940s and earlier is rarely still in operation.

Why would theatre owners have chosen to upgrade their projectors then? Why didn't they just buy new lenses and a new screen and screen frame and leave their old projectors there?

Was this some sort of conspiracy among service companies to convince theatre owners that they needed new projectors for Cinemascope? Was a 25-year-old projector considered to be "old" by the standards of the time?

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 06-14-2012, 12:23 PM:

Scott that is a good question and probable not one you will find an answer to with out a lot of research. Were there special tax incentives for business during that time? Did owners have a reason to doubt that the old projectors would last a lot longer. Maybe it was in for a penny in for a pound if your doing this much why not go a bit further.

The 1950's saw unprecedented economic growth; however, theaters for the first time had competition for customers (TV) and maybe it was for the advertising. 4 track stereo mag sound came about in the 50's how many that changed the projectors added the new sound head as well?

Maybe the owners of the 50's weren't as cheep as the owners of the 70's and 80's.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-14-2012, 12:56 PM:

The Simplex XL, which came out in 1950, was the main thing since it was such an evolutionary machine that it was like a new generation of manufacturing.

It featured the cone shutter that the shutter was very close to the aperture to give more crisp shutter action and eliminated light leakage around the shutter blade as with the older ones where the shutter was far back behind the aperture.

The XL was the first from Simplex to offer the curved gate to be used for larger lamphouses so to contain the dreaded focus drift that the straight gate variety was known for when used behind a big lamphouse. The curve just got the image that much close to the shutter.

The Intermittent assembly was a total joy to work on - you didn't have to split the case apart to change out a sprocket. You just took the end bearing off to replace and the unit was oiled by the main oiling assembly - not dependent of oil as with the earlier mechanisms.

Plus, it was self oiling and easy maintainable.

Unit was also designed for use in Drive-In's due to the usage of much larger lamphouses where the older ones couldn't take the heat and warped easily.

RCMH installed 5, Simplex XL Deluxe units using the Peerless Hycadecent, condensor carbon arc lamphouses to fill that 100ft wide screen from a 180 foot throw in the '50's.

The older Simplex units of the Super and E7 were manually oiled and the gearing in the back was a total pain to work on - esp. the E7 with that oblique shaft if you strip out a shutter drive gear.

Yet, on the plus side, a image being shown through an E7 or Super was rock steady if the rails in the trap were adjusted right, lateral guide roller was adjusted and a new intermittent sprocket. When CinemaScope came in, off went the front shutters, and if the attachments were on the heavy side, the lens holder assembly did suffer strain from the heavy lenses. This is where the XL took over with their very large lens barrel attachment assembly - it could handle the weight with no problem. The Century "SA" adopted the same lens barrel attachment for their units.

Also, Motiographs, with their barrel shutter, had problems with the shutter bearings since the units were greased, not oiled. Motiographs were a very durable machine, but the reflector setup for the lamphouse had to have a 'slow' focal to get that point of light thorugh the openings in the barrel to be the most effective. Some smaller lamphouse didn't work well due to the blades of the barrel would actually cut some of the light before going through the barrel and light efficency was reduced.

Century improved their "C" model with the "SA" series along with their soundheads and that added to the rollout of the older machines. The "SA" was called, "the Projectionist's Projector" being so strongly built, easy to work on and very dependable.

It was the 'digital' craze back then.

-Monte

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-14-2012, 03:47 PM:

Two other factors I'm wondering about:

1 - Priority for war production being given to the raw materials (especially steel and aluminum) needed for projector manufacturing, meaning that routine projector replacements didn't happen during WWII, after which time it took a few years for production to resume and availability to become widespread;

2 - The transition from nitrate to acetate leading to fundamentally new designs that did not have to incorporate fire safety features (e.g. liquid cooled gates), but did incorporate features that the new technologies of the '50s called for, e.g. easily interchangeable lenses and aperture plates, and mag heads. So exhibitors wanted new features that spurred them into upgrading to a whole new projector, which previously they didn't need (and, due to the fragility of the post-war economy, couldn't afford).

The same thing can be seen here, too - there are a significant number of projectors from the late 50s still in use (or at least there were until the transition to digital really started to take off), notably DP-70s and GK-37s, but hardly anything from the '40s or earlier.

Posted by F. Hudson Miller (Member # 5318) on 06-14-2012, 04:59 PM:

Was the original Cinemascope Fox sprocket hole change just a matter of changing the sprockets or was there a push for new machines at the same time?

