New (large) 9,5mm reel - 900m / 3000 ft in production

[Edwin van Eck]

On request of one of the members of this forum, I have created new large reels for 9,5 mm film.


Van Eck – reel 9,5 mm – 900m – 3000ft – 42 cm diameter
– diameter reel: 42 cm
– for 900 meter / 3000 ft film
https://van-eck.net/en/product/van_e...2_cm_diameter/

For current assortment of 9,5 mm reels, see: https://van-eck.net/product-categori...lters=filmtype[3487]


Other reel / part requests, please let me know!

[Dominique De Bast]

Ordered yesterday and just arrived.

Isn't that impressive ? We can now benefit from the maximum capacity of the Buckingham. I'm so thankfull to Edwin for all the wonders he does.

[Terry Sills]

Nice Dom - my Buckingham is the exact same model. Would be nice to have a full feature on one reel.

[John Burgess]

9.5 has certainly come a long way since the Pathe Baby! Stunning looking combination Dom and you can now watch features without reel changes, doesn't get any better.
John

[Lee Mannering]

Looks impressive Dom I've got my Pathe Vox fitted with a HID lamp, cooling etc so perhaps I should do the reel arms next ee

[Dominique De Bast]

Large spool just tested. Like for the New super 8 large spool, I wanted to be sure there would be a take up spool stop in the middle of the film but that didn't happen at all. However, I must point out that I tried to put the spool on my second Buckingham and there is one or two milimeter space missing. That's not a problem for me but I share the information in case someone who owns another Buckingham model wishes to try : it's important to measure accurately before ordering. The film was Capitain Kidd and it did fit the spool.

[Terry Sills]

Dom
I assume you mean that the take up spool was too big to fit on the Buckingham? and I think you are saying that because you were able to splice the two reels of the feature together on one reel, you are able to watch the complete film uninterrupted, which is a big advantage.

[Dominique De Bast]

[QUOTE=Terry Sills;n46969]
I assume you mean that the take up spool was too big to fit on the Buckingham?./QUOTE]

The take up spool is perfect for the Buckingham shown on the picture but one or two milimeters for my other Buckingham I'm in the Eurostar, right now, so I will post a picture of the other projector, next week.
It is fantastic to have a feature on one large spool. It was already possible for French releases, as they are often on three 250 m/800 ft spools and Julio from Spain used to manufacture 800m spools but not 900 m ones.

[Maurice Leakey]

42cm seems too excessive a diameter.
I have the 9.5mm sound "The Eagle's Brood" on an aluminium spool which has a diameter of 37.8 cm (14 7/8"). It is the same diameter as a 2000 ft 16mm spool.
It has no maker's name on it.

[Dominique De Bast]

Maurice, the Eagles Brood is a six reeler, Captain Kidd is a nine one.

[Maurice Leakey]

Dominique
The 42cm diameter spool may be ideal for a long film, but will it fit all projectors? It seems that you have had problems. 16mm sound projectors were only designed to take 2000ft spools; and later, with the same O/D, but with a reduced centre, to take 2200ft.

[Dominique De Bast]

[QUOTE=Maurice Leakey;n47081]The 42cm diameter spool may be ideal for a long film, but will it fit all projectors? It seems that you have had problems.QUOTE]
No, it doesn't fit all projectors. That spool is perfect for one of my both Buckingham but will not work on my other 9.5 projectors. Since the Buckingham were made from different models, I presume a similar model would react as mine. It happens that I have two not working motorized 9.5 Spondon take up arms. I didn't take the time so far to see if I can do something with them. If they could work, they would be ideal to complete my other Buckingham (I have only the take up arms but the large spool fits the "feeding arm", which is something I noticed on several projectors : the take up capacity is lower than the "feeding", I have always wondered the reason).

As I mentionned before, I have a 9.5 1200 m spool but have no Idea on which machine it worked. All I know is that there was originally a French film on it.

[Brian Fretwell]

A suggest I heard at Blackpool was that there would be extra strain on the take up mechanism due to the weight of the larger take up spool when nearly full. That still doesn't explain why the feel spool wouldn't be smaller too though.

[Dominique De Bast]

A suggest I heard at Blackpool was that there would be extra strain on the take up mechanism due to the weight of the larger take up spool when nearly full.

The good news is that the Edwin spools are light, so I believe there should not be problems regarding extra strain. I used a take up 900m super 8 spool on my Spondon LPU and it didn't stop, unlike a heavy Fumeo spool did.

[Brian Fretwell]

I think he meant the weight of the extra film on the reel not the spool itself. The last cm of a large one can hold quite a lot of film and the strain would also be on the clutch due to the even lower rotational speed.