Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Joe's Reviews

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Joe's Reviews (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Joe's Reviews

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-01-2000 01:00 PM

Joe,
Has the dust settled yet? I mean that literally. The booths I serviced them in were well dusted. Joe hit the nail square on with this review. Its about time that someond did the P35 review. Its funny Joe, but I've had all the same experiences that you have had with them too. Bevan, Now hear this.........Please take all the poo-poos out and put the gears back in!! It was a better projector back then.........
Mark

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 08-01-2000 04:19 PM

It definitely was! But then Christie couldn't make money off of belt purchases if they did that. There are a lot of Christie projectors out there. Imagine selling 3 belts for each of those one each year. It adds up!

I don't think they changed it to a belt driven design because it was superior to the geared version.

| IP: Logged

Martin Frandsen
Master Film Handler

Posts: 270
From: Denmark, Europe
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-01-2000 04:33 PM

Hey Joe, that "Christie rep troubleshooting manual and FAQ" sure was funny!

How did you come up with all does questions and answers?

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 08-01-2000 04:49 PM

Glad you enjoyed it. Some of the answers were based on actual responses from Christie reps. Like the platter LED going bad or out of time. A Christie rep told me over the phone that I must have someone in the booth who keeps messin' with things, and that I should put a seal over the door on the platter tree. This particular rep was under the impression that Christie products could not be at fault (this is where I derived the "our product is not at fault" line from). I was also told by a Christie rep (different one) to just replace the Dolby Digital beasement reader LED when I complained that the LED power supply in the back of the projector didn't do anything when adjustments were made to it.

Others I just made up, obviously.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-01-2000 05:29 PM

Hey Joe,
A friend of mine just brought up a good point. You missed a major thing. The shutter and its small size. That "Silver Dollar size makes it very ineffecient. A larger diameter shutter like a Century or Simplex is far more effecient than the "Silver Dollar" shutter in the Christie. My geared P35 is not quite as efficient as a Simplex when measuring light level going through both machines using the exact same lamphouse and screen. I have made these measurements! They had to double speed it(2880 rpm)to get it as good, and it still does not come anywhere near a 35mm Kinoton, or a DP-70 for that matter. That 2880 rpm shutter speed causes all the extra wear and tear on the belts and pulleys contributing to their short life.(Even though I realize I am comparing a Yugo to a Rolls Royce here.) I guess the sum of it all is that it runs but it blows!
Mark

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 08-01-2000 06:47 PM

Actually I am able to get some pretty good light out of a Christie projector. I agree that the RPM is way too fast and speeds up the wear on the shutter belt, though. I didn't even think of that.

Curtis, what chain do you work for?

| IP: Logged

Tom Kroening
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 214
From: Janesville, WI USA
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 08-02-2000 01:19 AM

What I never understood is why they don't use a metal timing chain instead of a rubber belt that sheds... You'd think that an oil less projector would be an improvement, but not when its made by christie : P

| IP: Logged

Kevin Crawford
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 207
From: Sacramento, CA, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 08-02-2000 01:31 AM

Actually, the older Christies rob quite a bit of light as well. We recently replaced 4 of the old ones. 3 with the Super Simplex movements in them and one of the gear driven ultramittents with used Centurys. Twice the light without replacing anything else. Even if the older ones are better, they are still crap.

Does Christie really believe that they will get people to buy their Digital projectors if they won't support anything "after the check has cleared"? They may buy one or two, but when the fit hits the shan, and Christie won't support them, will companies buy more of them? I don't think so.

It really is too bad that they can build a really good product, ie platter, but build crappy projectors. Worse of all they won't help, or admit that "their product is at fault".

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 08-02-2000 02:46 AM

I did suggest to Christie a while back to try chains instead of belts. At the time I thought I had a really good idea that could improve the projector. But they apparently have already tried that and met with limited success.

The platter is a really good design. But the components they are using now are getting cheap, like the LED assembly. Brand new out of the box shows up as OL (overload) on my multi-meter. I have had three new LEDs do this so far. They are useless. If they could get the older, better LEDs back, along with the fuse-less motor cards, the platters would be unstoppable once again.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 08-02-2000 04:07 AM

Yes, their old LED and speed card design was top notch. At that point the AW3 simply could not be beat. I remember being at one theater for 5 years straight. The first week I got there, I retimed the decks. I would check the timing and resistance every 6 months or so, but in the entire 5 year period, I had to do absolutely NO work on those platters.