Posted by Robert Throop (Member # 61) on 06-14-2012, 06:29 PM:

The newer post war machines ie. Simplex XL, Motiograph AAA, RCA Brenkert BX100 all had 4 inch lens mounts. The later Century C and CC also had 4 inch lens mounts.If your throw required a 4 inch diameter lens that was another reason to upgrade.
Also, early RCA and WE soundheads had gate type scanning rather than rotary stabilizers which contributed more wow and flutter.
Many of the new CinemaScope screens were large enough to require newer, larger lamps.
There were many large first run houses even in the major chains which continued to run E7's and Supers well into the sixties.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 06-14-2012, 09:15 PM:

The ball bearing, invented by Western Electric, made it to projectors with the Century C in 1941.

It took awhile to recover from the war. The XL was the second major projector to redesign with BB.

When Scope arrived, new sprockets, pad rollers and gate parts were needed. Coupled with sound reproducers that did not have a rotary stabilizer and original Western Electric and RCA amplifiers, there was an incentive not to spend more money on equipment that was now 30 years old. Louis

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-14-2012, 09:22 PM:

At our place, there was a booth fire in early 1953 and they got new booth equipment after that. Scope lenses were added (along with a 30' screen to replace the 1.33:1) in October of that year. No Simplex here though...we had Motiograph machines, which ran until 1980 when we retired them for a new Simplex with a Christie console.

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 06-14-2012, 09:23 PM:

...and some day years from now people will be asking "why,
in the early 20th century, did theaters rip out perfectly
good film equipment and replace it with digital stuff?"

quote: Scott Norwood
Was this some sort of conspiracy among service companies to convince theatre owners that they needed new projectors

Well, I don't know what happened in the 1950's but I'm
100% convinced that the current digtial conversion frenzy
is a conspiracy between studios, equpment vendors & the
large theater chains to sell stuff & put small theater
out of business.

And if I really want to put on my "tin-foil-hat" I'd
swear the digtial projection equipment emits some sort
of mind numbing rays. How else could you explain the
mass-hypnosis that convinces theater owners that
installing this digital crap is actually a good idea?

It's certainly not a market-driven issue. I don't know
how forcing everyone to convert to digtial or go out
of business is not a violation of some sort of some
law. (Then again, I'm obviously not a lawyer)

For example- - one of the theaters I do some work for
has an primarily elderly clientle. Most of thse people
don't know the difference between an I-phone and an
Etch-A-Sketch. Or could care less. They don't really
givadamn if the picture they're watching is film or
digital. All they want is to see a show. For that
theater to spend amost $200,000 or so to put in digital
equipment just because the studios are too cheap to make
prints any more isn't worth it for them. They'll never
recoup that investment. So, they'll probably just close,
putting about a dozen people out of work and giving
the old people no place to go, except on Tuesdays when
they can all hang out at the KFC and get the bargin
chicken and corn cob dinner.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-14-2012, 11:35 PM:

Oil was cheap then, for if we had poly film instead of acetate, prints wouldn't be so expensive. Now, with oil hitting at 85 bucks a barrel, making poly film stock isn't cheap anymore.

..and to add on a topic that's been drug around and beat upon is the cost of help to run a film projector against the computer that can start a digital projector...

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 06-14-2012, 11:51 PM:

There were five Fox West Coast houses in the Pomona, California area when 'Scope hit. Four of the houses were running Simplex E7s. All the company did was remove the front shutters and install new aperture plates an lenses. The main 1700 seat showplace was running Super Simplex installed in 1932 and adding plates and lenses was no problem. I was working those houses and never heard of any push to install new equipment with that company.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-15-2012, 04:17 AM:

I agree. Know of a small town single, that just recently converted to digital, but left one machine (No.2) up in its rightful place:
A SuperSimplex sitting on top of a RCA-9030 that was installed in the mid 40's to replace the original Wenzel Ace units that was installed in 1930 when the location was built.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-15-2012, 06:41 AM:

Thinking a bit more about the 1950s issue, and I only have figures at my fingertips for Britain on this one, but would hazard a guess that the general argument holds...

