As far as I go, I MUCH prefer the Strong/Potts platters at least 6 to 1 over the Christie. The Strong AP with the phase control brains (not microswitch) are literally 99.999% reliable. I have never worked with the microswitch decks.

I like how the deck on the Strong is smooth and curved, so that if film rubs against the deck during take-up or even build-up, the print is undamaged. We had a platter where every show the film would run against the deck during takeup and we never ever had a platter scratch. The edges on the Christie deck are very abrasive. They will put diagonal hash marks in your print if you are not careful. Also, somebody once pointed out to me that you can't place a Strong platter very far from the projector because it feeds out too fast. At my old theatre, we had them REALLY far away from the projector because we had to fit video projectors and lots of other stuff in that space, and it was never a concern as it ran perfectly.

If you have a problem with static, the Strong/Potts will not throw the print. This is because the brain responds very slow, which is a good thing. The Christie will try to spin as fast as possible as soon as possible in most cases when the payout is maxed. Also, there are rollers around the Strong brain that spin so your film doesn't get scratched at startup. (You have to disassemble the Christie and tamper with the innards to get it not to wrap slightly at startup).

The Christies are very unreliable, at least the ones made in the last 2 years. I have had at least 25 LED assemblies die on me or go spastic. I order new LEDs and some of them are great, others fail right out of the package. I would have preferred the Strongs anyway, but this LED situation really takes the Christies down about 5 notches. Set up a Strong initially and it is basically set forever.

The Strongs are much quicker and easier to thread, in my opinion, than the Christies. However there are a few things that I would change about the Strong/Potts to make it 100% perfect if I could: First would be to change the way the brain threads so that you could put the film through it top down like a Christie. The second would make the deck a little more solid, which would eliminate the occasional rattling noise and get risd of the "fan blades" underneath each deck (even though they have never caused me a problem). The third would be for slightly bigger rollers all around. Maybe a quieter motor but that's pushing it. I like the Potts ring. It is small, but it has never caused any kind of grief at my old theatre. It is easy to remove and there are more than 2 holes that you can insert it into on the platter deck, which adds to the ease. Plus it isn't big and bulky like the Christie ring. I have never had a film disaster caused by the Strong platter --- and yes, my Christie platters are set up properly!

The Christies are quieter. They run smoother. No on/off operation. They are very easy to time and tweek speed controls. The Strong are a joke. Their version of "timing" is to push the motors closer to the platter decks, causing the motor to rub up against the unadjustable take up roller. The Strong platters are very commonly the cause of diagonal "platter" scratches due to this fact. The center rings are too small. The film must get going too damn fast for the first few minutes with these tiny rings. They also bend easily. Sure the Christie rings are heavier, but surely the weight isn't a problem for the average projectionist? The Christie rings have a nice little slot in them for the leader whereas the Strongs do not. The Christie brains are of an excellent design. No sticking the film under this bracket and through this and around that and blah, blah, blah. If for some reason you need to take the film out of a brain on a Strong, you MUST cut the film!!! On a Christie, the film can be removed from the brain without damage. The Christies are also significantly easier to thread. The Strongs have two different threading paths, depending on whether the top platter is used for take up or not. This is stupid. I see theaters constantly threading over both top takeup rollers on the post going to the lower decks, scratching the film along the way! With the Christies, it is either right or wrong! The only negative thing about Christies is the possibility of dropping the takeup cluster roller assembly too far (to the bottom of the vertical post), thus scratching. This could be easily rectified if Christie would just extend this post about 6 inches further down, but it has never been a problem with properly trained operators. On earlier Strong platters, one must set the takeup elevator to a certain notched position just to give power to the feed deck. Also, the simple act of tugging on the film will almost certainly guarantee a Strong elevator will whip to the top of the accumulator, bending shafts and rollers out of alignment...sometimes causing damage to them and always stretching the leader. And what's with the motor programming. What a pain. The Christies "program" the platter for you.

