|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Westrex Tower Capacity w/36" reels
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pete Naples
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1565
From: Dunfermline, Scotland
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 10-05-2005 04:38 AM
Peter, not according to Kinoton! However, prove me/them wrong and I will stand corrected.
That's a good point about projector motor run up with these beasts, something I should have mentioned. The original Westrex manual details simple and effective ways of slugging the run up with the popular machines of the era, Westar, DP75, FP20, Kalee 21 etc. The most obvious modern solution is to use a 3 phase drive motor, and a nice inverter. I always advocate the use of EZ start spools on the take up, NOT on the pay off as some operators insist on doing (the screeching noise on rewind is terrifying!)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 10-07-2005 03:06 AM
In the early '90s I had a part time job in one of the south coast fleapits. It had been twinned in such a way that screen 2's booth was little bigger than a 'phone box (it was a jerrybuilt shack on the roof - which, it later transpired, had been put up without planning permission), with the result that prints had to be made up onto tower spools in the other booth and manhandled up a 72-step spiral staircase. I remember the 72 steps, because the only way to hold the spool in such a way that it would fit in the stairwell obscured your view of the way ahead, meaning that counting the steps was the only way to know when you'd reached the top or bottom.
After a month of suffering an almost constant backache, I suggested to the chief/manager/owner that we buy a couple of 6k spools to move prints up and down that staircase on, in order to reduce the risk of an accident. He had the personality of Basil Fawlty, but expressed himself using language that wouldn't normally be heard on the BBC. His response was to dismiss the idea, call me a 'fookin' student poofter' and sack me on the spot.
A few weeks later he fell down those stairs while moving a print of Speed, broke both arms, several ribs, a wrist and a shoulder blade. While he was in hospital, the council's health & safety police moved in and uncovered a catalogue of deathtraps throughout the building, the extent of which made you wonder how any of the staff and customers ever came out of that place alive. The theatre was closed for several months, and eventually changed hands.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 10-07-2005 07:09 AM
quote: Brian Guckian
BUT...in this day and age of H&S is it really wise to be (a) still using towers, and (b) trying to get even bigger spools on?
(a) I don't see why not.
(b) Probably not.
I've only run towers a few times; I find that a typical print isn't too bad to lift, but I wouldn't want to go much heavier. I would probably get help for a print of much over two hours. It is now the rule in some cinemas that prints over a certain length must be lifted onto the tower by two people.
quote: Brian Guckian
(BTW a former colleague worked in London many years ago and told me that when towers first came out some boxes had block and tackle to safely move the reels around...was this part of the original Westrex spec?)
I remember reading somewhere that lifting equipment was provided for the original Cinerama installations, I'm not sure if this applied to all of them, but I think the Cinerama spools were only about 8-9k, considerably smaller than tower spools.
I have seen a couple of towers which were made to be able to take 70mm spools, though I've never seen such a spool, and I certainly wouldn't want to lift a full one.
Most tower spools are made of aluminium, and are quite light, lighter than many older designs of 6k spools, so a print on a tower spool isn't much heavier than one on a platter ring; and is probably easier to lift; I wouldn't want to carry one up, or even worse down, a staircase though.
quote: David Graham Rose
I once modified a Westrex 5035 (obviously with Variacs) by cutting the unit in two and wall mounting the two separate sides. Thus doing I was able to accomodate 63" discs that I had hand made with 6" diameter centres that would run just over 8 hours of film.
I can't understand why anyone would want to run that amount of film on one spool. You wouldn't run a programme that long without an intermission, probably more than one, and if you have an intermission then why not just change smaller spools? I would have thought that the core to full spool diameter ratio of 10.5:1 would be likely to cause problems too.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pete Naples
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1565
From: Dunfermline, Scotland
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 10-07-2005 09:35 AM
Yeah, make up on 6k's, join on the tower, break down with asplit spool on the top of the tower after the last run.
If you make up from cans, on the tower, you can't be checking the print properly, end of story!
The Dominion in Edinburgh has a modified bench that will take 13,000 foot spools, personally I hate it, but then their Cinemecannica towers aren't the friendlies of things when trying to use smaller spools on. There is NO adjustment for wind speed or tension.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic