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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Millennium and 5-star threading (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Millennium and 5-star threading Paavo Mardi Film Handler Posts: 27 From: Tartu / Estonia Registered: Sep 2008 posted 06-12-2009 07:14 AM                     I have question about threading style I saw a few days ago. Shoudnt there be a small 2-3 perf loop between the after-intermittent roller (I´m sorry, I dont know the exact term in english) and sound durm. The dumper roller was pulled pretty tight. I personally think, if there is no loop and the sound should switch to analog, the sound will be "blurred". Or does it have something to do with the 5-star sound-drum design? I have read here that the 5-star sound-drum tends to leave a visible mark on the print. The pressure roller tension was set pretty low so you could turn the pressure roller almost without moving the sound-drum itself... So probably thats the reason they dont make the loop, because otherwise it may scratch the print? When I asked the projectionists why they are threading like that they said that so they were teached to thread. I personally havent worked on Millennium and 5-star.  |  IP: Logged Kenneth Wuepper Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1026 From: Saginaw, MI, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 06-12-2009 07:53 AM                     Paavo, You are correct in that there needs to be some loop between the constant speed sprocket and the sound drum. I believe that the manual calls for 2 sprocket holes of slack. This small amount of loop allows for smoothing out the changing of speed from the machine to the sound drum. The sound drum turns with a lot of inertia due to the weighted wheel that it drives. Small changes in speed are evened out by the inertia of the sound drum assembly. Too tight threading of that area of the projector can add scratches to the film when there is a small speed change in the machine and the tight film is dragged against the sound drum area rather than coasting by the inertia of that part of the machine. KEN  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-12-2009 08:08 AM                     Since this is a 5-star soundhead...no, there is no slack between the projector and soundhead. When setting the tension on the film between projector and sound, pull up on the film in the 5-star soundhead and note the damper roller arm...keep pulling until the arm reaches its stop, then back off at least one full perforation. However don't back off more than 2 perforations. In a 5-star, the return spring on the damper arm sets the tension and the damping fluid stabilizes outside vibrations. It works so-so. One can work on the spring on that arm to make it work better....often they are set too tight. The spring should not cause the pinch roller to lift off of the sound drum. In fact, when I'm done with the spring, the film normally appears just slightly slack after everything has come up to speed and stabilized. Sorry, there is no spring force spec that I'm aware. Steve  |  IP: Logged Robert E. Allen Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1078 From: Checotah, Oklahoma Registered: Jul 2002 posted 06-12-2009 03:10 PM                     I hope I'm understand you correctly. All projectors and soundheads thread basically the same. You must have a loop above and below the gate/trap or the film will be torn apart. after the loop coming off the intermittent there is no slack going over the sound drum. There is some slack going from the sound drum to the holdback sprocket (the bottom sprocket) but it isn't all that critical. Usually just enough to prevent any strain on the film.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 06-12-2009 08:37 PM                     For the record, Steve's post is the only accurate one here. The 5 star threads different than the traditional SH1000/RCA type of soundheads that Ken and Robert are familiar with.  |  IP: Logged Robert E. Allen Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1078 From: Checotah, Oklahoma Registered: Jul 2002 posted 06-12-2009 09:48 PM                     Thanks Brad. Never too old to learn are we?  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 06-12-2009 11:47 PM                        I really, really hate those SH1000 soundheads. I once got a call from a theater that was wondering why all movies played in a certain auditorium were scratching. I go over there and check it out and the base side of the film is rubbing against the pad roller of the upper feedback sprocket in the soundhead as it comes off to form the loop. I have no idea why this soundhead even needs a loop since the film is just running between two constant speed sprockets with no intermittent motion whatsoever and no possibility of tension change. It makes even the Simplex 5-Star soundhead look like a good design (which is certainly isn't, but it is a definite improvement). Anyway I straightened out the pad roller and told them to make that particular loop smaller. No more scratches. quote: Steve Guttag keep pulling until the arm reaches its stop, then back off at least one full perforation. At least one? At least? You mean I can back off a half a perf?  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 06-13-2009 12:46 AM                     quote: Joe Redifer I really, really hate those SH1000 soundheads Sorry you do, but I think that they are the best heads ever manufactured - Fluid dampened scanner drum flywheel, smooth ramp up speed,et.al. Simplex, when they WERE Simplex, knew how to build projectors... ... you just gotta know how to work with them. This new generation just don't know how things are as we know it. (Like on a side topic: I watched a new employee, who worked with projectors before, didn't know the term "setting the intermittent sprocket" meant even though she wondered on why some show starts that she was out of frame even though she knew that she threaded in frame...til I showed her. She was totally embarrased on how simple it was - and ashamed that no one where she worked at, never showed her about this threading procedure since they, themselves, were never shown...) Yes, I'm guilty on lacing up 5-Stars wrong with the snub roller arm inbetween the two limit stops on the mounting bracket (which caused "film walk" across the scanner drum until the drum ramped up to speed and smoothed things out on startup..) until Steve posted this correction a couple of years ago. I've then corrected my procedure and it does make perfect sense on why this procedure from his post is needed. Since then, this is how I train and retrain booth operators on proper 5-Star threading procedures ...and say "goodbye" to "filmwalk" across the scanner drum. thx-Monte  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 06-13-2009 01:04 AM                     You must be joking. The SH1000 and 5 Star are the two WORST soundheads ever designed. Their design has little concern for the care of the film being ran through it.  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 06-13-2009 01:18 AM                       FWIW, in the days of the SH-1000, most if not all reproducers had felt rollers that pinched the image area of the film against the impedance drum. Given a choice between an SH-1000 and an RCA 9030, though, I'd take the SH-1000. Mainly because the gearboxes were more reliable, IMHO (although, I never really liked the butterfly-type latching mechanism).  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 06-13-2009 03:05 AM                     Oh, I agree with the 5-star being the worst-the way they did the drum/main drive shaft bearings in not being pressed in the frame.. But can see why they made it compact compared to the "4-star" - so the machine can get closer to the port window. But heard that the motors on the 4star were becoming extinct. ... they should have kept the felt roller...but try to keep them dry from oil was another trick.. Now, a horrible head was the Motiograph Mirrophonic 7400 - that coupled snap starts due to no flywheel, that large single sprocket where a lot of operators would wrap the film all around the sprocket instead of the required front loop..  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-13-2009 06:52 AM                     In the day of the SH-1000, all theatres were changeover (ah...the good ol days)...thus the second sprocket to isolate the sound scanning from any flucuations from the take up. As for being one of the worst soundheads...no I don't agree there...its biggest flaw...as with all Simplex/RCA designs, it has an image area contact part...the pinch roller. That should not have persisted this long. BTW...the felt rollers will track Dolby Digital better than the rubber ones...which bounce a bit during normal operation. Steve  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 06-13-2009 10:46 AM                        I'm curious as to how at any point in history someone could have thought it a good thing to have something that contacts the image area like the ol' felt/rubber pinch roller. It should have never been designed like that in the first place. The fact that it is still like this to this very day reflects very poorly on Simplex and Strong.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-13-2009 10:53 AM                        quote: Joe Redifer The fact that it is still like this to this very day reflects very poorly on Simplex and Strong. No, it reflects poorly on the people who keep buying the product. The Century soundhead doesn't have this issue, nor do Kinoton, Cinemeccanica, or pretty much any other brands.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-13-2009 10:56 AM                     quote: Scott Norwood No, it reflects poorly on the people who keep buying the product. Thats always been my though too Scott... and even more so as to the stupid company that kept producing it. 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.