Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Cinemeccanica Sneak Preview...

This is topic Cinemeccanica Sneak Preview... in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=001907

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 03-18-2003, 02:53 PM:

Argh!!! CineMeCCaNica!!!! Please!!! [Eek!]

P.S. The V5 compared to others booth seems a toy!

Bye
Antonio

Posted by Jean-Michel Grin (Member # 1360) on 03-18-2003, 03:06 PM:

Hi Antonio,

Do You think that Cinemeccanica look like a toy ? I don't.
These machines will equip ours nexts multiplexes, I'm happy off that [Smile]

The presentation with a transparent cover was verry amazing.
But had You saw the Christie booth ? the new handle to open and close the changeover dousser is [thumbsdown]

If a projectionist is urged to thread a movie, it could accidentally break this fragile rod.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-18-2003, 03:17 PM:

I personaly rather like the V5 machine as they typically give very good service and little problems when looked after by professional operators. No projector likes poor care being given to it

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 03-18-2003, 04:03 PM:

I believe that Cinemeccanica's V5 is a machine that does its job, nothing more. Victoria 5 simply doesn't have the precision of other projectors.

As I wrote some time ago I worked with Kinoton Platters, when I started working with CNR I realize how good Kinoton was.

I've nothing to say about reliability.

Bye
Antonio

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 03-18-2003, 04:14 PM:

If you don't use the framing mechanism the V5 will produce a pretty steady image. With the newer style gates it is even better.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 03-18-2003, 04:24 PM:

The V5's Achilles heel is that single-bearing intermittent. One film wrap, or bump from an operator's shoulder (ouch!), and the picture jumps up and down on the screen.

I agree, Antonio, precision doesn't seem to be in Cinemeccanica's vocabulary. Just order a replacement gear for a V8!

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-18-2003, 04:34 PM:

Does Cinemeccanica still make the V8, or do they only sell the V5 now?

I agree that the V5 is functional (i.e. it projects a picture and reproduces sound) and gentle on film, but I don't really understand why anyone would buy one when so many better alternatives (Century, Simplex, Kinoton, etc.) exist which are of higher quality and more readily available on the used/rebuilt market.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 03-18-2003, 06:14 PM:

I don't know if they do or not, Scott. But I ordered a shutter gear assembly three times for the V8 over at Braintree. I finally had to resort to cutting the shaft down with emory cloth to get one of them to fit.

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 03-18-2003, 06:19 PM:

Yes Cinemeccancia still make Victoria 8's 35/70, mostly to order as they are a lot more expensive than the V5's.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-19-2003, 03:15 PM:

Vic 8 parts are fitted to match the stub shaft of the head that is usually just press fitted in.
Unless you want to quote the serial number with a part order(allways recomended even with us machines) order the complete assembly
Only ever had 2 gears to replace in a vic 8
As for vic5 the newer gates produce as steady of picture as a century or a simplex.
And the new gear boxs have given absolutly no trouble at all
My opinion is if the vic5 in a theatre is giving trouble check out the operator first

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 03-19-2003, 05:44 PM:

Gordon, I never said that V5 is giving trouble! I told that is a toy compared with other machines!!!

The assembly of the digital reader, the precision of the entire machine is not comparable with other brands.

I've already said that the V5 does its job, nothing more.

Bye
Antonio

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-20-2003, 08:03 AM:

I don't think I could sleep at night after having sold someone V-5's!! Standard Simplex's would do a better on screen job and perform better,and last longer overall. The V-8 is ok, and long lived, but the whole philosophy there seems to be to build them just enough to get a picture on the screen.
Mark

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 03-20-2003, 01:27 PM:

quote:
the whole philosophy there seems to be to build them just enough to get a picture on the screen

Hence why they are so popular with the 'film factory' multiplexes. Cheap and mostly does the job.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-20-2003, 02:00 PM:

Mark that is far from true. Most Vic 5's run for years and years with no troubles some of the ones I have installed have been running for about 20 years. If the belts are changed regularly they give very little trouble.
And the new curved gate produces's a far steadier image than most other machines

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 03-20-2003, 08:50 PM:

After they put proper lateral guides on the film traps, they were no longer a problem - a new gate design was unnecessary. The main problem with image unsteadiness in Cinemeccanicas are single-bearing intermittents. The operator end of the starshaft is easily bent, which causes vertical unsteadiness on the screen.

