|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Author
|
Topic: Christie platters vs. Strong/Potts platters
|
Joe Redifer
You need a beating today
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/03ae.jpg)
Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99
|
posted 08-01-1999 08:54 PM
Which do you prefer? Please only respond if you have worked extensively with both, otherwise it will not be fair. Also, it is a good idea to compare the same vintage.As far as I go, I MUCH prefer the Strong/Potts platters at least 6 to 1 over the Christie. The Strong AP with the phase control brains (not microswitch) are literally 99.999% reliable. I have never worked with the microswitch decks. I like how the deck on the Strong is smooth and curved, so that if film rubs against the deck during take-up or even build-up, the print is undamaged. We had a platter where every show the film would run against the deck during takeup and we never ever had a platter scratch. The edges on the Christie deck are very abrasive. They will put diagonal hash marks in your print if you are not careful. Also, somebody once pointed out to me that you can't place a Strong platter very far from the projector because it feeds out too fast. At my old theatre, we had them REALLY far away from the projector because we had to fit video projectors and lots of other stuff in that space, and it was never a concern as it ran perfectly. If you have a problem with static, the Strong/Potts will not throw the print. This is because the brain responds very slow, which is a good thing. The Christie will try to spin as fast as possible as soon as possible in most cases when the payout is maxed. Also, there are rollers around the Strong brain that spin so your film doesn't get scratched at startup. (You have to disassemble the Christie and tamper with the innards to get it not to wrap slightly at startup). The Christies are very unreliable, at least the ones made in the last 2 years. I have had at least 25 LED assemblies die on me or go spastic. I order new LEDs and some of them are great, others fail right out of the package. I would have preferred the Strongs anyway, but this LED situation really takes the Christies down about 5 notches. Set up a Strong initially and it is basically set forever. The Strongs are much quicker and easier to thread, in my opinion, than the Christies. However there are a few things that I would change about the Strong/Potts to make it 100% perfect if I could: First would be to change the way the brain threads so that you could put the film through it top down like a Christie. The second would make the deck a little more solid, which would eliminate the occasional rattling noise and get risd of the "fan blades" underneath each deck (even though they have never caused me a problem). The third would be for slightly bigger rollers all around. Maybe a quieter motor but that's pushing it. I like the Potts ring. It is small, but it has never caused any kind of grief at my old theatre. It is easy to remove and there are more than 2 holes that you can insert it into on the platter deck, which adds to the ease. Plus it isn't big and bulky like the Christie ring. I have never had a film disaster caused by the Strong platter --- and yes, my Christie platters are set up properly! Did I miss any advantages?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/02a.jpg)
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 08-01-1999 09:17 PM
Ok, putting the latest couple of years on the Christie platters aside, the Christie is still a far better platter. Even the current ones can be made to be excellent, but of course the newer (cheaper) leds do tend to die rather quickly. Just stay away from an AW2 or AW1 as those are junk.The Christies are quieter. They run smoother. No on/off operation. They are very easy to time and tweek speed controls. The Strong are a joke. Their version of "timing" is to push the motors closer to the platter decks, causing the motor to rub up against the unadjustable take up roller. The Strong platters are very commonly the cause of diagonal "platter" scratches due to this fact. The center rings are too small. The film must get going too damn fast for the first few minutes with these tiny rings. They also bend easily. Sure the Christie rings are heavier, but surely the weight isn't a problem for the average projectionist? The Christie rings have a nice little slot in them for the leader whereas the Strongs do not. The Christie brains are of an excellent design. No sticking the film under this bracket and through this and around that and blah, blah, blah. If for some reason you need to take the film out of a brain on a Strong, you MUST cut the film!!! On a Christie, the film can be removed from the brain without damage. The Christies are also significantly easier to thread. The Strongs have two different threading paths, depending on whether the top platter is used for take up or not. This is stupid. I see theaters constantly threading over both top takeup rollers on the post going to the lower decks, scratching the film along the way! With the Christies, it is either right or wrong! The only negative thing about Christies is the possibility of dropping the takeup cluster roller assembly too far (to the bottom of the vertical post), thus scratching. This could be easily rectified if Christie would just extend this post about 6 inches further down, but it has never been a problem with properly trained operators. On earlier Strong platters, one must set the takeup elevator to a certain notched position just to give power to the feed deck. Also, the simple act of tugging on the film will almost certainly guarantee a Strong elevator will whip to the top of the accumulator, bending shafts and rollers out of alignment...sometimes causing damage to them and always stretching the leader. And what's with the motor programming. What a pain. The Christies "program" the platter for you. The newer Strongs of the last year or two are good (except for the lack of adjustment on the take up rollers, the fact the rollers themselves are too tiny and the stupid double rollers at the top of the tree for that top deck) but all the olders ones are junk to me. I've seen many a Strong platter toss film. Even the newer Strongs like to sink the feed down to drag across the floor! Boo hiss to Strong platters! For simplicity in platters, give me a SPECO anyday! Keep extra leds for your Christie platters and you've got the best. [This message has been edited by Brad Miller (edited 08-01-1999).]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/02a.jpg)
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 08-01-1999 10:48 PM
Joe, it's all in the timing of the Christie decks. If it isn't timed properly, they are the worst platters available. I am backing them up from a standpoint of when they are set up and calibrated PROPERLY and not just "assembled".Yes, I have worked with the microswitch, phase control and digital/self-calibrating Strongs. The microswitch units are crap. The phase controls are decent and the digital ones are pretty good. But I'll still take a Christie any day. Your theater is pretty new. Sounds like you got a batch of "lemon" leds. With every product, there are good years and bad years (check out the Consumer Reports magazines for cars). I can remember about 10 years ago, Christie switched to a different type of motor. I can't remember the specifics, but they were green, to match the colums. Those motors were a joke and Christie soon went back to the Bodine motors. As to the leds, I have only had 4 fail (granted, all in the last year from a 3 year old complex) but if you are having such monstrous amounts of failures, there is something ELSE wrong there. If Christie won't help you, why don't you write a letter to Box Office and Film Journal magazines detailing everything you have records of, including the reps at Christie you spoke with for publication in their "letters to the editor" column. If the list would be too long (apparently so) then post it all here on the forum and invite other forum members to reply with only Christie problems they have encountered, making sure they include years of manufacture and such. Then send a short version of that letter to Box Office and Film Journal tipping their readers off to the information on the forum, from the real world. I'll bet whoever you've been speaking to at Christie will suddenly take an interest in solving your problems. It's dirty, but if they won't help...
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Roher
Master Film Handler
Posts: 266
From: Washington DC
Registered: Jul 99
|
posted 08-02-1999 12:35 AM
I ran Zetron platters with the microswitch brains and loved them. I never had a single platter problem until I used Christies, but that may just be luck. One of my Zetrons was a five deck, and when a print on the top deck was being moved into the opposite house, I would just shuttle the print platter to platter. It would only take 20 minutes to zip the whole feature down to a lower deck and I avoided having to climb a ladder and yank off the print. I know this trick can supposedly be done with Christies too, but they are not fast enough to make it worthwhile. Also I liked plugging the make-up table directly into whichever platter motor I was using. I blew up a Christie table once by plugging it into the platter post the wrong way. I know that's a stupid thing to do, but it happened when I was new to Christies. The Christies I've run have all had similar problems. The take up creeps, the pay out creeps, the platters spin constantly without film on them. A cinema technician (a good one) re-timed and serviced one of my Christie's about 4 different times while I was with General Cinema. And a day or two later, all 3 decks would begin spinning for no reason again and I'd have to leave it shut off until show start. The one thing about Christies that I really like is what Brad pointed out about not having to cut the film to take it out of the center feed. All in all, I guess the main reason I prefer the Zetron/Strong design is that I don't have any nightmares associated with those machines. Only good memories.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Erika Hellgren
Expert Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/22.jpg)
Posts: 168
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-02-1999 06:42 AM
I hesitate to reply to this topic, as it seems that there is some kind of rivalry going on between Joe and Brad But I am entitled to my opinion, and here it is: I used to work with Strong platters with the phase control - I worked with them for about three years. I now work with Christies ... sorry, Brad, but I gotta go with the Strongs. And thank you, Joe for mentioning that, yes, it is possible to unthread a Strong brain without cutting the film. We NEVER had a problem with our platters. No platter scratches, no prints were ever thrown, no motor problems whatsoever. As far as the thread being more complicated, I welcome anything that makes running a booth more "complicated" because then you can convince the management not to put idiots in booth. Strongs platters are for intelligent, sharp booth personel. I like the ring very much, it makes the print wrap freaking tight! No soupy prints. You had to be pretty careless to drop a print. As far as how loud they are, well, I recently watched a home video that one of my co-workers at my old theatre shot in the booth a long time ago, and when I heard the sound of a movie starting up ... that old familiar sound of the platters spinning brought a tear to my eye. *sigh* I miss those days
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/02a.jpg)
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 08-02-1999 02:20 PM
Nah, Erika. Joe and I have always had our platter differences. It's all good fun. ![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/smile.gif) As to the magazines, if they won't publish negative information, post it here. Give details if there is a product or company out there who won't back their goods. 90% of all people who read this forum never post. I'm sure theater owners, collectors and others in the industry who frequent this site would like to know if there is a bad product (or batch of) or a certain representative to NOT deal with. It will probably make all the difference in their purchasing decisions when they build or upgrade a theater. This forum is growing daily with industry people. Sooner or later, a company in question is going to have to bite the bullet and make good on their products if word gets out via this forum or whatever. If I hadn't worked with these machines side by side, I would most certainly want to know the pros and cons of each. What better way than to find a pro-Strong guy and a pro-Christie guy! I'll be in Denver later this year. I'll come by and calibrate your platters. If I can't get them to perform as all the other AW3s I've ran into, I will change sides. However, I feel it is something in the calibration not set right. The Christie machines are more of an "operator's" platter than the Strong. They do require attention once a year to the timing. The led thing is so new, it is hard to decide just how big a problem it is, being that it only takes less than 5 minutes to drop another one in and retime. The one thing you cannot do is set up a Christie and just run it. If that's what you're looking for, go with a SPECO.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trevor Bailey
Expert Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/75.jpg)
Posts: 113
From: Woonsocket, RI
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-02-1999 02:42 PM
From a repair standpoint, I don't think any platter system I have worked with was without flaws. Neumade XNRs are the worst as far as feed plate construction. The Neumade NXPs are a little better since they get rid of the microswitch assy and replace it with the emitter/detector setup. They still suffer from the phono plug flaw however. And they both suffer from too many rollers on the column. The Strong APs seems to be good except for the feed plate interface plug (Amp type). The feed plate half is easily broken and that in turn pushes the connector out of the spindle half. The Christie AW3s were just terrible when it comes to feed plate alignment. Repair it one day, it's broken the next. The AW3Rs were much better and for my 2-cents have the most durable feed plate design. On a whole the AW3Rs from the early 90's were great but the newer units HAVE to be completely aligned, with everything tightened down upon installation. CFS/Rentec SPP-5s have issues with feed plates, motor aligment, and variac linkage. Speco LP-270s have issues with feed plate durability. The old ORCs seem to run pretty well except for an occassional motor replacement. Keep in mind I am looking at this from the point of the users being the lowest common denominator type. Professional operators tend to be more understanding of the delicate nature of the equipment and therefore don't use feed plates as paper weights and hockey pucks. No flames please, I used to be one of those "start the projector, run down stairs fill soda/popcorn, clean theaters, run up start the next projector..." but I was trained in an area where there were almost no professional operators. The theater managers knew their projection and trained the staff well. I long for those days...my workload would probably be cut in half.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
![](/ubbmembers/64b.jpg)
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-02-1999 04:45 PM
I was told by a technician at my theater that there use to be an old platter system called an Eprad. He said this platter amounted to little more than a film grinding machine.It is/was supposed to have one motor connected to a single vertical shaft that powered all three decks. The feed control was nothing more than a brake that stopped the platter when the film activated the feed arm. I don't have experience with anything other than Potts Alpha, Christie AW3, and Speco LP-270. I told the guy how much Speco platters p*ssed me off and his response was that I should be glad I don't have to use an Eprad. Just the horror stories he told me about them make my skin crawl! People have told me bad things about the Potts too but I haven't had any problems. The only criticism about them that I have is that you have to lock the "yo-yo" into the up position before you thread then it always comes unlocked when you try to pull the film out. It only rises to the level of "Pain in the neck", though. You just have to be careful.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|