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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Difference between Simplex 35 and Century MSC (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Difference between Simplex 35 and Century MSC Jonathan Wood Expert Film Handler Posts: 206 From: Oxfordshire, United kingdom Registered: Jan 2008 posted 03-04-2016 09:53 AM                     Hi , I was wondering whether anyone could outline the major differences between the Simplex 35 (I think model 1050) and the Century MSC TA , both made by Strong . I used to own a Century msc and thought it was a very solid well made , easy to use machine . I kind of wish I hadn't got rid of it but I'm thinking of getting a simplex 35 . They look very similar but I was wondering what the simplex was like in terms of reliability and build quality ? I seem to remember someone on here saying the simplex build quality went downhill after Stong took over ? Any advice , as always will be gratefully received . Thanks , Jon  |  IP: Logged Frank Bolkovac Film Handler Posts: 27 From: Monroeville, Pa. USA Registered: Mar 2011 posted 03-04-2016 12:28 PM                     Almost everything different between Simplex and Century. Only thing similar on the newer ones was the turret and the film traps. If you want a really great machine, find a black (actually, VERY dark grey) Simplex XL. If you like Century, find a model CC. Both from the 1950s'. I like to think of a Century CC as aCentury JJ's little brother.....  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Wood Expert Film Handler Posts: 206 From: Oxfordshire, United kingdom Registered: Jan 2008 posted 03-04-2016 12:51 PM                     Thanks Frank. I was referring to the newer machines , which I should have made clearer.,I know historically they were very different machine s but after production on both machines was taken over byvStrong I think they shared quite a few similarities. I was just wondering how the later models compared as I'm specifically looking at a newer model . Cheers Jon  |  IP: Logged Dave Macaulay Film God Posts: 2321 From: Toronto, Canada Registered: Apr 2001 posted 03-06-2016 09:46 AM                     Century and Simplex did not converge to one design once Strong made them both. The mechanisms stayed very different although the gates and traps became more similar, and they ended up with the same turret. Simplex uses a rotating intermittent carrier to do framing. To keep the conical shutter in sync as the intermittent rotates, there's a "compensator" mechanism which makes the shutter drive train, well... "rather complex". The gear side has "splash-o-matic" lubrication with oil pumped up to pour onto a flinger at the top of the main vertical shaft (or the fire shutter activating "governor" unit if it has the automatic fire shutter). A funnel on top of the intermittent catches enough of the flying oil drops to keep it lubed: the compensator, gears, and bearings manage from oil dribbles, drops, and mist. Century mounts the intermittent on a vertical slider and framing works by moving it up and down. The intermittent drive gear to the main vertical shaft slides as well, so shutter sync does not change (no compensator!). The gears must be hand greased regularly, the intermittent is filled with oil. The history of these projectors is interesting, look it up if you have time... When truly competing, each claimed to have decisive advantages over the other - Brighter! Steadier! Better Focus! Less Maintenance! - but, in the end, the image quality attained is pretty much the same.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-06-2016 10:45 AM                     Think so? I know I could tell which one was showing the movie by just watching the movie from downstairs. Both had some pretty obvious tells. Simplex was absolutely brighter on any given lamp/lamphouse...more efficient shutter...however they never were able to heat treat the lateral guide roller without warping it. If the roller is spinning (not grooved and stuck) you can watch the image moving side-to-side as the roller rotates. There are other obvious tells if you know what you are looking for. From a mechanical design standpoint...the Simplex is a much more competently designed machine (prior to Singer). Century seemed to overcome their lack of mechanical design or precision with brute force in hefty parts for wear. We use BIG teeth on the gears instead of precision. One slathers grease on the gears rather than having oil constantly applied to the gears. The Simplex had its definite flaws...like a contact part on the emulsion side ON THE PICTURE AREA in the sound head (pinch roller). When the XL went from straight to curved gate, it seemed to loose some rigidity in the gate area too. As for the differences...from top to bottom, they are different (once you get past the Kaplan/Super era).  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-06-2016 11:03 AM                     Au contraire on the lateral guide roller. They were always made from heat treated alloy. They were first rough turned in a lathe, then heat treated and then a final grind was given. Almost all projector parts were made this way including stars, cams, some but not all shafts, all steel sprockets, curved runners, etc. note that the alloy is hardened through, not case hardened. I actually tested the RC hardness of many new parts back in the 1980's and found typical hardness of RC-40 to RC-55. That's a fairly hard steel but not so hard as to create undo wear on production machinery. It was a hardness point chosen so parts would last just long enough but that projector companies would still sell parts. Phillips by the way had the hardest steel alloys of all manufacturers where they actually hardened it. Vertical shafts running in ball bearings are not hardened, but shafts running in bushings were. Mark  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-06-2016 04:11 PM                     As I said...they were all warped (or every one I ever saw). Never had that problem on the Century.  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 03-06-2016 06:23 PM                       I've never seen a warped lateral guide roller on a Simplex XL. You must have had bad Wolk parts.  |  IP: Logged Victor Liorentas Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: london ontario canada Registered: May 2009 posted 03-06-2016 07:03 PM                     I had one get warped on a curved gate xl. Someone rammed into it with a toothbrush cleaning the gate.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-06-2016 07:28 PM                        Simplex: less likely to break Century: easier to fix Both are good machines, although my experience with the turret models is limited.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-06-2016 08:12 PM                     Never met one that wasn't warped. Seriously. If you ever have the opportunity to check one with film (target is best since it will give a fixed reference) you can watch it weave with the roller rotation.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-06-2016 08:42 PM                     I never had one warped either, just grooved out... I did not check hardness of any of Wolks parts that I remember... Mark  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 03-06-2016 09:11 PM                       You've got my curiosity up and I have several I can check in the warehouse. I think it must be an east of the Rockies thing. Century will take a Polyestar film wrap better than a Simplex for sure, esp, on the Int. First thing to go is the tiny int, drive gear and it lock the projector.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 03-06-2016 09:28 PM                        No need for test film. For weave just use any film with the plate removed. Sprocket hole weave will tell-the-tale.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-07-2016 06:13 AM                     No...perforations are deceptive. They presume that the perfs were not skewed during manufacture. Particularly post polyester, that proved to not be the case. I worked with DEL on that one with 35PA. Since the camera is pin registered but projectors guide the film by the edges, you could get image and perf movement not attributable to the projector but to the film itself. It was bad enough at one point that I met up with John Pytlak in Rochester to have it analyzed. What I got back was a report that did indeed show the skew but they claimed "it was within tolerance." Basically, Kodak shrugged their shoulders. The target coming out of Schneider was MUCH MUCH steadier than 35PA from SMPTE on the same projector.  |  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.