The peak year for theatres operating was 1939, with 4,702 sites (almost all of them single screen, obviously). Other figures are 3,402 in 1928, 3,601 in 1931 and 4,406 in 1946 (the slight drop being accounted for by cinemas that were bombed and never re-opened, I'd guess). This would suggest to me that almost all the projectors in use by the early 1950s were either virtually new or significantly upgraded by the mid-1930s, i.e. after the dust had settled from the conversion to sound. From what I've read from trade press and secondary literature (e.g. Donald Crafton, The Talkies and Douglas Gomery, The Coming of Sound), some projectors were easily upgradable to sound (it depended what models you had and whether you wanted disc, film or both), whereas others weren't and the conversion meant getting new projectors. Keep in mind that even by the late '20s, many projectors were still hand-cranked, and as a general rule these weren't upgradable.

So during the 1940s, most projectors in use would only be around a decade old - not old enough to need end-of-life replacement. Plus, no new exhibition technologies had been rolled out during this period apart from very minor ones (e.g. readers for push-pull optical tracks) that would not have necessitated complete projector replacement. However, in the '50s, these technologies did come along - multiple aspect ratios (meaning that you needed projectors in which the lenses and plates could be swapped out quickly during a show - impossible with many pre-war designs), mag sound requiring the head mounted in a very specific place for the offset, and safety film enabling 6K reel lengths and eventually long-play systems to be used.

So as with sound in the 1930s, the 1950s gave exhibitors a reason to want new projectors; but during the '40s, no such reason materialised, the war created a hostile economic climate and most of the projectors around weren't old enough to need end-of-life replacement.

Just thinking out loud...

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 06-15-2012, 10:09 AM:

quote:
A Super Simplex sitting on top of a RCA-9030 that was installed in the mid 40's

Mid 1940's? Wow... I knew my RCA 9030 was old... but didn't know it was that old. What about a Brenkert BX-60.. same time era?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-15-2012, 11:08 AM:

I worked a few summers at our local drive in and I remember they had Brenkerts. No idea what model they were. I remember they were quieter-running than the Motiographs at the Roxy.

I'm not sure what kind of lamps they had, but they had the wrong lamps for a drive-in......the carbon slag would drip onto the bottom of the reflectors due to the tilt, so they had to put in new reflectors every year or so.

Sure wish I had some pics of that place. Lots of good times there.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-15-2012, 12:53 PM:

In the same town where I mentioned that single, is a drive-in that has BX-60 sitting on top of a 4-Star with a Xetron 4k lamphouse behind its. Brenkhert gets pretty hot, but runs real smooth and quiet. What I did like about the Brenkherts - a sturdy machine. Sad, the BX-100 dbl shutter units did have their problems.

quote: Mike Blakesley
the carbon slag would drip onto the bottom of the reflectors due to the tilt, so they had to put in new reflectors every year or so.

Interesting that the never developed a guard of sorts to keep the copper slag from hitting the reflector. Almost sounds like they used an indoor lamphouse for a drive-in since the reflectors with these lamphouses do sit closer to the carbon trim than did either the Ashcraft or Strong 135's...or just one high degree of upward tilt.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-15-2012, 01:39 PM:

What did the theatres that presented dual projection 3-D in the fifties do? Did they have to purchase new projectors that handled the required 6000 foot reels or were they able to convert their existing equipment?

-Claude

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 06-15-2012, 01:55 PM:

Many of the houses I worked in DC in the late 60s through early 70s had Supers; many with mag penthouses.

All of the 3D equipped houses I saw had XLs with 6K magazines. I don't recall ever seeing an E-7 or Super with big magazines.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-15-2012, 02:31 PM:

I did not ask what kind of projectors with 4K magazines existed in the sixties and seventies in some theatres . I just wanted to know if theatres in the fifties had to buy new projectors that were able to handle the large reels 3-D required or were they able to convert their existing equipment.

-Claude

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-15-2012, 03:10 PM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
What did the theatres that presented dual projection 3-D in the fifties do? Did they have to purchase new projectors that handled the required 6000 foot reels or were they able to convert their existing equipment?

A few ran 2k reels on four machines, the State, Grays and I think the Regal, Edmonton and the Davis, Croydon did.

For those that used large spools on two machines, usually 6k for 3-D, most projectors could be converted by removing the 2k spoolboxes and fitting larger ones. There were exceptions, the BTH SUPA for example couldn't easily be converted for example. Most projection rooms in that era had enough height to fit the larger spools in. Of course, many cinemas at that time were installing new projectors anyway.

