It lives on!

[Tj Hopland]

AP stood for Auto Programming. That was in theory an upgrade over the Alpha which was the more base model. The Alpha had a 4 position rotary switch on each arm that had Off, Rewind, Payout, and Makeup. At least I think were the terms, maybe it was feed out and build up? The AP didn't have the rotary switch. Instead the last roller that guided the film onto the platter could pivot a bit and was connected to a an internal switch so if there was film tension on the roller that would switch that deck to takeup (i think they called it rewind) mode. The same assembly had a on/off toggle to select make up.

Both those models you could get the base model payouts which were microswitch so just on or off. As an upgrade you could get what they called the phase control which was an electronic variable control. It still depended on a bunch of magic with the precision drive vacuum cleaner motors but was usually a bit smoother than the micro switch. They did cost more and were maybe a little less reliable and sometimes required calibration which wasn't as simple as you would hope. The micro switch version was a full size micro switch you could clearly see and was only partially covered. The phase control was a fairly large square black box.

Later in the game they came out with the DMC which I think was Digital Motor Control. Those each payout and the takeup all had their own digital electronic speed controls so were fully independent so you didn't have to rely on the speeds matching and the film diameters being the same. This design wasn't very reliable and short lived in favor of their next gen which was called the SCDC. Don't remember what that stood for but they were actually pretty good. You needed a cable and some PC software to replace the light sensor and calibrate them but it was quick and easy if you had the app and cable.


A CP65 in 2000 wasn't a bad thing in 2000, may have even still been in the catalog, I think it came out around 1990 so wasn't all that old by the standards of the day. I doubt they were still making new ones that late or that many people were buying them but I remember it being in the catalog for a long time. They may have bought it when it was more or less the top of the line. If they got it later it could have been because someone didn't like the 222SRA and opted for the 350 sr option or you could get the 300 nr option and it could then do 4 channels of A for 70mm. It was also the more known and trusted technology over the CP500 that was half that fancy new digital stuff. DTS was less expensive than doing a DA-20/SRD so that too was a common configuration. I think the 650 came out in 2001.

[Ryan Gallagher]

thanks for the Potts version breakdown TJ!

In general have not heard the most favorable views of the POTTS platters on here. So perhaps it is a good thing we predominantly get prints that specify R2R only, and the platter gave up its real estate for the DCI install.

The same doc gave a lot more insight on the mismatched nature of our two century JJ configs. Might share in a separate thread or revive one of my prior.

[Tj Hopland]

Those were just the later versions like 1990's to the end. There were further variations and evolutions earlier on like removable and not payouts, and many different motor configurations for mounting, drive, and switches and plugs. All used the same core motor it was just packaged differently. There was also the 5 deck version. On the 5 deck the just jammed more arms on closer together, higher and lower and then a 2nd set of controls on the back.

The 4/5 decks were originally intended for when a theater was twinned which was very common practice in the 70's when platters were coming in. Since a popular method of twinning was to build a wall down the middle(ish) what you did was left one of your change over set ups as is just re aimed it to the new smaller screen and threw a xenon on it if it was still carbon. If the booth was big / deep enough you could just do the same with the other projector then set up this 4/5 tier platter and you were done. If not you would move the other projector over as far as you could maybe using another existing port that was there for slide projector or a follow spot or you cut one. This then left you space between the projectors to jam the platter in and they did often jam em in.

The 5th tier was to give you a spare or help with splits or build and teardown night, the center deck had a switch that would connect it to either the upper or lower controls. 4 or 5 depended on the brand, some didn't offer the 'spare' deck. You could also order them as 'single control' where it was just a platter with more decks. These were initially used in places like drive ins with double features or sites that ran lots of splits. It worked but there were a lot of things that were a little less than optimum when compared to a regular 3 setup. 2 3's cost slightly more to buy than a single 4/5 so some of the owners decided it was a good idea to save a few bucks and use those even when you had space and just put in a few extra rollers to get to the next projector.


And Ryan, ya start a new thread if you want to further dig into the history of your booth. I always find it interesting to either know or try and figure out why things were done the way they were.

[Brad Miller]

TJ: I hate platters, with a passion I usually reserve for child molesters
and tax collectors, but I really enjoyed reading your informative post.

Jim, I'll agree with you on one thing. I believe Frank needs to brutally torture that Super platter to death and then throw it in the dumpster for the crimes that model has committed over the years to film prints. Those are truly horrible platters and I am sad one still exists on this planet.

Then again, Ryan should pitch that Potts diarrhea in the dumpster too. In 2026 with basically no new prints being made of anything that's not an occasional new release, there is absolutely no room for such junk machines to be running film.

The same thing goes for some of the garbage projectors people are busy subjecting film prints to as well, but that's a different thread.

