ETE SMPTE Official Paper

Motion picture film projectors havebeen successfully used in theaters

for decades to project high-qualityimages with broad audience satisfac-tion. Indeed, relative to qualitativeparameters such as image resolution,color reproduction, contrast range, andthe elusive “film look,” motion picturefilm has provided image quality gener-ally unmatched by electronic projectionsystems. On the other hand, the filmexperience has been degraded by amultitude of factors, including the filmrelease print process, image unsteadi-ness, film buckle or flutter, poor illumi-nation, dye fade and wear, and physicalartifacts such as scratches and dirt.Aside from the development and popu-larization of very large screen film for-mats (such as 70 mm) and the associat-ed projection equipment, the industryhas made very few design changes tofilm projectors that actually improvethe on-screen image quality.

The state-of-the-art motion picturefilm projector1 has changed very littlesince the 1950s when robust color filmsand xenon arc lamps were introduced.Granted, projected image quality hasbeen significantly enhanced over theyears by progressive improvements inthe design and manufacture of the pro-jection lenses. However, many of thebasic mechanisms within film projec-

tors, including the intermit-tent film drive, shutter, andillumination system or lamphouse, are relativelyunchanged since the 1930s.Thus, there continue to beopportunities to makedesign improvements to theclassic optomechanicalmotion picture film projec-tor, which could, in turn,improve the projectedimage quality.

It is well known that a significantpercentage of commercial theaters failto meet SMPTE 196M specificationsfor open-gate 35mm film projection at16 (±2) fL luminance at screen center,with a nominal 20% fall-off to the cor-ners. Indeed, only 6 to 10-fL luminanceat screen center, with 30 to 50% fall-offto the corners, is common. Althoughmuch of this performance differencecan be attributed directly to cost cuttingby the exhibitors, deficiencies in pro-jector design, relative to light efficiency(and ease of use), also contribute to theslippage.

Design improvements related to lightdelivery in a film projector can providedirect benefits to the screen illumina-tion2 and indirect benefits related toalignment and robustness, ease of use,and image quality. As the light efficien-cy in a traditional motion picture filmprojector is largely determined by theoperation of the intermittent film driveand the design of the lamp house,design changes in these areas offer thegreatest potential for economicalimprovements in quality.

The Geneva MechanismGeneva mechanisms, which consist

of a continuously rotating driver and an

SMPTE Journal, November 2001 • wwwwww..ssmmppttee..oorrgg 778855

Design Improvements for Motion Picture Film Projectors

By C. L. DuMont, A. F. Kurtz, B. D. Silverstein, and D. H. Kirkpatrick

This paper describes improvements developed for motion pic-ture film projectors, in particular, new designs for the intermit-tent, or Geneva mechanism, and for a Universal lamp house.These new designs are intended to improve the quality of theoverall screen image as well as light efficiency and uniformity,resulting in significant increases in screen luminance.

A contribution received on April 26, 2001.Christopher DuMont, Andrew Kurtz, BarrySilverstein, and David Kirkpatrick are with EastmanKodak Co., Rochester, NY 14650. Copyright © 2001by SMPTE.

TECHNICAL PAPER

Figure 1. Standard Geneva mechanism and motion through index.

C. L. DuMont

B. D. Silverstein D. H. Kirkpatrick

A. F. Kurtz

intermittently rotating star wheel, arewidely used in motion picture film pro-jectors to advance the film through afilm gate having a projection aperture(Fig. 1). The film is moved, frame byframe, by the mechanism until animage frame is in alignment with theaperture. It is then held stationary for adiscrete period during which light ispassed through the aperture, filmframe, projection lens, and onto ascreen. The star wheel shares its centralshaft with a sprocket, the teeth of whichengage perforations in the film. Whenthe driver moves the star wheel, boththe star wheel and the film experience aresulting intermittent motion.

