Cinemeccanica Vic8s vs Century JJs

[Ryan Gallagher]

For sure Tony. I kind of agree that in the US Century JJ might still be a viable choice, they are still serviced from old-stock parts and considered "current model" projectors... but there is ZERO chance of management using whatever funding this effort has to replace like for like. At that point we should just get one of the few remaining techs out to really give our machines the once over (beyond what I have been able to pick up and do, or find the time to do) and be willing to spend a bit more on some parts hunting and spare hording. They'd still be a little mis-matched by being turret versus single lens models... and slightly different motor/drive components unless one tried hard to unify there too... but otherwise could be brought to within whiskers distance of matching configs.

Checking trap alignment should have been on my previously stated wishlist too, but those guages are pretty hard to come by.

[Tj Hopland]

How many basic machines did they have? What was the difference between the 8 and 10? I remember the 10's from the 60's or at least here they were marketed as the Victoria X. Did the 10 have to have its own base and the 8 was more of a universal stand alone unit? And the 18 was one of those integrated with a tower? And was the 4 a 35 only version of the 8? Which came first? How much of the machine was new for 35/70 vs before that was a thing and it was 35 only?

Was the V5 the first belt machine? Or was that based on a previous maybe chain drive machine?

[Gordon McLeod]

without a doubt the Victoria 8 is what I wouold go for between the two. Up here we usually changed the intermittent sprocket to a 35 only to a 70mm only as you got steel sprockets then that lasted better. They offered a improved 35mm gate that had better side pressure skate and often we would gluse velvet ribbon the the back rails and got a very good image. The penthouse had a dual mag cluster that one rotated to select four track or 6 track

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

If you can't get sprockets for a particular machine, LaVezzi Precision (now Paragon Medical and at the same location) will still make them. No idea what their minimum order is, but what ever it is, it's going to be expensive. The place that ILM, myself, and other effects shops use is Worrall Grinding in Anderson CA. They can make any sprocket you want, but they require a drawing. They also have a minimum order, but back when I had VistaVision Intermittent Sprockets made by them, the minimum order was six pieces at $250 each. A friend that does CAD for a living, did the drawing I sent them, it was based on LaVezzi's own drawings. Their sprockets worked fine... There was also a Microfilm Reader manufacturer in Portland OR, that had Lavezzi made 32 tooth Positol type intermittent sprockets. One of those ultimately ended up on my VV Projector. About a year ago I tried to track that company down, and they seem to have vanished. BY the way, Worrall Grinding is run be the son of George Worrall, the inventor of the famous geared camera head.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

I could probably write long lists about what is wrong with either machine. Neither has a lock on good or bad. With Cinemeccanica, getting a good set of gates is key as we used to say "Cinemeccanica put the motion in motion pictures." If you do get a good set of gates/traps, then it could be steady. I was never a fan of the Cinemeccanica optical soundhead. It is easy to get eccentric rotation and the tail of the film likes to grab whatever is between the drum halves. Back in the forward scan days, I changed a lot of solar cells from tails with tape on them. I definitely would make sure I had inverter drive with a decent ramp up/down on them too.

Century? It's a cement mixer, even when new. It is crude but it can be effective. The JJ projects 35mm better than the SA does, in my opinion. It is possible to get a JJ to not damage film but it isn't a given, depending on the flavor, what parts are being used and who is threading it. Even if you bought two new ones, with sequential serial numbers, odds are, they'd have different personalities and would fit differently. That's Century. But, with minimal (and crude) tools, one can do most repairs on one. Keep the gears greased and the intermittent properly filled with oil and it can last a bit.

Yes, the V8 did/does have magnetic capability. On the upper-right of the machine is where the penthouse would go (and why there is an upper sprocket (or plug if the penthouse is omitted). It wasn't the best but could work.

The Vic 8's intermittent sprocket is 35/70. You're thinking of the Bauer U2...all sprockets were changed between 35 and 70. It was a nice feature though they wore like butter.

In Chicago we called them Shakemeccanica. I think the Prevost 70 had a steadier image...

[Tim Reed]

I've always been a Century guy because that's what I started with. However, the last two years I was an operator, I ran a pair of V8s at a drive-in. They had not been taken care of when I took over that booth, so I did a lot of work on them to bring them up to snuff. I absolutely loved those machines! They were quiet, and rock steady on the screen. They're also roomy and easy to thread. I've never been a fan of Cinemeccanica's single-bearing intermittent s because it's too easy to accidentally hit the outside of the sprocket with something, put a bend in it, and then your picture will bounce vertically. But if you're careful and don't have any film wraps, it will stay solid. If you can get V8s with Zipper-style changeovers, do it. The original changeovers are a thin curved piece of metal that rides in tracks. They are both hard to get to and difficult to get adjusted properly. Lots of failures there. Although, I grew to love those V8s and I'd do it all over again if I could. If I had a theatre, I'd be proud to have either V8s or JJs there.

[Gordon McLeod]

If it was a option I would buy the Prevost Favorite70 machine