This is topic My ST-1600HD projector. ;-) in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001174
Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on May 07, 2005, 10:42 AM:
Just wanted to show you guys the current state of my attempts to make use of the Goldberg 1600ft. reels that I have on my "ST-1600HD" ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Well, upon realizing that I can't really make the supply reel arm any longer through any sort of non-destructive (reversible) process, I then went to see if I could fit the reel anyway by moving other gadgets out of the way. And whaddyaknow, I was almost successful!
Here you can see the big reels mounted on both sides. Makes for one heck of an impressive sight, doesn't it? The projector itself is almost dwarfed by the film sitting on it... (For the curious ones among you, the take-up reel is holding the 4x400' Blackhawk print of Charlie Chaplin's GOLD RUSH, freshly edited together - of course the film is rolled up tails-out, waiting to be rewound) - As you can see, the (empty) supply reel fits JUST BARELY. Have a look at the following close-up shots:
I did say "just barely," didn't I? Turns out it fits OK as long as you remove the upper loop guide, which is a simple matter of removing one screw and pulling the guide out. In the picture shown, the screw is back where it belongs (above the sprocket wheel, right underneath the reel flange). A little to the left of that screw, you can see a pin which is engaged by the loop guide and pushed down to move everything into "thread mode." Of course if I do use this arrangement to screen a 1600ft. feature I'll have to thread the upper loop manually, which indeed is not for the faint of heart. (Done it before, though, it's not that hard!) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Here you can see what may be the biggest problem: the reel is darned close to the rewind switch so if you have even a slight amount of wobbling then the flange will rub against the switch and emit a lovely SCRRRIIITTCH sound with every turn. Fortunately I got the reel to spin without wobbling so at least for now it should be OK.
What else? Ohyeah, almost forgot... there's no chance of flipping the front cover back up as its upper right edge will slam against the reel, so I'll have to use the whole thing with the cover down. Bottom line? There are many problems and inconveniences... but when you can't wait to get your hands on the small-hub 1200' reels with 1600' capacity (like me) then this is a pretty good compromise for the time being.
If nothing else, it does look cool!! ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Michael Clark (Member # 369) on May 07, 2005, 12:11 PM:
Jan that is most definately an IMPRESSIVE site!
Just out of curiosity, what is the difference between an ST1200HD and an ST1600HD?
Also, just an F.Y.I., if I can get my hands on a good 1200 ft reel that works good as a take-up reel, I'll not be needing my 1600 Ft Taylor Reel (I only bought it because at the time, I didn't have ANY 1200 ft take-up reels). Currently, I only have one 1200 ft reel, and it is a metal Goldberg 1200 ft reel, and since neither of my projectors was really meant to handle a 1200 ft take-up reel, the metal Goldberg reel seems a bit too heavy, and stops turning while running the film through. The 1600 ft Taylor Reel, although awful wobbly, is plastic, and light enough so it turns all buy itself all the way to the end of a 1200 ft film run.
So bottom line, eventually I won't need my 1600 ft Taylor Reel, and so we could work out a deal!
Mike.
Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on May 07, 2005, 12:40 PM:
That would be fantastic!
You know what, I have two 1200ft. reels, one metal and one plastic (which is currently holding film)... I could put that film on the metal reel and trade you my plastic reel for the 1600ft. Tayloreel that you have. That aside, you could also try adjusting the take-up friction on your projector to make it that little bit stronger, but that just on the side. But if you wanna set up a deal, just email me at jbister *AT* neo.rr.com
Regarding the "ST-1600HD" moniker, apologies for causing confusion! There is no such projector, I just came up with the name myself to talk about my own ST-1200HD projector, that's all.
Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on May 07, 2005, 06:51 PM:
Jan. I hope the extra weight/torque doesnt wear the cork clutch discs out quicker in your machine. With a full 1600ft takeup spool on the rear the the drive to the clutch is still going at full knots but now the drive part to the rear spool will be turning even slower so wear may increase.
Personally I would not use this idea but go for a long play unit like Spondon used to sell. Spare parts for your ST are near impossible to find ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Great though, beware!
Kev.
Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on May 07, 2005, 07:33 PM:
Yeah, I'm aware of the added stress on the mechanics... though the projector handles these big reels admirably well. The arms and spindles have no trouble carrying all the weight, either - as for the cork discs, I would think that if all they are really is cork, then you could conceivably make your own cork discs to replace these with, should they ever seriously wear out. But apparently these last quite a bit longer than even the belts do! ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Would love to get a long-play unit but where would I even look? What options do I have, and how can I justify spending $$$ on such a unit when I may suddenly have a chance to get some of the 12.5" 1600ft. Tayloreel reels tomorrow for much less money? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Another, more practical, problem is that whatever home-made reel-arm-on-its-own-stand solution I come up with, it would be smack in the way of the projection lens... I would have to devise some sort of frame with a big hole in the middle to attach a spare reel arm to, and I'm not even worrying about a separate rewind motor for such a unit at this point! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Chip Gelmini (Member # 44) on May 07, 2005, 08:17 PM:
I agree with Kevin you have got to be careful with things like this.
1) Kevins is spot on with everything he says about the mechanics of the machine.
2) In the picture those are heavy steel reels by Goldberg. I'm guessing they are as heavy EMTPY as a Taylor 1200 foot reel is when FULL.
3) On the film in the take up reel, the pattern looks loose. If it had just been run and is tails out, the film looks loose and you already have take up problems.
CG
Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on May 07, 2005, 08:25 PM:
I have a Goldberg 1200ft. reel, and the 1600ft. is only marginally heavier than the 1200ft. one. And what do you mean by "the pattern looks loose" - I haven't even screened the film yet, only edited it together and wound it up by hand. AND I've already stated that the projector handles the reels fine, both empty and full...
I appreciate your concern, guys, but it's not like I don't know what I'm doing here...! In any case, I was never planning to use this setup for any prolonged period of time simply because of all the inconveniences involved. It's only until I can get the special small-diameter 1600ft. reels. That's all.
EDIT
Oops, my 1200ft. reel is made by Tayloreel but no matter, it's the same kind of metal reel and sure an ST-1200HD can handle those no problem. In fact, my wife and I watched GOLD RUSH tonight and the projector performed great - no slack on the take-up reel whatsoever!
[ May 21, 2005, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Jan Bister ]
Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on May 08, 2005, 11:04 PM:
[deleted]
[ May 21, 2005, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Jan Bister ]
Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on May 21, 2005, 10:47 AM:
Doh!
Well after getting the one 1600ft. Tayloreel that Michael Clark had, I just put THE GOLD RUSH on it, and although tightly wound, the film doesn't fit. It's about a millimeter over the edge of the reel flanges. Bummer... So these are not true 1600ft. reels... More like 1400ft. to 1500ft. maximum...
I guess it's back to the drawing board (figuratively speaking)!
P.S.: I would edit my previous posts but then who would notice this thread
Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on May 21, 2005, 01:19 PM:
I agree with you Jan. I have often has this problem with 1600 ft spools not taking what I thought to be 1600ft of film
I suppose that without increasing the overall diameter they can only make the spool core size so small, if that makes sense.
Kev.
Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on May 21, 2005, 04:10 PM:
It makes perfect sense - it had occurred to me a good while ago that the Tayloreel core is about the size of the core of a 400ft. reel - and the full-size core of the 1200ft. and (true) 1600ft. reels matches the diameter of a 200ft. reel - so right there that suggests that only an additional 200ft. will fit on a reel the size of a regular 1200ft. reel (are you with me yet? I hope so!) ... I thought that, to accommodate another 200ft. of film, the Tayloreel may be slightly larger yet than a 1200ft. reel, but not so large as to not fit on the Elmo projector. Well, that is not the case, and it's kind of a shame because selling the Tayloreels as having room for 1600ft. now looks more and more like fraudulent advertising.
(Note, that is not directed at Ray Healy @ filmclassic.com, but rather at Tayloreel themselves)
(And in case Michael Clark reads this: don't worry, the trade wasn't pointless - I can fit all of "Hoppity Goes To Town" on the reel like I was going to, fortunately that one isn't quite 1600ft. long so it fits )
Posted by Michael Clark (Member # 369) on May 21, 2005, 08:22 PM:
Jan, what a bummer!! I know how excited you were about these wonderouse 1600 ft reels! I'm glad you were able to get some use out of it though. And I really LOVE the 1200 ft reel you sent me. It doesn't wobble at all. Fits snug as a bug in a rug!
Also, I had bought from D'Arcy Moore his two special 800 ft reels that have the really small cores, so I could actually fit 900 feet of film on them. I have "Paradise Hawaiian Style" on 3 x 600ft reels, and was able to squeeze these three reels quite comfortably onto the 2 special 800 ft reels.
Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on May 21, 2005, 10:11 PM:
Funny you should mention that 900ft reel of yours, I have one too but made it myself - it started out as a Bonum 800ft. reel which I split into its two halves, broke the tabs off, filed the remains off and left the small hub in the middle as the new core of the reel. Quite a piece of work but I now have my 5x400' print of "Secret of Nimh" neatly mounted onto 1x600' and 1x900' reels, with no splices other than those joining the original 5 reels.
And I'm happy the 1200ft. reel works so well for you! (I sort of miss it, actually )
Posted by Lawrence Alan Fabbri (Member # 370) on May 22, 2005, 01:15 PM:
Has anybody seen someting like the EIKI 16MM Long Play Unit that was on ebay 7515203900 for Super 8. I wonder if it could be adapted for 8 mm.
Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on May 22, 2005, 03:56 PM:
I haven't... and the only guy I know of that has a long-play unit usable for super-8 is Chip Gelmini, and he built his "Tower" himself. I doubt he'll sell it.
I had a look at the auction you mentioned, and it seems that this Eiki unit has some kind of clamp on each spindle which must be to securely attach the reels and prevent wobbling (especially with those huge 26" suckers)... but if the clamps can be taken off then I see no reason why one can't use super-8 adapters for the 16mm spindles and then go for the big super-8 2400ft. reels normally meant for Beaulieu 708-EL projectors.
Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on November 12, 2005, 12:19 PM:
Elmo 'ST-1600HD', Mark II - The final version
Apologies for poor picture quality, this is due to insufficient lighting (for my webcam)... Pictures first, then I'll address some of the features, gotchas and anticipated 'buts'. ;)
Modifications performed
Only the reel arms were modified... the rest of the machine is intact (with one exception, to be addressed further below) and nothing else was done, other than adjusting the take-up clutch - not to make it stronger, but weaker (slightly). The take-up reel arm now features a 2:1 gear ratio which means more torque, yet less wear on the clutch and belt, and ultimatively the motor. :) Of course the spindle turns slower, too, but still plenty fast enough to run large take-up reels and provide the proper tension.
What I did was take a large cog wheel... cut a hole in its center so it would fit exactly around the black cog behind the spindle... and fix it with superglue and a small screw between two of the teeth. Then I relocated two of the "mid-arm" cogs to opposite edges of the arm, in order to accommodate the larger spindle cog wheel. Works perfectly...
But the point of it all is, of course, the supply reel arm... which has simply grown longer and received two additional cogs, ensuring the spindle still turns in the correct direction. Using a dremel tool and spare reel arms from a dead ST1200 unit, I cut them in half, then used an extra piece as "backing" to mount them back together. Unexpectedly I was able to use the holes in the extra piece to achieve perfect alignment between the two main halves (and their cog wheels), so all I had to do then was drill extra holes and use four sets of screws and nuts to firmly mount everything into place. Again, works perfectly. :)
OK, one of the screws is crooked, so I'll probably drill another hole along the edge and re-do that one. It does hold tightly, though... no worries about the arm snapping in half even with a full 1600ft. reel running off it.
In all likelyhood, I probably have enough room on both arms to run 2000ft. reels!!! :eek: But that's one line I won't cross because of weight/stability concerns - I'm mad, but I'm not crazy. :p
One thing about my particular projector - the shaft holding the take-up clutch wheel (which the belt drives) had broken off and I was left with its threaded end still stuck inside the screwhole. Eventually I had to drill it all out and mount a new shaft using a large screw to screw it in 'from behind' - that is, from the front of the projector through to the inside. This is why you see that screw next to the bottom end of the take-up arm (and a few holes from previous attempts at repair). This has NOTHING to do with the reel arms themselves and is NOT a necessary part of modification - it's simply an unrelated repair I had to do to my machine, and while it's not pretty, I couldn't do it any other way if I didn't want to be left with a broken for-parts unit. :( Point being, if this were an otherwise mint projector, the reel arms could be replaced with original, unmodified ones and everything would be back to the way it was when it left the Elmo factory. I do hope this puts any concerns about "butchering" the projector to rest. :)
Pluses
Extra take-up torque, yet less load on mechanisms! Massive reel capacity! Uninterrupted feature films! Coolness factor & bragging rights!
Minuses
Some degree of ugliness. Can no longer flip supply reel arm down for transport (the backing connecting the two arm pieces is in the way). Torque is very weak during reverse projection/high speed rewind with very large reels (no gear ratio). (However, this is intentional since I continue to run short films on 200ft/400ft/etc. reels and wouldn't want the projector to shred films to pieces by using too much torque on the supply reel arm whenever I need to run them backwards...) Eventually I'll be doing rewinds with, erm, rewinds anyway instead of using the projector...
Questions and comments, please!! :)
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on November 12, 2005, 01:23 PM:
Think i'll stick to the 1200's. I'm a bit old fashioned, i do believe when anything mechanicle is made the design engineers will have taken speed, weight and torques into consideration. Clearly the body of the 1200 is made for 1200ft spools, (and there aint none better than genuine elmo spools). Clearly there is always room for modifications but to modify the arms or body should be straight forward, however, nothing or little can be done to the "guts" to cope with the heat generated by the bulb on non-stop for that period of time or indeed the stress that must be caused within the take up mechanism when that reart take up spool gets past 1200ft of film. Does look good tho i'll say that.
Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on November 12, 2005, 02:02 PM:
Jan
That is a very inventive and impressive mod you've done there, and other than the inconvenience of not being able to fold away the arms and the look / possible safety issue of the open plan gears I can't really forsee any problems. Build up of lamp heat during long runs won't be an issue I can assure you as I have used purpose made long play units for years that hold reels up to 2,500ft and running my ST1200s GS1200 and lots of other machines with the LP unit for two hours plus has never caused any adverse effect either on the projectors or films. Whilst manufacturers do design with tolerances in mind the extra torque needed to turn 1600ft of film compared to 1200ft is minimal, but I would recommend always using seperate rewind arms when rewinding your films anyway to save wear and tear on any projector. Nice one!
Kevin
PS: How did the DIY 16mm lens mod go?
Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on November 12, 2005, 04:39 PM:
Tom, can't say that I blame you - I actually agree that some things just aren't meant to be messed with. But in this case, my motivation was three-fold: 1. You can already fit 1600ft reels on the take-up side without any modification. This is unique to the ST-1200... why, only Elmo knows. 2. I got tired of collecting 4x400ft features and having to be constrained to 2x800ft reels to mount them on. 3. The whole "So close, yet so far" thing was driving me into an obsession with doing something about it.
And the 2:1 transmission I built into the take-up arm was an idea I had while thinking about the supply arm... I'm rather proud of it. After thorough testing I find that weight, speed & torque issues are nonexistent. That said, modding isn't for everyone and I can more than understand that most collectors would be horrified at the prospect of doing something like this.
Anyway, thanks to both of you for the kind words Kevin, in regard to the 16mm lens mod... THANK YOU for sending me that article, it's absolutely great... the actual mod had to wait quite a while though as I've only recently gotten hold of a Will-Wetzlar Vario-Travenon 1:1,5/16,5-30 lens. This will be my next project
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on November 12, 2005, 05:07 PM:
well, if it works and as kevin says, he's had no probs then go with it, must admit ilike the idea of an uninterupted film.
Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on November 12, 2005, 06:21 PM:
Now watch me come into possession of a great scope/stereo super-8 movie that requires a minimum 2000ft. reel to run uninterrupted. I'm going to scream if that happens, and then I'm buying a Beaulieu 708-EL.
Here's one more picture, this time taken with the help of a 300W movie spotlight I just remembered I had. This shows the unit with the plastic reel arm covers back in place (after some cutting and filing) so now it doesn't look quite as hideous--
Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on November 12, 2005, 06:39 PM:
I still dont think I would go for this mod. Jan, ok I agree with you about being able to put the 1600ft supaspools on these machines but they have the same weight as std 1200ft spools. I bet those metal 1600ft spools weigh far more than the 1200ft Elmo spools. I think you will have to be very carefull that this doesnt knacker you ST's mechanics. You have to also bear in mind that the slipping clutches have now got to slip much more at the outer diameter of these spools
10 out of 10 for getting this to work but do now keep a very careful eye on internal wear.
