|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Brenkert film platters?-idea
|
|
|
John Anastasio
Master Film Handler
Posts: 325
From: Trenton, NJ, USA
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 08-11-2001 07:11 AM
While they're at it, they can design a new and improved model of the Packard Clipper, or maybe the GE "Top Hat" refrigerator. The Brenkert name stood for quality, but then so did DeSoto. We don't need improved versions of old technology, we need to think up new ways of doing things. Look at the example of Kodak. They've taken silver-based film technology about as far as it's going to go, but they're progressive enough to understand that the future lies not in a product that hasn't changed substantially in over a century, but in a totally new concept like digital imaging. They understand that their business is in storing pictures, not film per se. What you propose is like asking someone to design a spiffy new steam locomotive. Let's face it, a few years from now nobody will be using platters, film or projectors as we know them except for hobbyists, collectors and museums. The weakest link in the whole idea of film is the film itself. It's fragile stuff. It's expensive, bulky and a pain to edit, print, ship, splice, build up, tear down and store. What you should propose is not a new way to move it, but a way to either improve it or replace it. Imagine if you will a feature "film" that can be instantly shipped anywhere, that won't scratch or break, that looks better than anything currently projectable and won't wear out. Perfect THAT idea and put the platters in the Smithsonian. The only reason they were invented in the first place was to fire projectionists and save money, not do a better job of showing films.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul G. Thompson
The Weenie Man
Posts: 4718
From: Mount Vernon WA USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 08-13-2001 12:52 AM
Richard, someone told me lately that a Japaneze version of the Brenkert for 35/70mm might have existed. Can you or anyone verify that? Aaron, It would be nice to see the old Brenkerts come back again. But unfortunately, they won't. We have the technology to put a man on the moon, and send a probe up to Uranus  but we don't have to technology to build an old machine with the exacting specifications such as the Brenkert, Moshee (which I never really liked, but was a darn fine machine), and a steam locomotive and make it cost effective. Through the years, the manufacturer for Brenkert parts let the tolerances slip so bad that some Brenkert parts didn't fit a Brenkert anymore. I have seen this with other manufacturers as well. Precision manufacturing has fallen by the wayside for many years now, it is apparent when you see all the crap many of the manufacturers (including those in our industry) are coming out with. Mark, BAH-HUMBUG! It was called "over-designing" and "quality".  Yeah - Mark, those Simplex air-drive platters were a disaster! They even sounded like a run-away Hoover Vacuum Sweeper! Ear protectors were needed while you were around those things! What a POS! I serviced one of those, and it was one too many. Grumpy Paul
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Walsh
Film God
Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted 08-13-2001 07:22 AM
It's the theater owners that have driven the manufacturers to reduce quality.When an accountant is equipping, say, an 18-plex, (let's face it; that's who really is spec'ing the place) every little expense is times 18. And manufacturers are forced to go along and reduce prices. It's an easy trap to fall into, especially with market share dwindling. If you can buy cheaper steel shutter-ghost adjusting knobs (never mind the surface rust; it doesn't affect it's use, right?) you can save a dollar per projector. Loose the fire-safety shutter; film doesn't burn anymore. Not a big deal, but then you figure you can save more buying cheaper bearings for your flywheel soundhead. After that, it's not too hard to just reduce the tolerance on castings. Oil leakes out, but just describe it as a quaint characteristic, like a Harley ("It marks my parking spot!") Should get that bid now! Then some manufacturers found out, it can be a win-win-win situation: Sell the projector now; let your customers do your engineering by finding the problems; then sell the same parts again later to fix them- only this time, sell "new-improved" parts that should've been used in the first place! The manufacturer only has to maintain that balance between; "just good enough to not fail right out of the crate" to; "not bad enough someone got killed using it." A projector/console/lamp setup costs as much as a new car; lemon laws and recall notices should apply. Multiply all this times 18, and there's just enough to give that multiplex accountant his bonus for "saving" the company money. After all, it will take a 6 months to a year for the problems to start, so no one will associate him with the problems. Besides, maintaince appears on someone else's balance sheet. That's another reason why theaters want to paying nothing for a projector, but don't seem to mind paying lots to keep it going. It's not always easy to quantify poor presentation with cost. It's not a simple debit entry, so accountants never think of it. In fact, they will rarely even acknowledge it's a factor. Ranting.. and not a little a bit, either.... sorry!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will Kutler
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1506
From: Tucson, AZ, USA
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 08-13-2001 04:39 PM
John Anastasio was insulting steam locomotives! Shame on you John! Steam locomotives outperform diesels. However, steam is very high maintenance and requires a lot of knowledge and team effort betwen Engineer and Fireman to operate. When steam went out--so did many, many jobs that required skilled craftsmen! What I am saying here is only the tip of the iceberg.The fact is that with the exception of computers, much of our technology is recycled! Case in point--multi valved dual overhead cam engines. Gee Whiz, what were the Deusenberg Bros. doing back in 1928? In todays world of manufacturing, planned obselence of products is a critical factor! Unlike merchandise of years gone by, todays products are built to only last so long--so that people will be forced to buy new. Otherwise manufacturing companies would not survive! Case in point--what happened to the Tucker automobile, and the technology that was put into it! After Detroit shut Tucker down, it was not until the late 1980's thru mid 1990's that much of his technology was reintroduced into automobiles! Did you know that there is such a thing as a lightbulb that will not fail! What would be the disasterous financial consequences if such a product was brought to market! So one one hand, design obselence is a necessary evil, but even though we have todays technology, too many of todays products are not quality and reliable.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic