How "kind" is you're Eumig 938 stereo projector to films?
I ask as I have wanted to add one of these for years to my collection, and my Eumig 926 stereo projector has been extroidinarily kind to my films, (if only it didn't have that "rear" reel set-up ... BAH!!!)
-------------------- "All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
From: Ortona, Italy
Registered: Jan 2004
posted February 20, 2018 12:52 PM
May I answer instead of Paul. I have owned a 926 since 1990 and sonorized most of my most challenging works (soundtrack-wise) on it! Many stops and go's, many re-trials etc... Never a scratch! I mean NEVER. The 938 shares 90 percent of 926's mechanics with the addition of the upper sprocket wheel. So if you are satisfied with your 926, there is no reason to like a 938 even more. Plus it bears 800' spools and has all of the 926's stereo console facilities. Only drawback: the shutter cam is made of some kind of plastic with a groove for the claw arm follower so it apperas a little less reselient to me, than its counterpart on model 926: in this projector the cam is made of steel and the arm of the claw has no groove to follow its movement as it's kept inposition by a number of springs. The 926 is also easier IMHO to lube for this reason.
Other differences include the lamp wattage: on the 938 it's 150 W (an additional cooling motor is fitted for this which runs only in FWD & REV projection modes - make sure it runs. But it won't run when the lamp is in pre-heat mode).
Also the shutter baldes are somewhat smaller; this and the increased lamp watatge make it possible to throw a significant greater amount of light onto the screen. Given the narrow shutter blades and in order to avoid fogged images when running in reverse, the shutter blades esue an interesting device seen onmany Silma/Bauer projector: additional blades which are usually hidden behind the regular blades but are added to the regular ones when the projector is swithed to reverse: the total blade size increases and this will prevent light from the previous frame (i.e. from a bright sky) to leak onto part of the projected frame.
Finally because the length of film from spool to feed sprokect is much shorter than what needed to feed the 926, it results with being slightly less noisy, too. If the sound head is OK and the price reasonable, go for it; you will need a dentist's angular mirror to assess head condition and wear and a small maglite flashlight with the light as concentrated as possible.
posted February 20, 2018 01:09 PM
I think Maurizio has said it all Osi. Performance wise the 938 is the best projector Eumig ever made (along with the 940). The double sprocket arrangement and in-line film path makes film projection much smoother and quieter than the 926 GL. I just wish the construction was a little more durable with a little less plastic, like the wonderfully rugged 800 series.
From: Lancaster, UK
Registered: Jan 2015
posted February 20, 2018 01:37 PM
Paul, did you see my question on the Slipping Drive Discs thread below? I was asking if the CRC belt conditioner you'd used in the past proved itself now its two years since you first tried it on the rubber discs?
I have a couple of Eumigs and might invest in some if it keeps them running in the future. Thanks!