[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

No Subject



At 10:43 AM 3/24/95 PST, Rob Lingelbach wrote:
>
>--- Forwarded mail from "Bill Topazio" <bt at edny.univid.com>
>
>
> Reply to:     RE>PTR (and then some)
>From: Craig Nichols
>
>>...
> I spoke with Rod Wayne from San Lab about PTR rollers, and he 
> informs me that they have a helical wind to them.  This, he informs 
> me enables them to remove the dirt.  This also means, he says, that 
> the natural inclination of the film over the roller will be in the 
> direction of the helical wind. So, depending upon the orientation 
> of the roller, it will either push the film towards the deck plate, 
> or away. Ideally, he says, each roller pair should be installed so 
> that one roller is pushing towards the plate, and the other one 
> pushing outwards.  They should be reinstalled this way after 
> washing. 
>...>
>
>Am I mechaniclaly disinclined, or does this not make sense? If the
>rollers are helically wound, then wouldn't the way the film is
>pushed depend on the ROTATION (CW vs. CCW) of the roller and NOT
>the way it was mounted? Think about it...
>

Actually, I must be the one who is challenged mechanically. I swallowed
Rod's rhetoric hook line and sinker without thinking it through.  Duh where
did all those brain cells go? 
I do see, though, that it still explains why the film packs are often
stacked with these things in the path.  You go forward the film goes one
way, and then reverse and it goes the other (to and from the deck plate).
He gave me some larger flanges to put on the PTRs to stop outward movement,
but I'm still not convinced.  They may just give the film something to roll
up onto and scratch!

>We have been using the Drypurs for years, and my guys actually like
>'em better than PTR. They, too, need to be replaced often, but that
>last statement about PTRs seems to mitigate that expense. Also, 
>because the "leachable plasticizers" can be reformed overnight with
>pressure-wraps, the long-term geometry problem is a non-issue. We
>use the same rollers for 16 and 35, but if a lot of 16 is run, the
>middle of the roller becomes dirty, so we then would not use it for
>35. But, we also eek out more life for each roller by taking off 
>the goopy stuff and reversing it.
>
>Speaking of Rod Wayne..... MINK????? :)

>Bill Topazio
>
I  also like the Drypurs better, but I have always had to deal with the PTRs
after someone else has bought them.  I did NOT do a great job of showing my
tounge in my cheek when talking about making Rod rich by buying lots of his
rollers. Maybe sells volume of PTRs explains how he can afford the mink
coats he buys for mink rollers?  His film cleaning machine with a plethora
of his rollers seems somewhat Rube Goldbergesque, does't it? Did Rube
Goldberg ever break film?

Thanks for the the brainstem reset Bill.

Craig

Subj:	Re: suppressed passes: which device?
Date:	95-03-25 14:43:02 EST
From:	telecine at xyzoom.alegria.com
To:	telecine at xyzoom.alegria.com