|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Author
|
Topic: Is DP70 overkill for screening room
|
|
|
|
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 01-02-2007 05:33 AM
Being that I am the king of overkill, I feel I should chime in here. The DP70 brings about lots of problems, so just to irk Mark I will list a few.
First, it is HUGE. Seriously, there is no reason for that damn thing to be so big and heavy.
Second, be prepared to spend some bucks in a BACP analog reader, because the standard optics are CRAP due to an overly wide slit.
While we're talking about that, if you ever wanted to blister a print, just leave the exciter on while the projector is stopped.
You will be forever stuck without being able to run 6000' reels. You can run those 5500' reels, but not true 6000' reels.
Mounting a failsafe isn't impossible, but quite the pain to rig it into the front right corner.
You can't open the door while the machine is running without blocking the picture on screen with most lenses a screening room would be using.
The aperture is a pain to file.
Parts are expensive!!!
I could go on, but suffice to say I had a DP70 in my screening room for about a year and hated that damn thing. My Century JJs put out a phenomenally better picture and win in every other category too. Unless you are getting it for essentially free, don't waste your time.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/268e.gif)
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 01-02-2007 09:19 AM
It is the new year and I'm feeling argumentative...
quote: Brad Miller First, it is HUGE. Seriously, there is no reason for that damn thing to be so big and heavy.
Actually I love its size...makes everything easy to work on. It is easy to keep clean. But as to its weight...it is nice and stable too. Ever set a JJ right on the ground...the damn thing falls right over at the slightest tap. Remember, the AA2 is doing what a Console does today, minus the place for the automation. Its weight goes a long way to its stability.
quote: Brad Miller Second, be prepared to spend some bucks in a BACP analog reader, because the standard optics are CRAP due to an overly wide slit.
The AA2 analog soundhead was the best for me...always set up perfect and with clean optics, always worked wonderful for me. I'm sorry you had such problems...I never did on any of the ones I worked with. As for modern readers. There are a choice...BACP offers TWO...Kinoton offers both just a red light solution and a soundhead replacement that makes it up to Kinoton basement reader standards (the best, that is).
quote: Brad Miller While we're talking about that, if you ever wanted to blister a print, just leave the exciter on while the projector is stopped.
Yes, that is certainly possible. Then again, it was designed in an era of exciterlamp changeovers. But going beyond that, Norelco addressed that issue nearly 1/2 a Century ago! Back in 1960, they issued TSI #3 to address this very issue.
quote: Brad Miller You will be forever stuck without being able to run 6000' reels. You can run those 5500' reels, but not true 6000' reels.
Good...I prefer 2000' reels (your preferences may vary).
quote: Brad Miller Mounting a failsafe isn't impossible, but quite the pain to rig it into the front right corner.
Again good...the operator should be present at all times, particularly in a screening room. However, nowadays...one could equip it with a modern reflex type IR sensor like the ones used in modern Kinoton projectors.
quote: Brad Miller You can't open the door while the machine is running without blocking the picture on screen with most lenses a screening room would be using.
You win on that one. Then again, normally all one needs to open the door for is to adjust the tension bands and that does not require it to be fully opened. But a pain with this machine is that the lens is recessed so far back...it restricts the type of lenses that may be used for short focal lengths.
quote: Brad Miller The aperture is a pain to file.
They are not particularly hard to file...remove the gate and tension bands. They are a little thicker than some but they don't tear you hands up they way some do by constantly inserting and removing the plate. They are way easier than a turreted double or triple plate.
quote: Parts are expensive!!!
About the only parts one requires are tension bands and the occasional sprocket. If you like the velvet tension bands then they last forever too.
No lie, as a general rule, the AA2 is the least expensive machine to keep running...its gear train almost NEVER needs parts. The incompetent operator will chew up the intermittent sprocket with a tension band that is unsecure. I guess some have inflicked harm by jamming the trap open on the moving shutter...but seriously...just what big expensive parts is anyone going through with these? In the competent hands, they seem to run forever.
BTW...I'm not the biggest AA2 fan...it certainly was the best in its time and it has designs that many machines have tried to follow...kinda like a Tucker for automobiles. For 35/70...I'd definately be much happier with an FP75E though I think the AA2 gear train will still be less expensive to keep up. The FP75E continues the tradition of the 35/70 machine typically having superior 35mm performance than its 35mm only counterpart. This is true of the Century JJ versus the SA or DA. I wish the FP75E had a single shutter but I hear that when they tried it...they had massive bearing failures and then switched to the current double counter rotating shutter design.
Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Monte L Fullmer
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/2797c.jpg)
Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004
|
posted 01-03-2007 04:22 AM
quote: Dave Ritchie I'm very tempted to do the upgrade and move up to to 70mm.
|
One strong suggestion is to visit a cinema, or cinemas, if possible, in NZ or elsewhere that contains these units and see for yourself on their operation.
This will be the proving ground that you will need to finalize your decision. You just can't take it all in from what we all said here 100 percent for it wouldn't be fair to you.
Then, you're can make that final decision by actually witnessing their operations - be it "yea", or "nea".
quote: Brad Miller The projected picture was simply unacceptable to me.
Now, this could bring up an interesting question:
Granted, I'm not in expertise with a lot of various machinery such as the Philips DP70/AA2, Kinoton and such, but I have witnessed 70mm carbon arc and xenon presentations going through AA2's and carbon arc won the presentation factor hands down with me. I wasn't paying too much attention to picture weave, jitter and the alnomalities of what film can do while going through a machine.
Thus, I was impressed with the projected picture as a good light source being of the old carbon arc. Then, when this theatre switched over to xenon, I was sorely disappointed with the projected picture.
Course, this is actually an unfair comparision since this topic is solely to the usage of xenon illumination.
But still, was the ill presented projected picture, the light's fault, or was it duely towards the machine - since these units began their life as carbon arc projectors?
I'm not trying to change minds here, but have to ask this question since the light issue wasn't discussed.
...be like having a great stereo system and crappy speakers. Actually, when one designs a great stereo system, you begin with the speakers and then work backwards.
-Monte
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
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.
|