Introducing 35mm to our theater

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Monee? Long time since I've heard that name.

Either Monee or Cinecitta, perhaps they imported both. If you got a good one they weren't much problem... But right when I arrived in Salt Lake City there were six new projectors being pulled out and replaced with Simplex's.

Then on the other hand don't underestimate the capabilities of CFS back then. They produced the 15kw lamp houses for Iwerks and later Cinema Development's 15/70 projectors, which were works of art...

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

35mm film installations usually require venting the lamp houses to the outside world, and the booth is most likely to require it's own HVAC system.

Since you can't splice archival prints, you will be running 2000' reels requiring a changeover every 20 minutes or less which means a full time projectionist will be required to be in the booth at all times.

Film breaks, take up belts and clutches fail, loops are lost due to film damage, and there are a number of other bad things can happen. These can all lead to (additional) print damage. This is particularly critical when you are running archival prints.

You will also require a film inspection bench and a rewind. All prints you will run will require a manual inspection to identify and document any previous damage.

In short, you are going to require the services of an experienced professional projectionist.

So, unless you are committed to meet these requirements, I would suggest you stay away from film.

One other consideration: Since vintage Eastman color prints fade, 4 track Mag prints are almost non-existent, and DTS CD's are also scarce, in most instances you will likely get a superior overall customer experience running a Blu-ray up-scaled to 4K with its multi-channel audio track (assuming you can get a clearance to present it).

Hummmmm....AMC theaters never had film inspection stations....

[Leo Enticknap]

AMC wasn't in the business of presenting prints that are required to be serviceable for decades, might themselves be decades old, and were either irreplaceable or expensive enough to replace as to make a significant impact to the viability of the business. Pretty much every 35mm release print still in circulation comes into at least one of those categories. When 35mm was the mainstream theatrical release medium, it was accepted that occasional accidents happened, and the standard of film handling required in a typical 'plex simply wasn't at the level now required by the owners of the few prints remaining in circulation. Yes, there were some sites that had excellent, highly trained projectionists and techs who achieved the highest standards of film handling and technical presentation, but that wasn't the norm.

[Brad Miller]

Hummmmm....AMC theaters never had film inspection stations....

Yes they did Mark. In fact they had multiple stations at each multiplex. Please don't spread blatantly false information just to get your jollies trolling.

[Brad Miller]

a nice pair of simplex xl or centurys would be the ticket, i prefer the rca or simplex soundheads as they run a floating sound loop unlike the century r3 and simplex 5-star that uses a tight loop thus eliminating strain on the film and the simplex has larger feed sprockets making them less apt to damage film.

Lots of misleading information in this post.

First off, the tension a print is under as it passes through an optical sound reader on a machine such as a Century R3 or Simplex 5-star is FAR LESS TENSION than will be exerted on the film during the process of running reel to reel takeup. The argument is simply invalid.

Second, ALL RCA and Simplex soundheads have that damned "dirt embedder roller" design that despite what some people claim, DOES cause film damage. I see it all the time at the start of reels that have been run exclusively changeover. The emulsion gets gouges in it. I've also seen many examples over the years where a nasty "dirt strip" from this roller occurs throughout the entire print after running on those things. This film damage problem only gets worse as bearings and the pressure roller ages. In the warehouse under "tips" on this site is a "how to upgrade a 5-Star" to permanently rid those of this problem, and at that point the soundheads become acceptable. Just look at the example pictures I posted here.

Also the larger sprockets on a Simplex still doesn't change the exact same sprocket size of the intermittent. Plus with Simplex you have high probability of having to deal with oil leaking onto the print (and everywhere). Their pad roller arms close so hard they also get knocked out of alignment much easier than on a Century, and by the time anyone realizes, film damage has occurred (sometimes cutting the edge of the sprockets off).

If you are looking to find a commonly found projector model in the US and are serious about archival film handling, do yourself a favor and stick with Century. You have to remember that ALL film today is effectively "archival" and any mistakes are likely to be forever since it's exceedingly rare to get new prints struck now.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Yes they did Mark. In fact they had multiple stations at each multiplex. Please don't spread blatantly false information just to get your jollies trolling.

None at the sites in Chicago, including the 24 screen in Barrington. Film went straight on to the platters. Well, they did have MUT's, so I guess that was their film bench.

[Brad Miller]

It may have been the lazy projectionist's choice to use the MUT to go direct to the platter, but I cannot believe that they didn't have Kelmar rewind tables. This is AMC we are talking about. They bought the exact same package of equipment over and over and over.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

It may have been the lazy projectionist's choice to use the MUT to go direct to the platter, but I cannot believe that they didn't have Kelmar rewind tables. This is AMC we are talking about. They bought the exact same package of equipment over and over and over.

Never saw a single rewind bench. I actually worked at the first AMC 6 plex in Naperville when I was a Jr in High School. I thought the periscope projection was cool and the platters amazing back then. But I look back at it now and laugh. When that site closed in the early 1990's I bought the contents of the booth.

[John Eickhof]

brad, nice to hear your opinions...my opinions are based on my experience...it is proven that well maintained equipment of any kind will operate satisfactorily and exceed academy standards at the time, when you reach 50 or so years of operating professional projectors you may well understand they met the needs of design and function of the time, they had daily maintenance and service unlike the button pushing of later years. people like mark and myself cut our baby teeth on equipment that was made decades before our time and we ended up liking our profession we stayed with it until its demise. i was taught by professionals who had pride in their work and it never failed to show on the screen. so everyone is welcome to their opinions and some are proven in time not in haste....just my opinion...

[Brad Miller]

John, what I wrote above has been my consistent experience with Simplexes in a wide variety of environments over the last 35 years. I never said they weren't reliable, because they are reliable. My beef with the Simplex is that the design of them leaves a LOT to be desired when it comes to its film handling ability. A Century on the other hand is significantly more gentle on the film and this also has been proven time and time again in mixed booths with both types of projectors.