So Jim, what I'm curious about is what make/model platters have you worked with over the years that make you hate them so much? It sounds like you've been subjected to a bunch of the awful ones because a GOOD platter will put substantially less wear on a print over a lot of runs than running reel to reel will.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Then again, Ryan should pitch that Potts diarrhea in the dumpster too. In 2026 with basically no new prints being made of anything that's not an occasional new release, there is absolutely no room for such junk machines to be running film.

For sure, the POTTS commentary in many other threads was not lost on me. I'll suggest we get rid of all the pieces in our renovation, free up some storage space. The real question is should we give it away to a home hobby person... or spare any more prints from running through it by binning it.

[Frank Raia]

So much hate! Other than the micro switch, what other potential problems are there with the super platter? Share your experiences that make you hate it

[Tj Hopland]

The only people that 'like' a Super Platter seem to be people that have never worked with a properly working better platter system and there are several of those to choose from.

Thinking back to my customers I can think of one location where the circuit had better stuff from other locations that had closed sitting around but they really fought me anytime I suggested maybe replacing it. Later I found out the only other systems they had worked with were some pretty beat AW2's, I can kinda see that. Just for reference Christie AW1 and AW2 was like 1970-1975 and AW3 was like 1976-2014. The 1 and 2 were short lived for good reason and the 3 had very few minor changes in 30+ years for a reason also.

Other places where they were resistant to changes when I finally did make the change it was always the same thing. "I never realized how terrible that thing was" "Why didn't I listen to you when you told me to replace it years ago".


One 'feature' all the vacuum motor platters had that was a 'complaint' from the 'operators' of anything else we installed was the lack of the ability to achieve orbital escape velocity when building or breaking down movies. Ok maybe not orbital as in Earth orbit but I'm sure I'm not the only one who ever witnessed and had to help clean up a print along with a bunch of collateral damage after it departed the platter deck at a high rate of speed.

If a good operator would operate at Mach 0.5 and max of what most consider the good systems is Mach 1.0 the vacuum motor based systems can do about mach 2.0 so you can just skip that pesky Transonic speed range and go for Supersonic. Wait, Supersonic, Super Platter? Hmmm.....

These are kinda the muscle cars of platters. Cheap and can go like heck as long as its in a straight line and you don't have to stop fast and don't mind being a bit uncomfortable. What you want to turn? Maybe be able to stop? Some legroom and a cloth seat? Well then you bought the wrong car / platter.

The Potts type designs were your base model Fords and Chevys. Sure you could put power windows can cruise control on em but that didn't make em into a Lincoln or Cadillac or I guess at the beginning the comparison would have been maybe the Norelco so Mercedes? Sure you could buy one here and they were nice cars but you were gonna pay up initially and for parts and service since lots of shops didn't know em or have the parts or tools so people came up with other options which included some Mercury's and Buick's so there was a middle ground too.

[Frank Raia]

"The only people that 'like' a Super Platter seem to be people that have never worked with a properly working better platter system and there are several of those to choose from"

Tj, maybe you should reword that sentence to say The only techs that 'like' a super platter seem to be techs that never seen better platters.
I used christie aw3 platters and strong alpha platters also. Maybe not being a theater tech and just being a projectionist can make a person have a different opinion. I think that would be fair. I will be honest that the super platter was never my favorite but it Was what survived and was given to me. I much would have wanted the alpha platter. So I have to like it. After my rebuild it is actually running good. Will it fail? Sure it will, but the amount of time I use it, it may take a long time.

[Tony Bandiera Jr]

"The only people that 'like' a Super Platter seem to be people that have never worked with a properly working better platter system and there are several of those to choose from"

Tj, maybe you should reword that sentence to say The only techs that 'like' a super platter seem to be techs that never seen better platters.
I used christie aw3 platters and strong alpha platters also. Maybe not being a theater tech and just being a projectionist can make a person have a different opinion. I think that would be fair. I will be honest that the super platter was never my favorite but it Was what survived and was given to me. I much would have wanted the alpha platter. So I have to like it. After my rebuild it is actually running good. Will it fail? Sure it will, but the amount of time I use it, it may take a long time.

And that is the case here. As someone who was a projectionist for a decade and a tech for over three decades, I can tell you that from both sides of the fence, the worst to best platters were: Aeromatic, Potts/ORC/CFS, Neumade "Neurotic" (actually Neutronic, but anyone who has dealt with those turds get why I called it Neurotic), AW2, Super platters, with AW3 being great and the Norelco/Kinoton being the very best. All are platters I have had hands-on experience with. (AW2, AW3 and Super platters as a projectionist. The AW2 was one I owned for a long time when I did control module rebuilds on them.)