The other weak link was the use of nylon gears in the shutter gearboxes. But, since they're now making those out of steel, it should become a non-issue.

quote:
Vic 8 parts are fitted to match the stub shaft of the head that is usually just press fitted in. Unless you want to quote the serial number with a part order(allways recomended

I did. The whole assembly was too fat and wouldn't let the shutter bearing retainer mate with the main casting. I had to remove the gear (a job in itself) and make it fit the existing shaft, in order to get the projector back together without it leaking. Cinemeccanica admitted they've had problems being consistent.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-20-2003, 09:36 PM:

Gord,
A Standard Simplex can do a darn good job of on screen performance....I've never seen any VIC perform near as good with 35mm running through. The Vic 8 is no better really in the 35mm department either. They run 70mm far better. Considering that there are still quite a few running I wonder what a VIC 5 will be melted down to become a part of in 50 to 75 years!!
Mark

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 03-20-2003, 09:54 PM:

Ditto, Mark. The old Simplexes and Supers were built when precision actually meant something!

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-20-2003, 10:26 PM:

On the shutter gear on a vic 8 they recomend replacing both the shutter shaft and gear and the gear on the stub shaft togather
As for the nylon gears in the vic5 gear boxes I only had greef from the ones where the operators were jumping over the slow start resistors and the machine started with a jerk
Never had a bend star shaft occur (brenkerts were a single bearing intermeitent as is almost all the european machines (kinoton excluded)

Posted by Darren Briggs (Member # 1071) on 03-21-2003, 02:05 AM:

A Vic 5 a toy!! Ever work on a DP75!!!????
As Gordon said, as long as you look after the Vi5, i.e. Belts and oil changes regularly, no probs and any operator with a set of Allen keys and half a brain can repair them.

Darren

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-21-2003, 08:41 AM:

Yea, You can have em!
Mark

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 03-21-2003, 05:55 PM:

A friend of mine had to use Cinemeccanicas on a trade fair where they were used with loop cabinets. I remember that all three prints run on CMs looked really bad after a week while the single print that ran (in the same booth) on a 30 year old Simplex was still fine.

Personally, I had only to do with portable 35mm machines from Italy, and they all were extremely rough on film and were built quite - let`s say "basic". But the worst 35mm machine I ever had to work with was a 35mm portable built by a spanish company called Wassmann. Even the first prototypes of nineteenth-century-projectors were not built that primitive. A real film killer!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-21-2003, 06:57 PM:

That does not surprise me as I had a V-8R in my home screening room a long time ago. It was essentially in brand new condition but it was very hard on film, especially film that had shrunk slightly. Slight edge damage was a guaranteed film break. A pair of V-10's later on gave me the same type of results but they ran 70mm really well. The name Shakeameccannica didn't come about because they are really good!
Mark

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 03-21-2003, 07:48 PM:

You are all welcome to them. We ran them for years at one of our locations. They were not an option when we equipped our new locatiion. Enough said.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 03-22-2003, 11:38 AM:

Just to be fair, I must add that I once had a decent Italian portable machine called MIGNON MICROCINE 35 which was much better than the models mentioned in my last post. It was built very rugged and available with halogen or xenon light and even as a SepMag version to run 35mm mag stock in sync with dailies.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 03-22-2003, 07:16 PM:

I used a V5 for many years, and generally, I agree with Gordon. When one was first installed, I initially laughed at it because, when we bolted a xetron XH4000 lamp on it's back, it almost tipped over. We had to bolt the pedestal to the floor. But, it was problem-free for about 15 years. While you can some faults with it, I feel you could find different, but equivalent problems with other projectors. I worked at a twin that had two Century-rebuilt JJ's and an SA and they were both so bad I wished for the two V8's I first learned on and a V5. After 10 years, the SA was so bad we just replaced it, and the JJ's were beat, and one was re-rebuilt.