RETURN

Amidst all the discussion of the possibilities for electronic cinema, some definition of terms might be helpful. David Stall, president of Cinema Film Systems, gives the short description of his firm's new product, the Dreamcatcher, as "an electronic projector that uses film" - which is a just assessment, but may sound a little disingenuous. Electronic cinema, after all, replaces the film print with a digitally coded disk or videotape, or possibly a satellite transmission; several means of projection have been proposed, but whatever equipment is chosen will be categorically different from what we have today. Nonetheless, Stall's label is not wrong: The projector is controlled by an electronic system, which makes for several advantages over current models. The Dreamcatcher also does fit into the trend toward adapting electronic cinema, but would be a boon even if the new technology never got off the ground.

Stall is taking the conservative bet, that the new format will become predominant five to ten years from now. "Clearly, digital cinema will arrive, much like color television arrived," he says. "The question is, how long will it take for that to occur, what do you do in the interim, and what supports are there for conventional film stocks?" As the approximately 30,000 in-use projectors die off one by one from normal wear and tear, some, undoubtedly, will be replaced by new digital systems. Their advantage, to exhibitors, will be catching the apparent wave of the future and introducing a presumably improved image, and, to distributors, eliminating costly print production. But their disadvantage will be a steep cost, perhaps $150,000 per screen, which is approximately ten times the expense of a new conventional projector. Even factoring that the initial price tags will not reflect later figures, when manufacturers are able to produce and sell in bulk, the at-stride number, Stall estimates, will still be about $70,000.

The alternative to such a heavy investment, unless and until, perhaps, costs are driven down significantly further, will be the Dreamcatcher, which, at $15,750 list, is close to the price for the average theatre film projector. Why should theatre owners turn their attention to CFS's machine? According to Stall, because of a multitude of advantages. "We see this as an opportunity to bridge between conventional technologies and the digital cinema systems, that will extend the life of existing auditorium equipment and the use of film, because we can produce an improved image on the screen using existing film stock and technology, at a cost that's equivalent to what is already being used in the field." He adds, "I would submit that we drastically change how the projector operates. I don't see this as an incremental improvement over the projectors that currently exist. It's really a quantum leap, because of the precision control and ease of repair." If electronic cinema will be attracting audiences with a better picture which it must do, ultimately, to capture the imagination of the public-the Dreamcatcher will be competing right along with it, offering the same value and more.

Stall and his team have designed something close to a radical re-invention of the standard projector. Instead of fitting the projector with a single motor that propels all gears and belts. CFS utilizes six small, stepper motors. It sounds like more moving parts but it's actually fewer, because the company’s design removes virtually all gears and belts, The individual motors directly run the moving components in the projector, and a computer monitors and brings into synchronization the performance of each motor. Essentially, all the work is done electronically, instead of mechanically. "We have no gears whatsoever," Stall proudly proclaims. "The sprocket wheel on the feed, for example, is actually attached to the shaft; it's on the stepper motor. So, there are no intermediate parts at all. The stepper motor is the sprocket feed."

One advantage gained is far greater control. "One of the limitations of [today's] projectors is the timing between moving the film and stopping it in the intermittent, and opening and closing the shutter, If you open it too late and close it too early, you get less light through the film onto the screen. If you open it too early or close it too late, the film is either still moving before it stops, or it starts moving before the shutter is closed. Then you get travel ghost. In a mechanical projector, you're pretty well stuck with that, because only a certain tolerance is possible. Gears wear, and you get lashes in them; belts scratch, and you get stretch in belts." Stall surmises that, in this system, a compromise of quality is inevitable, particularly noticeable in the streaks emanating from white titles on a black background. This projector is able to correct ghosting, permanently. "We open and close the shutter using computer technology to control it with the intermittent, so that we get no travel ghost whatsoever And because there's no mechanical element involved, it won't wear over time and fall out of synch."

Additionally, the motors do not run in lock-step fashion, a unique feature that helps protect film from damage. "In any other projector, all the components are tied together," Stall notes. "You can't move one sprocket without the others moving, the intermittent moving, and the shutter moving. Ours doesn't work that way. The computer holds tension on everything. You can put the film through, but if you decide you've got the film in the wrong location, instead of taking it off the sprocket, and moving it and putting it back on, you just twist a knob and move it to where you want it. If you discover you've got the loops set wrong, there are push buttons you can use to adjust them while it's moving. We do this while maintaining 24 frames per second through the gate. You can speed up or slow down the film before or after the intermittent, and it will never be perceived on the screen." A demonstration proved this claim to be correct: No change in the image was discernible while the loops were being adjusted.

CFS has thought through the logical consequences, and potential benefits to theatres, of their model very impressively. Considering that it has not one motor but six separate ones, and practically no other moving parts, the company figured that these pieces alone are the ones that have some likelihood of failing, and thus decided to make the motors replaceable modules. The savings to exhibition sites, especially ones not located near a major city, should be considerable, Stall reasons. "Were already in an age where people are buying Swatches because they're disposable. You're not going to spend 50 dollars to have somebody fix your wristwatch; you throw it away, and buy another one. We have a projector that is so modular, instead of having somebody repair the nitty-gritty of what's wrong with it, you pull the component out that has the fault, and you replace it in its entirety with another one. You send back [the defective part], and get a rebate credit on it." Stall points out that repair costs skyrocket when a technician, especially if servicing a mountain or rural community from out of state, has to board a plane and make an emergency visit. The Dreamcatcher's modules are simple to install and remove; the computer diagnoses which part is in trouble, and displays the information on an LCD. A cashier or usher could be trained to do this job. Having a spare set of modules for, say, a 14-plex, assures Stall, will be cost-effective.

CFS offers a two-year warranty on this projector. The motors, adapted from models used for industrial applications, are rated for 24-hour-per-day, continuous duty. The Dreamcatcher is programmable for frame rates and stocks of different perforations. It is hard to find fault with the product: It is simpler, less expensive over the long run, delivers a better picture and, if Stall is right, also more durable than extant projectors. It is as though our century's beloved film projector, perhaps headed for retirement, is being given the superb exit it deserves.

RETURN