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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » What are the fundamental differences between 35mm Century projectors? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: What are the fundamental differences between 35mm Century projectors? Sean Weitzel Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 619 From: Vacaville, CA (1790 miles west of Rockwall) Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-13-2013 01:20 AM                     Over the course of the 35mm sunset I've managed to acquire a number of different kinds of Century projector heads. I was curious to know what the fundamental differences are between a Century SAw (I know the w is for water cooling), Century C and a Century H. It seems to me that the SA (or SAW) seems to be the preferred 35mm machine. Are there any merits to the C or H models in terms of image quality and film handling?  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-13-2013 09:45 AM                     You'll find fans of all of them but the key differences are in the gate and intermittent. The "C" gate is wanting in many respects, particularly the older variants. It is a straight gate machine. Most "C"s are small lens mount (2-25/32"), later ones had the 4" lens mount The "H" was a half-way house to the "new A" or the "SA" as it became to be known. The H had a curved gate but using a rigid curved trap and a spring loaded curved gate (same sort of mounting mechanism as the "C" gate with springs above and below). The aperture plates resemble SA plates but they are bent into the curve of the trap. Can it do well? Yes, but a lot of things have to line up just right. The intermittent changed into the modern style with the H too. By the end of the H's production...it really started to resemble the modern SA. Now if you really wanted to go into it one can find the variations on the gear side as well by they are going to be smaller details. Get yourself some parts books and user guides (probably here on Film-Tech) and note the differences in each model.  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 11-13-2013 10:04 AM                       The S denoted single shutter, D was a double shutter. A lot of D versions were converted to single shutter machines so the name plate no longer matches. The H gate had a design flaw because the gate was spring loaded in such a way that a splice or other disturbance that moved the gate would cause the focus point to change.  |  IP: Logged Paul Gordon Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 580 From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Registered: Aug 2005 posted 11-13-2013 12:14 PM                        We have a old Century CC (Double shutter) at a campground. So there is a "CC" version.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-13-2013 12:40 PM                        Are there any issues with swapping out H parts for SA parts? Specifically, can SA gates and traps be installed in an H without having to do any machining or other major surgery? I take care of a pair of Hs at a performing-arts house that occasionally shows films and have been meaning to look into upgrading them for a while. They are in excellent shape mechanically, but I am not a fan of the gate/trap design, for reasons mentioned above. Side note: the C intermittents will work just fine in the H and SA models. I am told that there are issues with doing the reverse, however. Also, the intermittent sprocket in the C apparently cannot be replaced without disassembling the intermittent assembly. By contrast, the H/SA intermittent sprocket can be replaced easily by an operator. In addition to the differences noted above, the SA has a nice little mechanism for re-centering the lens mount to reduce keystoning and to accommodate silent or mag-only prints. SA aperture plates can be made to fit in the H by bending them slightly. The C uses a completely different plate design.  |  IP: Logged Jim Cassedy Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1661 From: San Francisco, CA Registered: Dec 2006 posted 11-13-2013 12:42 PM                     In Y2K7, there was a thread with a lot of Century projector info. I was unable to find the original thread, but I had saved some of the info on it in my "Century Projector" file on my computerthingy. Below is a copy of what I've got. Sorry I can't give direct credit to whoever originally compiled the info: "DECODING CENTURY MODEL NUMBERS" "M" always means direct drive. "W" always means water cooling "D" means drive in machine (2 shutter blades) "SA" is the basic machine ("DA" the drive in model) R3 is the basic soundhead model MR3 is the drive model Century nomenclature: Base projector models: A, C, H, J Variations of the "A" model: S=Single shutter D=Double shutter W=Water-cooled aperture TA=turret and aperture changer Double shutters are denoted in the C, H, and J models by double letters (e..g., CC, HH, JJ). No special designation for water-cooling (although, I have seen a handful marked, "CCW"). Reproducers (R=reproducer), most-common base models: 3,4,5 R3=foward scan R4=reverse scan (many were converted to fwd scan in the field, as Sam said) R5=forward scan, paired with JJ projector T=transistorized M=Direct Drive "E" was FET (I'm pretty sure), B = Blower (Cinefocus) and the R50 was paired with the JJ not the R5. I've also seen an R20 paired with a JJ in a Standard-Drive configuration.