The newer Strongs of the last year or two are good (except for the lack of adjustment on the take up rollers, the fact the rollers themselves are too tiny and the stupid double rollers at the top of the tree for that top deck) but all the olders ones are junk to me. I've seen many a Strong platter toss film. Even the newer Strongs like to sink the feed down to drag across the floor! Boo hiss to Strong platters! For simplicity in platters, give me a SPECO anyday!

Keep extra leds for your Christie platters and you've got the best.

 |  IP: Logged

We used to have a guy who worked in our booth who loved the hell out of Christie platters, even while working with Strongs. That was until he left our theatre and started working for the company part time at different theatres. Then he came back to me one day and said "Y'know, those Strongs aren't that bad! I just had a Christie throw Gone With the Wind"

Yes, I have worked with the microswitch, phase control and digital/self-calibrating Strongs. The microswitch units are crap. The phase controls are decent and the digital ones are pretty good. But I'll still take a Christie any day. Your theater is pretty new. Sounds like you got a batch of "lemon" leds. With every product, there are good years and bad years (check out the Consumer Reports magazines for cars). I can remember about 10 years ago, Christie switched to a different type of motor. I can't remember the specifics, but they were green, to match the colums. Those motors were a joke and Christie soon went back to the Bodine motors. As to the leds, I have only had 4 fail (granted, all in the last year from a 3 year old complex) but if you are having such monstrous amounts of failures, there is something ELSE wrong there.

If Christie won't help you, why don't you write a letter to Box Office and Film Journal magazines detailing everything you have records of, including the reps at Christie you spoke with for publication in their "letters to the editor" column. If the list would be too long (apparently so) then post it all here on the forum and invite other forum members to reply with only Christie problems they have encountered, making sure they include years of manufacture and such. Then send a short version of that letter to Box Office and Film Journal tipping their readers off to the information on the forum, from the real world.

One of my Zetrons was a five deck, and when a print on the top deck was being moved into the opposite house, I would just shuttle the print platter to platter. It would only take 20 minutes to zip the whole feature down to a lower deck and I avoided having to climb a ladder and yank off the print. I know this trick can supposedly be done with Christies too, but they are not fast enough to make it worthwhile.

Also I liked plugging the make-up table directly into whichever platter motor I was using. I blew up a Christie table once by plugging it into the platter post the wrong way. I know that's a stupid thing to do, but it happened when I was new to Christies.

The Christies I've run have all had similar problems. The take up creeps, the pay out creeps, the platters spin constantly without film on them. A cinema technician (a good one) re-timed and serviced one of my Christie's about 4 different times while I was with General Cinema. And a day or two later, all 3 decks would begin spinning for no reason again and I'd have to leave it shut off until show start. The one thing about Christies that I really like is what Brad pointed out about not having to cut the film to take it out of the center feed.

 |  IP: Logged

As to the magazines, if they won't publish negative information, post it here. Give details if there is a product or company out there who won't back their goods. 90% of all people who read this forum never post. I'm sure theater owners, collectors and others in the industry who frequent this site would like to know if there is a bad product (or batch of) or a certain representative to NOT deal with. It will probably make all the difference in their purchasing decisions when they build or upgrade a theater. This forum is growing daily with industry people. Sooner or later, a company in question is going to have to bite the bullet and make good on their products if word gets out via this forum or whatever. If I hadn't worked with these machines side by side, I would most certainly want to know the pros and cons of each. What better way than to find a pro-Strong guy and a pro-Christie guy!

 |  IP: Logged

It is/was supposed to have one motor connected to a single vertical shaft that powered all three decks. The feed control was nothing more than a brake that stopped the platter when the film activated the feed arm.

I don't have experience with anything other than Potts Alpha, Christie AW3, and Speco LP-270. I told the guy how much Speco platters p*ssed me off and his response was that I should be glad I don't have to use an Eprad. Just the horror stories he told me about them make my skin crawl!

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged