Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Centralized platters?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Centralized platters? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: Centralized platters?

Bryan M. Montgomery
Film Handler

Posts: 47
From: Chillicothe, Ohio
Registered: Jul 2007

posted 07-29-2007 12:38 AM

I recently got a Print Pocket for my 16 plex and I love it, so I searched the topics here to see others opinions on it. I found several references to Brad Miller's placement of the platters in a central area of the booth as means to eliminate print shuffling, but I cant quite picture how this is possible in my mind. Got any pictures Brad?
P.S.- Brad, Film-Guard= pure genius. I was the first operator to test your product for Regal back in 2000,wont go a day without it since.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 07-29-2007 12:58 AM

Here is one of 5 theaters I have set up like this.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 07-30-2007 04:25 AM

Also very impressive. Tons of film stringing from hither and yon with this setup.

Question for Brad: those larger rings on the decks - to control the rewind tension better and/or for better payout as well?

(Hope the guys that operate this style of booth are being paid rather well since the training and operation isn't for your typical booth clown...prob almost takes a specialist to operate this booth)

-thx Monte

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 07-30-2007 05:05 AM

Larger rings permit the guys to walk normal speed, or briskly if so needed. Since the inner diameter of the film roll is larger, every spin of the platter is capable of feeding more film per second during threading.

The pictures look intimidating, but as the system design gets more simplified and versatile as time goes on, we are finding that most people get the hang of it after 1-2 shifts.

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 07-30-2007 06:45 AM

Why did you adapt from the platter cluster in the center of the room? Was it just a space issue in this instance or does this way work better for some reason?

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 07-30-2007 09:11 AM

Clearly "moving" a print to it's new auditorium is much simpler this way or if you needed to swap 2 auditoriums if one movie is doing more business to get in the larger house.

Though obviously it requires a ton more head/tail leader.

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 07-30-2007 11:50 AM

No Chris,

I was referring to this previous version (pictured) as opposed to the newer formation.

I´m at work right now and can´t resize but I'll edit this later with a decent sized image.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 07-30-2007 03:42 PM

It just depends on the booth layout as to what is easiest and most flexible. The Arlington booth didn't have an open space large enough to facilitate back to back platters, whereas the Houston booth didn't have enough length to line them all up in a row even if we had wanted.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 07-30-2007 07:36 PM

quote: Chris Slycord
Clearly "moving" a print to it's new auditorium is much simpler this way or if you needed to swap 2 auditoriums if one movie is doing more business to get in the larger house.

Basically, what's created here is a simple tradeoff - either scoop/clamp prints (which the latter does horrendous things to aluminum decks) and have potiental print droppage/scratching, or let the system do the moving for you with this conception of the "platter farm" and prevent such accidents.

But the other tradeoff is that the training is more extensive in this case whereas I mentioned before, "definitely a place for booth clowns."

Personally, I'm very impressed with this operation and see it as an ideal way to handle film in such a manner, but unfort, whereas we're surrounded by "booth clowns", I wouldn't even think of it of being an operation to be feasible.

p.s. Brad, thx for the answer - makes perfect sense and can see guys wisk down the booth at a decent pace instead of having to wait for the deck to catch up in payout during lacing.

| IP: Logged

Christopher Meredith
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 126
From: Jackson, MS, USA
Registered: Apr 2006

posted 07-31-2007 10:41 AM

I'll probably get flamed for this, but I've never had a problem with moving prints around without clamps or a print pocket. I've found that it is possible, with small stick-on weights on the back of the "elevator" on a Strong platter system, to get the take-up tension sufficient to prevent the film from slipping against itself, but not so tight that the roll collapses when the ring is removed.

In this way, it's a trivial matter to slide the print off the platter onto my arms and carry it down the booth by myself at a 60-degree angle to the floor. The print is quite secure and has never resulted in damage to the print this way. It's also easy and requires no equipment (though you do work up a sweat moving 10-14 prints this way!)

I've probably done this 500+ times over the past couple of years with no problems. The only time I was ever involved in a dropped print was when I was doing the two-man carry with Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban. That might have been the worst night of my life...

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-31-2007 10:49 AM

quote: Christopher Meredith
The print is quite secure and has never resulted in damage to the print this way.

Unless you are able to keep the film pack completely rigid and the center hole completely round, you ARE sliding film against film, which will make scratches.

| IP: Logged

Christopher Meredith
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 126
From: Jackson, MS, USA
Registered: Apr 2006

posted 07-31-2007 10:55 AM

Yes, the film pack does remain rigid this way. It takes a bit of trial-and-error to get the proper weight, but once you find the "sweet spot," the film pack will remain rigin unless severely jarred in transit (i.e. if the print mover trips or something).

Also, the ring does remain round (if it was round to begin with! [Wink]

). It is a little tricky to slide the ring up enough so that the print will slide off the platter, but it can be done without collapsing the ring or sliding film against film (except the leader, but who cares about scratches on the leader?)

| IP: Logged

Andrew McCrea
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 645
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 07-31-2007 12:44 PM

Are Christie platters the only ones that can be used, or can you use any kind of platter?

| IP: Logged

David Zylstra
Master Film Handler

Posts: 432
From: Novi, MI, USA
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 07-31-2007 01:50 PM

quote: Christopher Meredith
I'll probably get flamed for this, but I've never had a problem with moving prints around without clamps or a print pocket. I've found that it is possible, with small stick-on weights on the back of the "elevator" on a Strong platter system, to get the take-up tension sufficient to prevent the film from slipping against itself, but not so tight that the roll collapses when the ring is removed.

No flame thrower here, when I ran a booth for my previous employer we had ORC platters circa 1989/90 - those natively wrapped tight enough to move the prints without clamps, I think some of the sales literature even touted that films were wrapped tight enough to move without clamps. Those were some tight wraps - you had to really screw up to make the wrap fall apart. (of course my rule was "do as I say, not as I do - everyone must use clamps!)

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 07-31-2007 01:50 PM

I can see Christies being the only ones used since it has that great takeup roller arm that has enough return pull tension that even an interlock between two AW3R decks don't need an accumulator between them. Plus, each deck is independently from each other - each with their own control.

STRONG's wouldn't work for the simple case that the decks are not independently controlled were they all depend on that one variac in the base (might say "dumb" platters-no 'brains'). Might be fine for rewind, but the payout platter won't have any variable speed control if the traveller is in the locked position.

(I ran a 4plex that had 4 of the old AW2's that wound prints so tight that I can actually roll the prints on their edge down the booth - as long the ring didn't pop out on me..quite fun this was..)
-Monte

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

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.