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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » "Quickermittent" availability (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: "Quickermittent" availability Brian Guckian Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 594 From: Dublin, Ireland Registered: Apr 2003 posted 07-20-2003 08:22 PM                     I remember reading about Kodak's "Quickermittent" a year ago, that used a new starwheel profile to increase acceleration leading to substantial improvement in light efficiency. Can it now be ordered as an option from most projector manufacturers? Using this, coupled with faster lenses, must make three-bladed shutters more viable. It's always good to see improvements in film technology  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-20-2003 09:15 PM                     No one has adopted which is too bad  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 07-20-2003 10:06 PM                        The Kodak "Quickermittent" is still available for licensing. Christopher DuMont led the Enhanced Theatrical Experience (ETE) team that developed and patented it, as well as the new, more efficient lamphouse with greatly improved uniformity. Kodak's Dave Kirkpatrick was the inventor of the "Quickermittent". Addendum: The Kodak paper "Design Improvements for Motion Picture Film Projectors" was published in the November 2001 SMPTE Journal (Volume 110, pages 785-791). The Kodak patent for the "Quickermittent" is Patent No. 6,183,087 , issued on February 6, 2001. Enquiries for licensing opportunities are welcomed (Kodak is not currently in the business of making 35mm or 70mm film projectors or components). [ 07-21-2003, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: John Pytlak ]  |  IP: Logged Brian Guckian Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 594 From: Dublin, Ireland Registered: Apr 2003 posted 07-21-2003 08:44 PM                     Thanks for the info! It's a shame there's been no take-up but I guess these things take time. John, I'll locate a copy of that Journal - thanks for the details.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-26-2003 11:56 AM                     So, I wonder how much it is to liscense it..... Any ideas or info on this John P.? Mark @ CLACO  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 07-26-2003 03:57 PM                        No, as that's usually negotiated. But I can certainly forward any requests to license the technology to the appropriate people at Kodak.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 07-26-2003 04:02 PM                        I am not surprised no one has taken up the idea. If they would give us ways to optimize the light output, then we could buy smaller >>>less expensive xenons. But that is where they make the money.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 07-28-2003 04:17 PM                        Of course, you could always use the extra light to IMPROVE quality (better uniformity, three-blade shutter, more depth of focus, etc.).  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 07-28-2003 07:34 PM                        John is right, and that's how I'd like to see it used. But I imagine that if any projectors offered the Quickermittent that it'd be known when the theater owner does the purchase. And he'll probably decide to purchase lower wattage lamphouses. Now retrofitting existing theaters would be an entirely different story. Maybe it is the name "Quickermittent" that is turning manufacturers off. It sounds stupid. Of course here I am without a better sounding name so I guess I shouldn't speak.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-29-2003 08:24 PM                     Gee.... American manufacturers can BARELY still make usable stars and cams.... How on earth could we turn out any decent quickermittents......? Mark  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 07-30-2003 04:04 PM                        Maybe different Americans are building the silly-named "Quickermittent".  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 07-30-2003 04:18 PM                        If Kodak was still in the projector business (we made the fabled EASTMAN Model 25 and Model 30 professional 16mm projectors), we'd be tempted to tool up for making the "Quickermittent" parts.  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 07-30-2003 05:18 PM                  Actually I like the name "Quickermittent". It has a catchy ring to it like "Fruit Loops" and "Obsolete". OH, Ummmm... with apologies to John, to paraphrase another post... ---Only "die-hards" claim 70+ year-old film technology is preferable to today's hard-disk readers and video projection. If so, let's go back to vacuum cathode ray tubes while we're at it.--- It is pretty archaic to mechanically pull plastic with pictures on it in a start & stop fashion so why invest in a dying technology? It's worked great for all them years, why f*ck with it? OBTW: I'm a film guy…with video tendencies. >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 07-30-2003 06:08 PM                        Dr. Phil wrote about film: quote: It's worked great for all them years, why f*ck with it? Because it can be made even better at much less cost than the alternatives.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-01-2003 09:08 PM                     "If so, let's go back to vacuum cathode ray tubes while we're at it.---" _________________________________________________________________ Actually the very highest resolution images are still made by high vacuum cathode ray tubes!! Mark  |  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.