From a service standpoint both as a tech and projectionist, the Potts/Supers were CONSTANTLY needing new microswitches, variacs and retiming. (Surprisingly few motor replacements, but lots of the rubber "belts" and some motor brushes.) The AW3's were relatively trouble free, some motor card failures (mainly caused by neglecting to blow the carbon dust out of the motors every few years), one or two of the pushbutton switch assemblies having a switch go bad, and occasional damage to the light filters due to popcorn kids slamming the feed plates in too hard. And there was a run of drive rollers where the rubber would turn to goo but that got resolved in short order. And with the tips on this site on timing and conditioning the decks for the AW3 they got even better.

The Norelco/Kinotons? Syufy had many of them in my service kit. Other than replacing a broken roller (or freeing up one that was stuck) I NEVER had to repair or retime any of them. And they ground out five or six shows a day, 365 days.

I have no hands on with Big Sky or EPRAD platters.

I had a few drive-ins with film towers, the Cinemeccanicas seemed to be the best, but god help you if you needed to work on them. At the moment I can't recall the other brand I encountered, but other than maintenance and felt takeup pad replacements they kept running.

For a personal screening room though, a Super is not a bad choice really. It will easily outlast your lifetime (or you interest in having a home 35mm screening room...) mine was very short lived as the novelty wore off fast. I mean, think about it: that time of my life I was either a projectionist and/or a tech, and the last thing I wanted to do after a day of working on that shit was to go home and run a 35mm movie. It was the same as my time as an electrician the last several years. The last thing I wanted to do on my time off was work on my house's electrical system.

[Frank Raia]

Tony I'm glad to see you listed platters worse than the 'super'!!! I never seen the norelco platters but I have read the praises in past posts. Were they more expensive than the popular platters? Sounds like they were the poster child of 'you get what you pay for'.
As you noted to the longevity of the super platter, I'm sure my wife will have pleasure in seeing it leave for the scrap yard when I pass!

[Ryan Gallagher]

If a good operator would operate at Mach 0.5 and max of what most consider the good systems is Mach 1.0 the vacuum motor based systems can do about mach 2.0 so you can just skip that pesky Transonic speed range and go for Supersonic. Wait, Supersonic, Super Platter? Hmmm.....

Sorry, couldn't resist:

[Tj Hopland]

If you wanted ludicrous speed I think you would just wire your 120v platter to 240v and out of all the platters the potts style would probably take it for the longest since if you had micro switches there were no electronics to care so you could just let er rip till something literally flew apart or melted. But I was totally serious about the speed if you were used to an AW3 going to a Super Platter would unlock ludicrous speed and with great speed comes great responsibly. And yes I thought of applying that line to this situation while trying to patch up a Spider Man print someone had a high speed accident with.

Yes Tony brought up a good point that I had in mind but didn't mention in this thread which is for home use many things that made em kinda crappy in daily use by the typical operators really isn't going to be a problem at home. If you keep an eye on things it will probably run for a long long time and its just that one roller that's gonna be at least lightly scratching every pass but just like the rest of the system at home you may not put enough passes on it that its really a problem, it did take a while for it to build up to the point where it was noticeable.

Yes the Xetron / Neumade Neutronic was interesting. Did Christie have a patient on the under the deck control arm with flat film concept? That likely first came from Norelco anyway? So we are gonna copy it but not? We will just turn the film sideways which will require a lot more rollers and twists and turns. Ya lets go with that! And lets keep with the can we make every aspect more complicated than it needs to be? I don't think a lot of people bought those more than one time.

Before the Neutronic they had the XNR which was kinda of a cross between a Potts and Speco but kinda priced between the 2 so if you liked the Potts you could get a Potts and save a buck and if you liked the Speco you could just get a Speco. My guess is they did get some sales by offering packages where you got a lamp or console, automation, and a dimmer. Same thing Christie was doing since they had the same stuff to offer so you could buy more and save! They were fine, really only issues I remember with them was people would abuse the removable payouts. The 1/4 headphone jack was easy to damage as well as the reed switches and then the later micro switches. Most of the time I have no idea how they were breaking em, I assume rolling off platters or tables. I was just like the parent, who broke that and how? Wasn't me, was like that when I got here which sometimes was true with the turnover some sites had.

Seems like Xetron had a platter before the XNR? I think I have a manual but never saw one run, only sitting in a closed theater. Didn't hear good things about them. If it wasn't something that came from them maybe was an early Cinemechanica model? Xetron was working with them at the time importing products to the US.

Tony did you actually get/have to work with the Simplex? I was in a booth one time with them running but I was pretty young so I don't really remember much about them. Later I saw some in storage and kinda poked at em but it was not well lit and kinda packed in tight so I really didn't get too deep into them at that time either. I totally get the appeal of the concept but it sounds like the implementation was pretty bad and not just because of the noise. Maybe today in a booth full of NC2500's they would not stand out but back then the film noise in the gate was often the loudest thing in the booth and I remember these covering that up pretty well. I never really hear much about what their issues were but there must have been several since they didn't catch on.