8mm Forum: Elmo ST-180E Mint in the Box!

This is topic Elmo ST-180E Mint in the Box! in forum 8mm equipment for sale/trade at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000211

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on August 30, 2005, 08:33 PM:

I have up for auction a MINT Elmo ST-180E in the box. I changed the belts, lubed it up, and changed the fuses. If I didn't need the money I would keep it. Its such a smooth running, quiet machine. I start all the bidding at $100 with no reserve so knock yourself out! [Smile]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7542692891&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&rd=1

Posted by Dan Lail (Member # 18) on August 30, 2005, 09:58 PM:

Alan, you are doing this hobby a great service by providing these beautiful machines. I really like the part about "5W output, create room filling, crystal clear sound". [Big Grin]

Now that's what I call salemanship! [Wink]

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on August 30, 2005, 10:11 PM:

You know....NYC apartment living 6x4 room filling, hard wood floors crystal clear sound! [Smile]

Posted by Gary Crawford (Member # 67) on August 31, 2005, 10:49 AM:

It's interesting ( and my observation may be totally wrong), but I currently have an st1200HD set up beside an st180...and I know the bulb on the 1200 is 150 watt..the 180 is 100...I know both machines have been adjusted and well maintained...but when I show a film on that 180, I could swear the picture is brighter ..and steadier , clearer than the same film on the 1200. I stuck another of my three 1200's up next to it..and the same thing. It may be a subjective thing, but that 180 shows a beautifully pleasing picture that , for some reason, looks better than the 1200's. I've cleaned the lenses, etc. so all things are as equal as can be.

Posted by David Pannell (Member # 300) on August 31, 2005, 11:07 AM:

Gary,

Did you actually remember to switch the lamp on, on the ST-1200HD, or did you leave it on the 'dim' setting??? [Big Grin]

Sorry - couldn't resist that one!!!

Interesting comment, though. Would be interesting to check it out with a light meter.

Dave.

Posted by Dan Lail (Member # 18) on August 31, 2005, 02:12 PM:

Gary, it could be a distance factor. How far a way from the screen are the projectors? Maybe the light variance wil be noticable at a greater distances of throw.

Posted by Gary Crawford (Member # 67) on August 31, 2005, 02:53 PM:

The screen distance about 24 feet. I used the normal setting onthe 1200. another striking thing is that apparent sharpness from the 180 is better. Could be the lens,I suppose...allowing for better contrast...and light transmission. although I think they are both f1.3's . At any rate, that 180 is a great performer. Not as fancy ..not as many features....but the pic on the screen really is nice.

Posted by Dan Lail (Member # 18) on August 31, 2005, 09:04 PM:

I've got it! I think Gary and Alan are conspiring on this projector sale. [Big Grin]

Bad Dan! Bad Dan! [Roll Eyes]

Posted by David Pannell (Member # 300) on September 02, 2005, 01:35 AM:

So long as the distances from the screen of both projectors are the same, the light will be a 'constant' for direct comparison. Only if the distance is different for each projector, or the area illumnated is different, will there be a difference in light intensity. Remember the 'inverse square law' from your physics lessons at school. Providing the zoom settng is the same for both machines, ie. same area of illumination at exactly the same distance, then the comparison will be direct. However, as soon as you either alter the zoom, or change the distance, the light falling on the screen will change. If you double the distance, the light will be a quarter, - not a half! The same is true if you double the size of the picture, the brightness will be a quarter, - not a half. This is because you are actually lluminating 4 times the area, not twice the area.

Hope this helps to put it in perspective.

Best,

Dave.

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on September 02, 2005, 07:47 AM:

Well I have another theory guy's.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the newer ST range of machines had a slight wider shutter sector opening comparred to the ST1200 range. The shutter design on the ST1200 range is a different design to the later machines.

Also the ST1200/D/HD has a glass heat filter in front of the lamp. This Filter gives a dirty green look to the light. If placed next to a machine without the filter the warmer light could seem cleaner and brighter.
Maybe someone with 2 ST1200s could give that a try. Remove the filter from one machine and then do a side by side check to see if the one without the filter looks brighter and warmer. I have in the past run my ST1200's without the filter and didnt use the still facility which I think is the main reason for the filter. Anyway Elmo dropped that filter on all the later machines or in some circumstances used a Dichroic heat filter which stops very little light but reflects the heat back toward the lamp. The ST uses a heat absorbing filter which is why its so thick and that green/cyan colour.

Kev.

Posted by Gary Crawford (Member # 67) on September 02, 2005, 09:25 AM:

You know, Kevin, I think you may have hit on it. The light from that 180 does seem brighter/whiter....and the heat filter just might be the answer. thanks
gary

Posted by David Pannell (Member # 300) on September 02, 2005, 11:06 AM:

Thanks for that Kevin. Do you recommend removing the filter or not. Might be a problem if one does happen to stop the film at any point though. What do you reckon? If you've done it, surely it's OK, but what happens if the film jams or stops through no fault of your own? Does the film just melt at the gate, or is there a fire risk?

Dave.

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on September 02, 2005, 11:24 AM:

I'll tell you what happened when the belts gave way on that ST-180E before I changed them. Once the belts stopped moving..within say 5 seconds my cute little film had a little whole burning to the outer edges of the film.. I caught it in time, but now I have 2 copies of the "Black Hole"!

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2