Case in point (and I've done this MANY times to prove to people) a theater opens up 2 prints of the same movie. Both prints are brand new from the lab. Print A runs exclusively on a Simplex projector and print B runs exclusively on a Century projector. The same projectionist build up both prints and every other aspect of the setups (platters, lamphouses, etc) are identical. Keep in mind the same group of projectionists are threading every single show on both systems and the same technician has performed the maintenance on both machines. Both projectors are in the same booth and sometimes in neighboring auditoriums. Also both screens are scheduled for the same number of shows in a day. In most of these comparisons neither print was passed through any sort of film cleaner at all, but in a few examples the prints were equally ran through film cleaners. This is about as fair as it gets!

However, by the time the films have been ran a few weeks, the Simplex print has become quite dirty whereas the one ran on a Century still looks almost new. This is the case EVERY single time when you put these two machines head to head. Not once in all of my years and head-to-head demos has the Simplex ever won that battle. There is ALWAYS more film wear on the Simplex print.

It's nice that people have their opinions, but I am speaking about facts, so let's stick to that.

[Sam Chavez]

I'd have to say there is all the difference in the world between a Simplex SH 1000 and a so called 5 Star regarding gentleness to film. Wondering if your experience was limited to the 5 Star, being as you are a relative youngster.

The other difference is one is an oil bath projector so that might account for a difference in wear and dirt.

[John Eickhof]

hi brad, i think theres some confusion here, i guess i did not explain my reasoning very well...we are comparing apples to oranges here...i was referring my preferences regarding a two machine manual changeover system running 2000ft reels...i ran this type booth for decades both carbon arc and xenon, never broke a leader or tore any sprocket holes....you are probably spot-on regarding the side by side examples in a grind run platter house, i can see print degradation occur with a build up of dirt from a print sitting in the open on its side on a platter plus the inherent static cling as it traverses through the many ungrounded plastic rollers however take a two machine booth with a competent operator, enclosed magazines, and a nice wipe down between reels, properly adjusted take ups and slow starting flywheel drive sound heads and you have a pretty foolproof system, plus proper oiling and all metal reels and rollers so minimal static and the reels stored vertically in an enclosed bin, thus is why the studios and screening rooms never strayed away from traditional projection. i do agree that many problems with gate tension occur in the xl especially the straight gate but we had modified many heads with a stop screw like the commonly mis-adjusted one on the curved gate xl as they had way too much tension. however, by design, you never saw a production run century set up for forward / reverse operation as the film would bunch up between int spkt and gate in reverse when framing, i knew of one man, jim nickerson that worked at universal who experimented with centurys for rock and roll but they just never made it, the simplex straight gates were the norm. usually equipped with a three shoe gate and delrin, nylon or bamboo runners for unwaxed green prints. ironically, you cite the lateral guide rollers in the rca and simplex soundhead yet its still the same type used today...and the original century soundhead, the r2/r6 had the same rubber coated lateral roller as well as a sound speed sprocket and a holdback sprocket like the rca and simplex...it was one of the finest soundheads ever produced. anyway i can understand your concerns however my comments are factual opinions also and i appreciate your respect in that. anyway...just my two cents worth///

[Brad Miller]

Hey Sam. I've had more than my fair share of time running SH1000 soundheads. They are no more kind to the film than the 5-Star soundheads. I've ran more Simplexes than I wish in my time and that includes all the way back to the pre-Super "Standard" model. I've not found any of them were gentle on film, but the XL variation of the straight-gate with the 2 pressure plates is an absolute disaster for film and I hope nobody is running those anymore. At least the straight-gate with the 3 pressure plates wouldn't cause splice failure over time like the 2-plate gates would. (Also I think 35 years of my doing this is plenty enough to be able to make a fair assessment.)

There is a photo at this link showing typical "dirt embedder roller" damage from Simplex/RCA soundheads here:

http://www.film-tech.com/warehouse/tips/5starmod/5starmod.html

John, I think you are still not understanding my point, as twice now you have gone off into a different direction than the topic being discussed. Remember the thread is about someone wanting to run 35mm film today at a theater. It has nothing to do with post-production, and since almost every print now is classified as "changeover only", a 2-projector setup is just about mandatory anyway. This was never about platters or how dirt can land on a plattered print. My examples above comparing Simplex to Century was about the difference in the actual projector and soundhead mechanism...because all other variables in the comparisons were identical. The Century is simply more gentle on film than a Simplex and my comments were in regards to your recommending the Simplex.

My biggest caution at this point is that anyone who thinks they can go to a 2-day seminar and come out as an "archival film handler" is smoking some of that I-30 stuff. It's absolutely not possible because despite what some people seem to think, the mere process of running a film reel-to-reel does NOT mean "archival" film handling is actually happening.

When a print is damaged these days, that's generally the end of it and no replacement print is struck. Because of that, it is very important for theaters setting up or running 35mm to not trivialize any part of the process.

[Sam Chavez]

My main point buried in there someplace is the 5 Star is a tight loop sounded using the same parts intended for a floating loop soundhead, so the effect of the "dirt embedder" rubber lay down roller would seem to be exacerbated, so was seeking your comment on that.

[Brad Miller]

The emulsion is softened momentarily when it hits the gate and is exposed to a high intensity arc lamp, and then less than a second later it comes into direct contact with the dirt embedder roller. Having ANYTHING touch the emulsion in such a scenario is just bad engineering. But to specifically address your question, I haven't noticed the SH1000 vs. 5-Star being any different in actual film wear, except those which have been modified to remove the stupid thing (see the link in my post above). Once that is removed, all is fine.