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 06-15-2012, 03:31 PM:

Claude: My post was in response to discussion on page 1 and not specifically to answer your question. It was intended to illustrate that many theaters did not change their equipment for the addition of scope.

When I saw your question on page 2, I responded to what I had seen; and that was all 3D theaters I saw had XLs, implying that they had either changed for 3D or some other reason.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 06-15-2012, 03:35 PM:

I believe that RCA/Brenkert left our industry in about 1955 or so. Factory closed/Wolk bought parts and machinery. No more new stuff. 9030's would have to be at least that old and that assumes you got the very last one.

btw: The BX-200 was really a rebadged Century C to solve a few legal problems at the time of the shutdown. I believe only about 100 were ever made.

If you had large reels, then all you needed was an additional rectifier. Most theatres were on motor generator before 3D. Because of 3D theatres were forced to try rectifiers, so that started eliminating the old generators.(The genny could only run one lamp at a time, except for changeover) Louis

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 06-15-2012, 03:38 PM:

The strange thing is that (locally) the 1950s projectors will still be showing film long after most of their modern equivalents have been melted down for scrap.

Posted by Brent Francis (Member # 5008) on 06-15-2012, 03:42 PM:

The mid-50's Century at our old film lab was still being used, last I heard. It was converted to screen 3 perf workprint.

Posted by Dick Prather (Member # 1136) on 06-15-2012, 04:23 PM:

The war and lack of metals had a lot to do with keeping older equipment running through the 40's. Also when TV started in your city. There were Power's machines still running on the Oregon coast in to the 50's

Theatres who could afford it bought new equipment and a surplus of used stuff became available. Many new theatres opened in the late 40's with used projectors. I don't think CinemaScope was a major reason. La Vezzi had covversion kits for all projector models so convertion to Scope was easy. The projector manufactors were also pushing new equipment. Some theatres never converted the screen they just letter boxed.

As late as the 70's I ran Standards, Supers, lots of E-7's as well as lots of Century C & CC. Portland had lots of Century C projectors and most were still runing when replaced with digital. X-L's were mostly in the major chain houses like Fox Evergreen. Some Brenkert's and Motiograph.

Louis, all the RCA 200's I saw were a 4" lens double shutter CC with brown paint and a full size glass with a round red RCA screwed to it. I hated that 4" lens assembly.
Dick

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 06-15-2012, 07:38 PM:

Dick: I think there were so many Centuries in the Portland area because the theatre supply dealer (whose name I can't remember) in that city in the 60s and 70s was a Century dealer, right? He installed a Century for me in Cathlamet when I converted a vacant drug store into a 105 seat theatre there in the late 60s.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-15-2012, 08:08 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Interesting that the never developed a guard of sorts to keep the copper slag from hitting the reflector. Almost sounds like they used an indoor lamphouse for a drive-in since the reflectors with these lamphouses do sit closer to the carbon trim than did either the Ashcraft or Strong 135's...or just one high degree of upward tilt.

It's very possible that they picked up a pair of used lamphouses meant for indoor use without realizing about the tilt problem. The drive-in closed before I was old enough to care about brand names and stuff. I only remember the projectors being Brenkerts because they had big BRENKERT brand-name plaques on them. I have no idea what the lamps were. Now my curiosity is raised. There is one guy still alive who might remember what they were...I'll have to get hold of him and see if he knows.

Posted by Robert Throop (Member # 61) on 06-15-2012, 10:46 PM:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
I believe that RCA/Brenkert left our industry in about 1955 or so. Factory closed/Wolk bought parts and machinery. No more new stuff. 9030's would have to be at least that old and that assumes you got the very last one.

The RCA 200 was sold with 9030 soundheads so I would think that these were in production after the Brenkerts stopped production.
Ron Offerman of CFS once told me he installed the last pair of 9030's somewhere in the midwest in the late fifties.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 06-16-2012, 06:57 AM:

Robert: that is right. They had everything but the projector; got in legal trouble for not fulfilling contracts, so purchased projectors from Century. According to Charlie Wolk. Louis

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 06-16-2012, 09:33 AM:

Just to add another variable into the mix, the 1948 Paramount decision, among other things, required the studios to divest themselves of their theatres. I wonder if there was any cause and effect along the lines of new owners and increased competition driving the upgrades of the theatres.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-16-2012, 01:59 PM:

Toronto at one time had alot of E7's with 5000' magazines for 3d and many had the dual hertner that could power both lamps