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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Projector Light "Splatter" (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Projector Light "Splatter" Robert E. Allen Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1078 From: Checotah, Oklahoma Registered: Jul 2002 posted 11-30-2004 03:36 PM                     Most of today's modern projectors are doorless and seem to have been designed with little or no thought being given to controlling light "splatter". In the ten-plex where I work we have Simplex (Strong) equipment and the booth is kept dark most of the time. As I approach a machine that is running I need a flashlight to see the controls on the console as the light spilling out between the lamphouse and shutter and the gate and lens pretty much blinds me from seeing the printing on the console. Have any of you modified similar machines to control the light spill? Any ideas why there is no longer a lens barrel or a "spotsight box" on the newer machines? I can see some problems on machines that have swinging and rotating lens mounts with installing a lens barrel but I would think the geniuses that design these things would be able to figure it out.  |  IP: Logged Dominic Espinosa Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1172 From: California, U.S.A. Registered: Jan 2004 posted 11-30-2004 03:55 PM                     I used to work in a booth with Strong lamphouses and Simplex projectors with the same problem. I can't remember but I thought there was some sort of shim or something on a few of them. The most common fix I've noticed is duct taping the gap if it's not too big. Not the best solution but a solution none the less. But don't they make a shield or something for this?  |  IP: Logged Steve Scott Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1300 From: Minneapolis, MN Registered: Sep 2000 posted 11-30-2004 05:43 PM                     Check out turrets, too, if you have them. A lot of our SA-TM's have separation issues between the frame of the turret and the circular lens plate. I've been using cardboard duct taped onto the hinge to mask the small beam of light that escapes through the gap. A technician told me to use foam rubber.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-30-2004 06:23 PM                     Light leakage eh? I'll give you light leakage! Steve  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-30-2004 07:29 PM                     quote: Robert E. Allen Light "Splatter" You'll have to call the screen cleaning guy in!! Mark  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 12-01-2004 01:44 AM                     Have to ask a question once again: I noticed that the reel feed on this FP-30 is like the 16mm - both reels in clockwise direction, or emulsion in during play. Is there a reason why of this reel feed is like this instead of the classic "figure-8",or emulsion out feed that projectors of old used to run, outside maybe this Kinoton's roller configuration doesn't allow the "figure-8" reel feed. -thx Monte  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 12-01-2004 01:49 AM                     You can tell the Kinoton to spin each reel whichever way you want. Steve is just a crazy fellow.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-01-2004 05:40 AM                     Monte, On the Kinoton E series of projectors, one can run either reel in either direction, as Brad pointed out. The classic "S" wind as you put it is only classic for the USA...other parts of the world have normally wound the film emulsion-in at all times. Both the SMPTE and my own findings have shown that the S-wind results in poorer focus stability over the emlusion-in only wind. In fact, there is an SMPTE RP on this very subject. I have checked this on both acetate and polyester film. If you search the forum, you will find the other beliefs on emulsion-in versus emulsion-out. While you will find some, Brad Miller in particular, are quite vocal about their emulsion-out only, and there are those of us that still find emulsion-in to be the wind of choice for focus stability...only those that are tied to tradition think the S-wind makes any sense. What is the benefit of winding the film in opposite directions? BTW...the picture above was from the German Cultrual Institute of Washington DC (Goethe Institut)...as such emulsion-in would be in keeping with their traditions too. Steve  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 12-01-2004 07:18 AM                    So what did you do about the light spill?  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 12-01-2004 07:20 AM                        SMPTE Recommended Practice RP39 specifies maintaining an emulsion-in winding orientation for 35mm prints. The Kodak technical paper "Effect of Winding on the Projection Performance of 35mm Motion-Picture Film" (SMPTE Journal, June 1965) clearly showed the advantages of maintaining an emulsion-in winding orientation for optimum focus stability (reduced focus flutter). The Kodak testing was done with triacetate base prints: http://www.film-tech.com/manuals/SMPTEWIND.pdf Polyester base prints have different curl characteristics than triacetate base prints. Unfortunately, information about which winding orientation is preferred for polyester prints is anecdotal, and opinions vary (the Guttag-Miller debate). It is likely preferred winding orientation will vary with relative humidity, which affects film curl. Fortunately, the winding orientation is less of a factor when film is wound on large hubs, such as platter systems.  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 12-01-2004 07:55 AM                     I find that with the vast majority of prints either it makes no difference, or emulsion in feed is better. Just occasionally I see a print which is happier feeding emulsion out, and if that happens, I'll run it that way, Kinotons will feed either way quite happily. I don't try every print both ways, but if I get a problem print, and I've got time, then I'll try it emulsion out. With so many variables, type of film stock, model of projector, sizes of spools and cores, temperature and humidity of projection room, lamp wattage and past storage conditions of the print all come to mind, I'm quite happy to believe that one answer will not fit every situation; run the print whichever way you find is best, assuming that your equipment can run it either way. Does anyone know how the American practice of feeding E.O, but taking up E.I., came about? It doesn't seem to be widely used elsewhere in the World, and with the smaller gauges the feed spool on the Kodak (American) designed ones tend to turn clockwise, whereas the Pathé (French) designed ones it tends to turn anti-clockwise, the opposite practice to 35mm. If they felt E.O. was better, why not design the take-up the same way? I've seen old projectors which need the film to feed E.O. due to the design of the fire traps, but they could easily have been designed differently, so it seems that the fire traps were designed to suit the way they wanted to feed, rather than the feed being chosen to suit the fire traps.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-01-2004 10:41 AM                     We tend to avoid large projection ports and complain to Kinoton. As stop gaps, some use cardboard to block the light if they have "A/V" ports which tend to run the length of the booth. What I would like is to have a flap attached to the shutter cover that can be opened for threading but closed for projection...kinda like a mini-door. Steve  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 12-01-2004 01:45 PM                     The Kinoton turrets do solve that problem of light spill, however that restricts you to a maximum of 3 lenses on the machine. I agree, it's insane for there to not be some form of light baffle on the single lens machines though.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-01-2004 01:57 PM                     Speaking of winding, I coincidently found myself wondering this morning -- what are the conventions for cameras? Are they at all consistent? --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 12-01-2004 02:23 PM                     The ones that I've seen feed emulsion in, and take up either way, depending on the model. I think E.I. take-up is more common. Negs seem to be returned from the lab emulsion out; does this mean that printers expect them to be this way?  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.