Motion picture film is typically pro-jected at a rate of 24 frames/sec, so anew film frame is positioned in the pro-jection aperture every 1/24 sec, or ~42ms. The standard Geneva mechanismmoves a film frame into the projectionaperture with an indexing time of ~1/4of the frame period, or ~10.5 ms. Asshown in Fig. 2(a), the star acceleratesslowly at first, increases rapidly to apeak acceleration, then suddenly

reverses to peak deceleration, afterwhich acceleration gradually tapers off.As a result, the star, sprocket, and filmmove slowly with minimal displace-ment for the first ~15o of driver rota-tion, and thus only gradually reachpeak velocity before slowing down dur-ing the deceleration phase.

The timing relationships of the starmovement and shutter operation areshown in Figs. 2(b) and 2(c). Duringessentially all of this indexing time, theshutter blocks the light incident to thefilm and prevents the appearance of“travel ghost.” The projectable frametime, which would appear to be 3/4 ofthe total frame period, is furtherreduced to only 1/2 of the total, as thetypical projector employs a two-bladedshutter to provide two blanking periodsper frame, thus boosting the apparentframe rate to 48 frames/sec, therebyreducing the flicker perceived by thehuman eye. Furthermore, it is necessaryfor these two shutter intervals to benominally equal in duration in order tolimit perceived flicker. Therefore,because one blanking period must be

1/4 of the frame timein order to blank theprojected image asthe film moves, theother blanking periodmust be of essentiallythe same duration.

The star wheel isthe key element inenabling the Genevamechanism to con-vert uniform rotarymotion to incremen-tal rotary motion.Traditionally, thewheel has four equal-ly spaced straightslots radially extend-ing around theperiphery of the star.Interposed betweenthese slots are con-cave cam guide sur-faces, which, like theslots, are uniformlydimensioned andarranged. A driver,

comprising a restraining cam, a drivearm, and a drive pin near the far end ofthe arm, is employed for indexing thestar wheel. The restraining cam has aconvex side cam surface, configured toengage the concave cam guide surfacesof the star wheel.

The close contact of the convex camsurface to the concave cam guide sur-faces restrains the star wheel fromexperiencing rotary motion except dur-ing the periods in which it is driven bythe drive pin. The star wheel is thusrestrained intermittently, and in such amanner that the straight slots receivethe drive pin sequentially. Thus, in theconventional projector intermittent,each 360o revolution of the driver pro-duces 90o of rotation of the star wheeland attached sprocket. Correspond-ingly, a standard two-bladed shutterutilizes a pair of opposing blades, eachproviding beam blockage over 90o ofits own rotation.

If the indexing time of the Genevamechanism could be reduced, the shut-ter blanking periods could, in turn, beshortened, thereby increasing availablescreen light visible within a frame. Putsimply, the indexing time might bereduced by using a star wheel with onlythree straight slots, in which case,engagement of the star wheel with thedriver pin occurs over only 60o of the360o revolution of the driver, provid-ing an indexing time of ~7 ms perframe to move a film frame into theprojecting aperture.

While a 3-slot star wheel would thusdecrease the indexing time (and therebyincrease the available projection time),the acceleration forces applied to thedrive pin, slots, and load (the film andfilm perforations) are greatly increasedover those of a 4-slot Geneva, makingthe 3-slot mechanism undesirable foruse in a projector. While the drive pincan be shaped3 to modify the accelera-tion profile and reduce the forces on thedrive pin, a 3-slot Geneva mechanismwould still be prone to failure in amotion picture projector application.

A variety of alternate designs for theenhanced intermittent film drive mech-anisms have been considered.4 The

778866 SMPTE Journal, November 2001 • wwwwww..ssmmppttee..oorrgg

DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS FOR MOTION PICTURE FILM PROJECTORS

Figure 2. Timing diagram for a standard Geneva mechanism.

most successful was the “Powers”movement5 where the star wheelemploys four round pins, whichengage with a cam that has a single,large diamond-shaped cam driver.While this intermittent drive reducesthe indexing time to ~1/5 of a rotationof the cam by supplying prolongedperiods of uniform controlled peakacceleration to the star, a high slidingvelocity may introduce unsteadinessand gradual pin wear. These effectslikely prevented the widespread adop-tion of this mechanism.

A New Geneva MechanismA new Geneva mechanism for use in

motion picture film projection has beendeveloped6 and demonstrated. The starwheel of the new design employs slotswith curved surface profiles, instead ofstraight slots used in the traditionalmechanism. It has been demonstratedthat with the appropriate shaping of theslot walls, the velocity profile encoun-tered by the star wheel can be modifiedto reduce the indexing time, whilemaintaining control over the accelera-tion and load forces experienced by thefilm and the drive mechanism itself.

As shown in Fig. 3, the slot walls ofthe star wheel have a concave portionadjacent to the mouth of the slot, fol-lowed by a slight convex portion in themiddle of the slot and a straight portioninnermost in the slot. The details of thedesign of the slot shape can be adjustedto control the slope of the ascent topeak acceleration, the transition intomid-index (the zero acceleration point),and the acceleration profiles betweenthese two extremes. At operating

speeds, the drive pinenters a slot and ridesalong the concave,convex, and straightportions of the firstwall, then exits theslot by riding alongthe surfaces of theopposing wall inreverse order.

Unlike the conven-tional Geneva mecha-nism, the drive pindoes not snugly fit the

star wheel slots, except in the straightinnermost portion. As a result, the newmechanism can experience some chat-ter at very low speeds, as the drive pinseparates from the wall. However, atnormal operating speeds, with the iner-tial torque many times greater than thedrag torque on the film, the drive pinremains in contact with the appropriatewall of the slot and the mechanismfunctions without los-ing control of the dri-ven load.

To illustrate thedesign concept morefully, the timing dia-gram in Fig. 4 showsthe relationship of theacceleration andvelocity of the starwheel to the pin loadand the shutter opera-tion during the firsthalf of a frame time.Basically, the curvedslots are shaped toproduce a prolongedperiod of high accel-eration prior to mid-index and a similarprolonged period ofdeceleration aftermid-index, after whichthe deceleration israpidly reduced tozero.

Comparison of thetiming diagram forthe standard Genevamechanism (Fig. 2)and the improved one

(Fig. 4), shows that the acceleration andvelocity motion profiles are shorter andmore abrupt at the beginning and endof the index. While in the conventionalGeneva the drive pin is engaged withthe slot over 90o of rotation, the drivepin of the new mechanism enters theshaped slot later and leaves earlier,effectively engaging over a lesserangle. As the star wheel undergoes asmooth and continuous motion throughmid-index, the pin load (Fig. 4d)remains under control, thus minimizingboth the applied forces and the wearexperienced by both the mechanismand the load (the film). As the designconcept specifies deliberate shaping ofthe slot walls, which have a relativelylarge surface area, wear on the mecha-nism is minimized compared to alter-nate approaches involving shaped orhigh load drive pins.

Within limits, the new Genevamechanism, or Quickermittent, is



Figure 3. The new Geneva mechanism.

Figure 4. Timing diagram for the new Geneva mechanism.

amenable to a wide range of potentialdesigns utilizing different slot profilesto provide different peak accelerations,pin loads, and indexing times. A varietyof prototypes have been modeled andtested, including a device that has near-ly identical indexing time as that of theconventional mechanism, but hasreduced peak acceleration and peak pinloads (50% and 55%, respectively), forreduced forces and wear on the mecha-nism and on the film. Alternately, anincreased peak acceleration and peakpin load can be traded off for reducedindexing times, which is, of course, theintended goal.

One such design utilized shaped slotsthat provided a dramatically reducedindexing time (64% or 6.7 ms) withincreased peak acceleration and pinload (142% and 106%, respectively)compared to the conventional Geneva.Thus, this version of the Quickermittentcompletes its indexing over only 56o ofrotation of the driving cam, comparedto 90o for the standard mechanism, andprovides 36% more screen light duringa frame time. A third, less aggresivedesign, which has also been evaluated,provided reduced indexing times (73%or 7.7 ms or 66o rotation) and 27%more screen light, with peak accelera-tion and peak pin loads comparable tothe conventional Geneva (100.6% and91%, respectively). As shown in thetiming diagram of Fig. 4(d), each of theshutter blades will be closed for lesstime than in the conventional projector,and the perceived screen luminancewill be proportionally increased duringeach frame. Of course, the actual lightgain achieved on-screen will bereduced somewhat relative to thedesign and tuning of the shutter to min-imize travel ghost, which is the visualperception of the moving film.

Thus far, Quickermittent Genevamechanisms have been successfullyprototyped and tested in Christie,Simplex, and Century projectors, usinghardware appropriately adapted foreach system. Figure 5 illustrates theQuickermittent star wheel, with itscurved slots, along with the standardstar wheel and cam. Designed to work

with the same cam driver, the new starwheel is actually slightly smaller thanthe standard one. In general, this newintermittent can be retrofit into an exist-ing projector, using the modified starwheel and a conventional or slightlymodified cam driver, and with little orno change to the reminder of the pro-jection head. Gate tension may beslightly higher in the modified pro-jecter, in order to provide sufficientfilm drag to maintain control over thefilm and prevent film or mechanismdamage. Preliminary tests have indicat-ed that the new mechanism tends to besomewhat noisier than the conventionalmechanism, but the increased noise lev-els are likely acceptable and can beminimized with proper adjustment anddesign.

The Projector Lamp House The successful development of a

lamp house useful for motion picturefilm projection appears to have beenone of the first optical design problemsof the industrial age. Many of the clas-sical illumination optical designs, fromthe Köhler system,7 to the fly’s eye illu-minator,8 and the elliptical reflectorwere either conceived, or enhanced, toproject film images. Generally, the con-ventional lamp house used in motionpicture film projectors consists of ashort-arc xenon lamp set within a deep-dish elliptical mirror. Compared tonumerous alternatives, many of which

involve combinations of reflectors andlens elements, the basic lamp house,with its single circularly symmetricalelliptical reflector, is notable for itssimplicity and low cost. However, asthe typical lamp house overfills the rec-tangular film aperture with a largeround beam of light, this system isquite inefficient. Moreover, alignmentof these lamp houses, whether of thexenon arc to the first focus of theellipse, or of the reflector and lamp tothe projection aperture and lens, hasproven sufficiently difficult and timeconsuming that the effort overwhelmsmany theaters. Although, over theyears, various opportunities have beenavailable for improvement in lamphouse design, many of the efforts todate were directed to small adjustmentsin the design of the elliptical reflectorsand coatings, or to debates overwhether to utilize horizontally or verti-cally installed xenon arc lamps.

The Universal Lamp HouseA new lamp house has been

designed and prototyped, with theobjective of improving the light effi-ciency and uniformity of the lightdelivery to the screen, as well as therobustness and ease of alignment. Inparticular, it was designed utilizing afly’s eye optical illumination systemworking in combination with modernxenon arc lamp modules.

The fly’s eye optical system, which



Figure 5. The standard star wheel (l), the driving cam (c), and the new star wheel (r).

uses lenslet arrays to reshape andhomogenize the light beam, was origi-nally developed by Zeiss Ikon8 in the1940s. This design approach, whichwas later adapted to work in combina-tion with the short-arc xenon lamp,9

was considered difficult to use becauseof alignment issues with respect to its“waffle” lens. In all likelihood, thewidespread adoption of a fly’s eyedesign in cinematic projection was lim-ited by the cost and difficulty of manu-facturing the required lenslet arrays.However, in recent decades, lighthomogenizing illumination systemsemploying either a fly’s eye design orkaleidoscope optics have been exten-sively developed for the photolithogra-phy industry. More recently, suchdesigns have been successfully appliedin the design of electronic projectionsystems, using xenon, metal halide, andother arc sources. When such systemsare properly designed and implement-ed, the optical alignment is actually lesssensitive to misalignment compared tothe equipment used in conventionalsystems.

As shown in Fig. 6, the new lamphouse employs a series of condensinglens elements and two lenslet arrays ina classical fly’s eye optical systembetween the lamp and the film gate.The first condensing lens after the lampis used to fill the first lenslet array witha specular beam. This array, construct-ed of spherical lenses with rectangularapertures, breaks the beam into a seriesof beamlets that are coupled to the cor-responding lenslets of the second array.

The second array, working in combi-nation with a relay lens, images thelenslets of the first array onto the filmgate in overlapping fashion, thus pro-viding a rectangular area of uniformillumination. A field lens located nearthe film gate is used to image the sec-ond array into the entrance pupil of theprojection lens. Compared to fly’s eyedesigns in the past, this system benefitsfrom modern manufacturing methodsfor producing lenslet arrays and alsoutilizes modern light sources.

The prototype Universal lamp hous-es are designed to accept either Cermax

EX-1500-F and EX-2400-F short-arcxenon lamps, and MVDR 1.5-kW, 1.9-kW, and 3.0-kW illumination modules.Cermax lamps are integrated lamppackages in which the electrodes, raregases, and arc are contained in an inte-grated package with datum features.Since these lamps operate with smallerarc gaps compared to bulb lamps of thesame wattage, the arc plasma is smallerand the light source is effectivelybrighter (reduced etendue). By compar-ison, the MVDR modules combineconventional short-arc xenon bulblamps with compound reflectors, tosynthesize a brighter effective sourceby capturing some light with the sec-ondary reflector. This light is then recy-cled back through the bulb and primaryreflector. These modular lamp sourcesare relatively rugged and provide exter-nal datum features for easy repeatableinstallation. Within these modules, con-ventional bulb xenon arc lamps are pre-aligned to the compound reflectorsprior to installation in a projector.

Significantly brighter illumination,compared to the conventional system,is provided by combining brightnessenhanced xenon sources with a fly’seye system, which channels lightthrough a rectangular aperture. Forexample, a prototype lamp house, con-structed as described, demonstrated a~35% light gain and 16 fL centerscreen luminance through a scope aper-ture when projected on a 30-ft screenwith a 114-ft throw while using a 1500-W lamp.

The lamp house system seen in Fig.

6 also provides several secondaryadvantages. In addition to the addedlight efficiency, the screen illuminationhas improved uniformity, with typicallyonly a 10 to 15% gradual roll-off fromcenter to corners. In practice, the effi-ciency and uniformity improvementsdelivered to the screen luminance bythe universal lamp house are dependenton the choice of projection lens usedwith a given system.

The process of light homogenizationalso has the secondary advantage ofdesensitizing the illumination to flickerfrom arc and gas turbulence within thelamp. Furthermore, the fly’s eye type ofdesign desensitizes the illumination tohorizontal or vertical misalignment ofthe lamps, as shifts of ~1.0 mm willcause minimal change in the illumina-tion uniformity. These tolerances easilyfall within the repeatability of align-ment provided by the datum features ofeither the Cermax or the modular lampsources, thus providing simple, safe,and repeatable lamp placement.Additionally, the prototype system usesan infrared filter, providing superior IRrejection and a natural color tempera-ture of 5500oK. Finally, the illumina-tion system can be optionally config-ured10 to suppress the visibility ofscratches and dust on the film with theaddition of a holographic or engineereddiffuser located in the gate upbeam ofthe film.

A mechanically integrated version ofthe lamp house with improved optics isshown in Figs. 7 and 8. The optome-chanics have been designed to provide



Figure 6. Optical layout with the Universal lamp house.

easy accurate alignment of the lens ele-ments within the projector and easyintegration and alignment of the lamphouses with the project heads. The ther-mal design within the Universal lamphouse is engineered to both minimizeheat transfer among components andmodules and to quickly remove heatfrom the various assemblies.

Theater ApplicationThe Quickermittent and Universal

lamp house have been tested in combi-nation and provided over 20 fL centerscreen luminance on a CinemaScopeaperture 30-ft screen with a 1500-Wlamp, which is ~70% more light thanprovided by a projector operating witha standard intermittent and lamp houseequipped with a 2-kW lamp. Projectionwith the “flat” or 1.85 projection aper-tures shows a less dramatic ~40% lightgain, as light is lost from clipping bythe aperture plate.

Unlike many proposals for improv-ing screen luminance by altering the

basic 35mmfilm format,these light gainscan be achievedwith minimallyd i s r u p t i v eupgrades toexisting projec-tion equipment.The light effi-ciency gainsprovided by thenew intermit-tent and lamphouse designscould simply beused to providea better screeni m a g e .Alternately, thisefficiency canbe used to lightan existingscreen with alower powerlamp than usedtoday. This

combination hasthe additional

benefit of reducing the thermal loadthrough the film, thereby reducing filmbuckle and the resulting shifts throughfocus, and thus improving the imagequality. Likewise, the light efficiencygain can also be traded away for areduction in scratch and dust visibilityin the projected image.10

Although both the Quickermittentand the Universal lamp house havebeen successfully demonstrated andtested, these designs would benefitfrom field testing and optimizationprior to widespread adoption by theindustry. Both designs lend themselvesto being retrofit into existing equipmentor current projector designs, with mini-mal changes required to the equipment.While Cermax lamps are simply morecostly, the additional expense intro-duced by the modular lamp sources isdue mainly to the cost of the modulesthemselves. However, these modulescan be re-lamped (usually by the manu-facturer or a specialty vendor) and thenre-used by the theater. With the modu-

lar lamp sources, one lamp module canbe exchanged for another within min-utes, without the need to re-align andrefocus the bulb within the projector.

Admittedly, the Universal lamphouse could be redesigned to acceptlight from a conventional bulb lampand lamp house, however, the advan-tages relative to performance, size, andease of use would be lessened. The ulti-mate question relative to adoption ofthe new lamp house, with its modernxenon lamp sources, could be whetherthe advantages relative to efficiency,ease of use and alignment, and perfor-mance outweigh the additional lampcosts for the cash-strapped exhibitionindustry.

Other OpportunitiesThere are other significant opportu-

nities to improve the projected imagequality provided by motion picture filmprojectors. Compared to other effectsthat degrade the projected image quali-ty, such as scratches, dirt, and filmjump and weave, film buckle is theleast obvious, but perhaps most signifi-cant contributor to quality loss.Borberg11 describes both the basic phe-nomenon of film buckle, as well as onesolution involving modulated air blaststo mitigate the effect.

While much of the light incident onthe film is transmitted through it, andsubsequently imaged to the screen bythe projection lens, a portion of thislight is absorbed, either by the dyes inthe case of color film, or by the silvergrains in the case of black-and-whitefilm. The absorbed light heats thefilm, which being an elastic material,deforms out of plane. This thermallyinduced deformation can shift theimage outside of the designed depth-of-focus of the projection lens, there-by degrading the on-screen image res-olution.

The standard two-bladed shutter,which is typically located between thelamp source and the film gate, causesthe film to be pulse illuminated twiceper frame. The film buckles during thefirst illumination period, relaxes someduring the intervening dark period, and



Figure 7. Mechanical design of the Universal lamp house.

Figure 8. Universal lamp house assembled.

then buckles (or deforms) further dur-ing the second illumination period.Film buckle can potentially be reducedthrough either passive or active means,by incorporating the appropriate designchanges to the projector. However,these design changes, which need fur-ther development, are more invasive tothe design of the projector head thaneither the Quickermittent or theUniversal lamp house. If, however,such changes were adopted and the filmbuckle accordingly reduced, the pro-jected image quality would be percep-tually improved through the presentprojection lenses provided by ISCO orSchneider, or through any new andimproved projection lenses whichcould be developed.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to thank

Eastman Kodak Co. and the Enhancingthe Theatrical Experience (ETE) pro-ject team for supporting these and otherdevelopment efforts directed towardsimproving motion picture film projec-tion. Additionally, Darryl Jones pro-vided invaluable assistance and advicein working with motion picture filmprojection equipment, while FranklinEhrne provided considerable mechani-cal engineering and design support.Consideration is also due GaryNothhard, for his continuing support intesting and characterizing the new lamphouse. Finally, thanks to GlennBerggren for providing many usefulinsights relative to the performance lev-els and developmental history of theprojection equipment used in themotion picture industry.

References1. Motion-Picture Projection and Theatre

Presentation Manual, Chap. 6, SMPTE:New York, NY, 1969.

2. J. Kelly and G. Berggren, “ScreenIllumination of 35-mm Film Projection,”SMPTE J., 92:1310-1313, Dec. 1983.

3. A. F. Victor, “Mechanical Movement,” U.S.Patent no. 1,198,683, Sept. 1916.

4. A. Hayek, “Design Factors in 35mmIntermittent Mechanisms,” J. SMPTE,49:405-414, Nov. 1947.

5. N. Power, “Intermittent Driving Mechanismfor Motion Picture Machines,” U.S. Patentno. 1,129,121, Feb. 23, 1915.

6. D. H. Kirkpatrick and A. F. Kurtz, “Geneva

Mechanism and Motion Picture ProjectorUsing Same,” U.S. Patent no. 6,183,087,Feb. 6, 2001.

7. A. Köhler, “Lighting System forCinematographs,” U.S. Patent no. 1,143,287,June 15, 1915.

8. K. Räntsch, “Illumination System,Particularly for Projection Systems,” U.S.Patent no. 2,326,970, Aug. 17, 1943.

9. H. Ulffers, “Xenon High-Pressure Lamps inMotion Picture Theaters,” J. SMPTE,67:389-391, June 1958.

10. A. F. Kurtz, “Image Transfer IlluminationSystem and Method,” U.S. Patent no.5,754,278, May 19, 1998.

11. W. Borberg, “Modulating Air Blast forReducing Film Buckle,” J. SMPTE, 59:94-100, Aug. 1952.



Christopher L. DuMont is a seniortechnical associate in theEntertainment Imaging business unitof Eastman Kodak Co. He has a B.S.from RIT in Imaging Science, and aM.S. in analytical chemistry, alsofrom RIT. He has worked in motionpicture systems studies for the last 12years, and in the military doingremote sensing, prior to working atKodak. He has worked on develop-ing new negative, intermediate,hybrid and digital products for use inthe motion picture industry.Dumont’s most recent projects weredeveloping the Kodak PreViewSystem and novel technologies foruse in the exhibition industry.

Dumont has been the author andpresenter of papers at numerousSMPTE conferences. He holds sixU.S. patents in the imaging sciencefield for Kodak.

Andrew F. Kurtz is a seniorresearch scientist at Eastman KodakCo., where he has worked on thedevelopment of optical technologiesand prototype systems for film scan-ning, laser printing, and image pro-jection. His work related to thedevelopment of optical systems gen-erally, and illumination systems andoptical devices in particular, hasresulted in 18 issued U.S. patents. Heis a recipient of a 1998 Prime TimeEmmy Award from the Academy ofTelevision Arts & Sciences forOutstanding Achievement inEngineering Development for hiswork on the Spirit Datacine telecinesystem.

Kurtz received both B.S. and M.S.degrees in optics from the Universityof Rochester. He is a member of theSPIE, SMPTE, and SID.

Barry D. Silverstein is a seniorresearch scientist, EngineeringPhysics Laboratory, Eastman KodakCo. He received a B.S. in optics fromthe University of Rochester in 1984.His career with Eastman Kodak hasbeen in the design and developmentof optical read/write disk storage sys-tems, space optics, laser printing sys-tems, and image projection systems.He has specialized in the design ofoptical systems and in the packagingof micro-optical components andopto-electronic devices.

Silverstein has received two U.S.patents related to optical systemsdesign.

David H. Kirkpatrick is a seniordevelopment engineer at EastmanKodak Co. His responsibilities in theCommercial and GovernmentSystems group include developmentand processing of equipment forlarge ground-based and orbiting mir-ror systems, including the ChandraX-Ray Observatory launched byNASA in July 1999. Before joiningKodak, he was involved in machinetool design and development work atGleason Works. He has contributedto three issued U.S. patents, general-ly related to gear and drive mecha-nisms.

Kirkpatrick received a BSMEdegree from Lehigh University in1972.

THE AUTHORS

Documents

ETE SMPTE Official Paper