Kev.
Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on November 12, 2005, 07:32 PM:
Concerns well taken, and I know there are risks and I accept them all. Will keep an eye on how things continue to perform over time... but here's the clever part about the 2:1 gear ratio: other than the take-up spindle, everything now turns at twice the speed including the friction assembly, so that actually means LESS slipping (wear) on the cork disc, instead of more (I know this is one thing you addressed previously).
But you're right, the Goldberg reels are heavy - even so I haven't had any problems with the spindles carrying them yet.
Just think of it as a little adventure I'm going through which you all get to witness, and if anything goes wrong, at least I have now shown why this shouldn't be done.
Posted by Chip Gelmini (Member # 44) on November 14, 2005, 09:54 AM:
Hi Jan
Nice work indeed doing the modification. I like the work you did.
But I must agree with Kevin and others who prefer that 1200 footers belong on these machines. As you know I have built my Towers for 2000 foot but I think I will stay with 1200 foot reels anyways. The Towers have a totally separate spooling system that have not been added to the machines. Infact, mine is opposite yours.
Where you have modified the machine, I have developed something that holds the machine, and the machine runs with the original arms down. This yields virtually no stress on the belts or drive system or clutch, other than pulling the film through (like auto load). That is, not attached to reels.
There are other reasons for staying with 1200 footers. With over 100 movies on these reels (that would be about 250 big reels in my collection of various makes) I'd rather spend money on features than adapting to a larger reel size at this point and time. And then there's the storage question, too.
But anyways, you did a good job with your project. We all respect you for that.
So, "Good Night & Good Luck."
Posted by Mark Norton (Member # 165) on November 15, 2005, 01:02 PM:
Hi Jan,
Very inventive and worthwhile mod. On the subject of rewind I once had a GS1200 that had had some sort of modifcation done to the rewind curcuit.Anything smaller than 800ft and the machine would lurch as it rapidly took up the slack (allthough this was not a problem),perfect with 1200 and 1600ft reels which rewound very fast & very tightly, (the take up reel mechanism seemed to be 'braked'). Hugely impressive to see those big reels spinning at such high speed. I do miss this capabilty, it's a bummer waiting for reels to rewind and it is something you do after every reel so if you were tempted to devise a faster rewind system for those long arms I would say go for it!
Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on November 15, 2005, 04:31 PM:
Jan you are to be congratulated for your tenacity
Personally, I quite like the reel changes though agree that a 1200ft or 800 ft is better than a 600ft.
Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on November 15, 2005, 07:16 PM:
Thanks for the nice comments everybody (and I mean everybody). Now if you saw the real extent of what you call tenacity, you might not be so quick to congratulate me... I am positively mad But jokes aside: faster rewind...hmm... I agree it looks VERY impressive to watch large reels do the "spin cycle" but I actually prefer that it not go too fast for fear of damaging the film in the process - maybe that's silly but I somehow always imagine that the film is somewhat put under stress from suddenly flying off the take-up reel, straight across and onto the supply reel, probably while being hit by the reel flanges - an especially worrisome scenario if a splice happens to be going by - well, I think I'm getting the idea across - fast is good, but when the reels start becoming a blur before your very eyes and you can see right through them, you know it's too fast.
Anyway, that's why I need to get those manual rewinds of mine working now, among other things.
As for reel changes, well - somehow I just can't get used to watching a movie and all of a sudden it blacks out and I'm jolted back into the reality of "gotta put the next reel on." I want to be able to see the whole thing in one go, and be amazed at the large image size and resolution and all that at the same time. That said, I know some of you (Chip especially, with his 35mm theater projector training of days gone by) like reel changes and running a show with switchovers... which I can definitely respect and appreciate as an art, but just don't see myself doing (mainly because I never have). We all have different backgrounds and different interests/appreciations when it comes to the experience of film, I guess.
Oh, man, I didn't mean to step on the soapbox there. Carry on everyone
Posted by Alan Gouger (Member # 31) on October 18, 2017, 05:29 PM:
Bringing this thread back to life. Jan congrats on your efforts and thinking outside the box. I like the change of gear ratio on the take up, good work.
Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2