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-13-2013 12:45 PM                     Yeah, Century screwed up with the naming. Traditional Century was that the letter denoted the model...if the letter was doubled, that denoted double-shutter. Hence CC, HH and JJ are all double shutters. The "modern" 35mm projector should have gone by "A" and "AA" but alas those names were taken a few times over...so the SA and DA came into being. In theory, adding an "M" to a name makes it direct drive. So an MSA is a direct-drive single shutter "A". But note that a JJ never got an M prefix for being a direct drive (which most, but not all, were). However, the JJ did get the silly name of JJ2-S (or JJ3-S for Cinefocus) for single shutter. It should have just been called the J2 and would have meant the same thing. Strong ended the line calling the "MSA" the MSC...direct drive, single shutter, "C" but not the vintage "C" Heaven knows why it needed the model change...it was identical to the A but missing parts...like the shutter adjustment, fire shutter...etc.  |  IP: Logged Don Furr Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 509 From: Sun City, Ca USA Registered: Nov 2002 posted 11-13-2013 05:45 PM                     I've been running a JJ 1S for several years. It's a single shutter standard belt drive. I also have a JJ 3/direct drive that was a double shutter but I converted it to a single shutter. After running the JJ 3 on a jig for a year, I've come to the conclusion that it runs smoother and quieter with a steadier picture than the JJ 1S. I'm about ready to swap 'em out.  |  IP: Logged Ken Lackner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1907 From: Atlanta, GA, USA Registered: Sep 2001 posted 11-14-2013 08:43 AM                     quote: Jim Cassedy R4=reverse scan (many were converted to fwd scan in the field, as Sam said) Why on Earth would one want to convert a reverse scan to a forward scan? I've seen the other way around, of course.  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 11-14-2013 02:17 PM                       It was converted back to front scan because Century's implementation of reverse scan was terrible. Noisy, scratchy, low audio output level, microphonic; just plain crappy. Also Dolby stereo cells were only used with front scan so there was that at the last. Century never knew anything about optical or Mag. sound.  |  IP: Logged Paul Gordon Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 580 From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Registered: Aug 2005 posted 11-14-2013 02:45 PM                        Their sound heads were still better then the RCA/Simplex ones... at least they didn't have a rubber roller/pad touching/scratching the film.  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 11-14-2013 04:13 PM                       Paul is talking about the film transport of the Century, not the audio reproduction aspects of it. Century came out with all sorts of wacky electronics in the '60's and '70's. Anaphet, bad reverse scan, all sorts of preamps in octal cans, and a 70mm preamp system mounted to the penthouse. This last bit was a great idea conceptually but hideous in real practice with every kind of RF interference that led to having to solder the pins of the preamps to the octal tube sockets to deal with the oxidation problems.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 11-15-2013 07:49 AM                        Yes, Sam. I cannot tell you how many of these things I removed when the MPU came out. I still have some supply of rear covers, screws, terminal strips prewired with the multi pin plug for the heads (4 tr and 6tr) Probably worked OK whe brand new. All designed by Mike Chitty. Anyone need any brand new Teccon heads? Louis  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 11-15-2013 10:28 AM                       I've always wondered who designed this stuff. They were all based on good ideas of that time but badly implemented. I was an advocate of making a version of the MPU that would bolt to the penthouse. Properly done it would send line level audio to the sound rack with less chance of hum. The Anaphet solar cell pickup was quite silly. I believe it stood for anamorphic photo field effect transistor. The anamorphic part was a little plastic lens over the solar cell and stretched the image I guess to cover the solar cell.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-15-2013 11:08 AM                     And Century also had the R2 master soundhead that was a wierd monster  |  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.