|  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

I think, like anything, it depends on how you use it. Just like you would be crazy to install an expensive Norelco AA-2 in a plain-jane theater with a 20ft wide screen, you'd also be crazy to install a V5 in a premium theater with a 85ft wide screen (although I'm sure both have been done.)

They are easy to thread, although the path is different than American projectors, which throws off a person used to American projectors. They are easy to clean. Some have several remote options (lens, framing, focus. Parts are expensive, and (not often, but) sometimes hard to get. It has a belt drive; do yourself a favor and just change it every year. Don't wait for it to break.

Let me correct you, as an Italian citizen, that the correct name is "CINEMECCANICA"
However I consider "Shakemeccanica" more appropriate...

 |  IP: Logged

Nate..... You could be worse off ya know. You could have been hired at 3300 and State St. They have worse equipment there...or ya could have landed at 90th and State where all the people from 3300 and State went to work. They have all obsolete sound equipment and a big projector that they have nicknamed "Mother" that has been a nightmare for them since opening.
Mark @ GTS

Shakemeccanica is fine!
My post was because I read often CINEMACCANICA, CINEMECCANNICA, CINEMECANNICA, CINEMECANICA, CINEMECCANCIA, CINEMACCANNICA and others but rarely the correct name "CINEMECCANICA"!!!

I agree with you about picture quality. However, just few days ago something strange happened: I swapped the maltese sprocket between my two CINEMECCANICA (!) V5 because I have a little scratch between perforations and I would see if the problem follow the sprocket. Picture stability on that projector improved dramaticaly!!! And picture stability of the other projector seems to be the same...

How is it possibile???

Firstly, the condition of the perforations on the film stock is vitally important. What bought this home to me was starting an advert reel a few weeks ago: the opening title logo of the advertising agency (which was very old, worn and had probably been run hundreds of times on many projectors) wobbled up and down like a dying fish. When the first actual ad came on (which was brand new stock), the picture was rock steady, like it was nailed to the screen. When I examined the film under a magnifying glass, I found that the leading edge of the perforations on one side were very slightly strained (on the logo footage), which I guess must have caused the instability.

So in the light of this, the result of Antonio's experiment swapping the intermittent sprockets makes sense.

The other factor is the condition of the main drive belt. Vic 5s don't have the nickname 'rubber band machines' for nothing - the rubber bands in question really are crucial to the accurate operation of every stage of the film's movement.

As the belt gets worn, the picture stability starts to go, as does the shutter timing. This is because the shutter gearbox and the intermittent unit are both driven by that same belt. If it gets stretched, worn and the gap between the two starts to vary, the intermittent movement gets less precise, as does its relation to the shutter rotation.

The bottom line? Replace the belts very frequently. We do them every six months and I'm starting to wonder whether we shouldn't reduce that interval to 3.

Two question:
1. Ok, perforation's status is important. But I've swapped intermittent sprockets with the same film...
2. Belts: I change belts every 10 months, I've noted that after exactly 10 months belts start giving trouble! But I agree with you, 6 months is better.