Now it's a monthly chore and Christie won't admit their new parts are crap.

| IP: Logged

David Johnson
Film Handler

Posts: 54
From: Melbourne Vict Australia
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 08-05-2000 06:43 AM

I have read Joes reviews now for some time and have been amazed at his lack of knowledge on the products that he reviews. I have kept quiet till now, but I think that in the interest of fairness it is time someone pointed out some of the many errors in his latest review. Without going through each item point by point I will just mention the most obvious. His comments on how hard it is to remove an aperture plate by using the jogger was the first point that hit me, It takes about 3 seconds to remove the rack that couples the plate to the motor, then you can simply slide the plate up and down. his comments on how hard it is to cut the corners square indicate the lack of skill on the tech who cut his apertures, I have cut a few hundred now and after the first few find them quite easy. The problem mentioned with the dowser plates are usually caused by them being incorrectly adjusted and the bottom of the plate is in the light beam for the entire feature. The dusting problems mention are not confined to Christie, and is normally with the early Kodak 2383 stock, Kodak now seem to have solved this. The last point that I think I should mention is the problems with the sound heads. It would seem that Joe is not aware that he is reviewing an early model sound head? That is like a when Ford releases a new model the motoring reviewer reviews A "T" modle, so I think you owe it to the readers to review the latest in the product range and not an old model. The problems mentioned with the airpot were correct, but a simple airpot stop fixes that. With the latest updates I have no problems with the SRD. The comment about the DRAS also leave me wondering, I have not had these problems with the new sound heads, it seems that you have end play in your lateral guides or some other mechanical problems. It is true that Christie have had many problems but I can't agree that they do't offer any backup. We are about 10,000 miles away and can get what we wan't in a few days. Joe also mentioned that Christie will not post in a public forum like this, true, but I have not yet seen Dolby, Kinoton, Cinemacannica, Pennywise and many others responding to this group. My final comment is you should shoot who is ever doing your service and replace him with someone who is even just slightly competent and I think most of your troubles will go away. So Joe, stick to reviewing the film retainers and such as you seem to have a better understanding of these. Regards David

| IP: Logged

Kevin Crawford
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 207
From: Sacramento, CA, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 08-05-2000 01:01 PM

I would like to point out that the infamous Ken (of the Ken and Lonny switch on the SA 10) has posted here before. Check out the CP 650 thread.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 08-05-2000 02:30 PM

Hmmmmm.... Almost sounds as if Bevan wrote your post, David.

As for the SR-D readers, Christie refuses to send us the update, even though I consistently mention the problems we have been having with the current models for the last 2 and a half years. Since the beginning, they have wanted us to pay for the center pivots. Not gonna do that!

If you read my review, you would have seen that as far as print shedding was concerned, one of the prints in question had MUCH reduced shedding upon going to another theater with different projectors. Please read the entire review next time. Christie always blamed Kodak as well.

It is interesting that I have received many e-mails agreeing with the review, as well as the posts on this thread. So is everybody but you incompetant? My guess is no. You are the only one so far to disagree. I certainly can't please everybody all the time, and that is not my goal. Sorry if the review burned ya.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 08-05-2000 05:32 PM

I must chime in here, as I can vouch for the background on the Christie review.

David, if some company makes a product and it doesn't work and then they make a revision so it WILL work, it should be their responsibility to cough up and admit their first effort was a bust and should supply everyone who purchased the inferior version with the update free of charge. Christie did NOT do that. It is important you understand Joe was not reviewing the Christie projector with all of the upgrades, bells and whistles. He was reviewing what he had access to. Sadly, that is what far too many people have to work with, so in that matter his review is right on target.

If Christie had've cared enough about their customers, Joe would've had a booth full of updated projectors and readers to work with. However, that is not what happened. Christie refused to admit fault on their product, would not replace the defective items, and would not even send one of their own techs out to the site to "prove" that their equipment was not at fault. That is what Joe reviewed. Hopefully Christie will learn to take care of their customers a little bit better or reports like this one will continue to pop up and word will spread. Why would anyone buy a product if it was known that the company did not support even just one of their customers? I certainly wouldn't and I feel Joe's review was justified. Just because he didn't "bench test" the machine doesn't mean that his review was not dead accurate.

Remember, the whole point of his reviews is to test regular assembly line products (not specially tweeked ones) in REAL theaters (again, not a special situation) and to explain how reliable and well the product performed. Customer service and product support is a very important part of that too. Surely you will agree.

| IP: Logged

David Johnson
Film Handler

Posts: 54
From: Melbourne Vict Australia
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 08-05-2000 09:48 PM

Brad, yes I agree with what you say but like Joe I can only speak as we find things, we too have had problems with Christie but have allways had a good respose, I think that they have sent a rep down now on 3 occaions which I am sure you agree is a long way to come and we have always found them willing to supply upgrades when they have been availiable.
David

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.