my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Comments and Info on Robert Film Service Lamphouse / Reflector Upgrades (Page 2)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

Author Topic: Comments and Info on Robert Film Service Lamphouse / Reflector Upgrades Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-01-2003 09:55 PM                     Hmm special lamp means higher operating costs There are several asian companies that make custom dichroic glass reflectors but most the coatings I have found to be very poor  |  IP: Logged Robert E. Allen Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1078 From: Checotah, Oklahoma Registered: Jul 2002 posted 08-01-2003 10:16 PM                     I talked to Robert last week. He's alive and well and still in business and is in the process of getting his website going. I don't know about the upgrades but he's given me good advise and has parts available for the projector he sold me.  |  IP: Logged Mark A. MacLellan Film Handler Posts: 23 From: Montreal, Quebec Registered: Jul 2003 posted 08-02-2003 08:42 AM                    Haha, more myths. Technalight uses one of 4 or 5 approved lamps but the only one that is specially designed (not off-the-shelf) is the 4200W and it is typically only used in very large screen applications to replace a 7000W lamp. Thus, the 4200W is less expensive to purchase, lasts longer and consumes less electricity (therefore it does not increase operating costs). As for the reflector, I have never seen a coating more reflective or evenly applied than the Technalight reflector. I can tell you it's clearly superior to anything from Kinoton or Meopta that I have seen. And Larry, everyone I have ever talked to is skeptical at first but refer to Greg Pauley's comments on his systems. At any rate, it's hard to argue with 20fL on a 80'+ wide screen!  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-02-2003 10:05 AM                     Call me a sceptic but there are some limiting factors to the amount of light a reflector can gather One of the limiting issues is the anode shadow . It is the basis of determining the overall diameter of the reflector vs the rear hole diameter and the first focal point The coating is very consistent from all the manufactueres I have delt with the issue is the long term durability The basic reflector is ellipsoidal in design with some designs having a parabolic section at the rear There have been attempts at a secondary reflector in horizontal designs but again the large anode shadow has been the limitation of there usefullness The smaller electrode size is the main reason that many of the ecapsulated lamps such as cermax have such good output Also the other limiting factor is the coupling effect of the the speed of the reflector and that of the lens and also the working distance vs the apperture size the lumen output of a lamp is fixed item at a specified current and at one theatre I witnessed a method the discussed company took to get more ligt out of a kniesly constellation conversion they went from the 3000H running at 100ampres to a 3000HS lamp and overdrove it to 130 ampres which for the short lifespan the lamp had did produce far more light the analogy you can't get something for nothing It would be interesting to see a picture of the inside of one of these conversions and verified data of the output by an unbiased outside test Until then sceptical I will remain  |  IP: Logged Larry Shaw Expert Film Handler Posts: 238 From: Boston, MA, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 08-04-2003 12:03 PM                        Not to criticize Greg Pauley (who did not purport to be providing precise data), but his comments indicate nothing even close to the 500% figure. The statement "...4000 wt to a 3000 wt with an extremely brilliant white light(no greys) with readings in 20's on a 46 ft old matte screen if ran at max amperage." is so vague as to be meaningless (E.G.: What were the pre-modification fL and color temp readings with a brand new bulb and reflector? What were they post-mod? What bulbs and currents were used before and after the modification? Were there any other changes in the system such as lenses, IR filter, port glass, etc?). Does anyone know what this modification costs? I agree with Gordon that until a fair, unbiased test is presented, I don't buy it. I also would like to see photos...I distrust these "secret" things. Brad reminds me of the "$19.95 miracle device increased my gas mileage to 200 miles per gallon!!!!" ads in the back of Popular Science, or more recently the "increase the size of your T-()-()-L by at least 10 inches without painful weights or shots" spams. Wouldn't it be great if they were true!  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 08-04-2003 12:35 PM                        Certainly no one will disagree that more light can usually be obtained by proper alignment and treating the lamphouse/projector/lens as an optical SYSTEM, rather than unrelated parts. It's also possible that a xenon lamp with a more compact plasma might allow the design of more efficient collection optics. Both of these seem to be part of the Technalight system. You may dispute the actual numbers, but IMHO, it does seem to be more than just "smoke and mirrors". "Great minds think alike": The same Kodak Enhanced Theatrical Exhibition (ETE) program that produced the "Quickermittent" design also developed a lamphouse design that improved light efficiency and uniformity: "Design Improvements for Motion Picture Film Projectors", November 2001 SMPTE Journal, Volume 110, pages 785-791.  |  IP: Logged Mark A. MacLellan Film Handler Posts: 23 From: Montreal, Quebec Registered: Jul 2003 posted 08-04-2003 01:55 PM                    John Pytlak, my hero! I think his comments on the Technalight system have captured the essence of what it is...a "system". Otherwise, it would just be called a reflector (actually there are six depending on the lamphouse involved) or a lamp (of which there are 5 with a sixth in testing). Installation of Technalight encompasses not just changing the lamp, reflector, heat filter as necessary and the reflector mounting hardware. It means that the entire optical path is aligned from lamp to lens using very specific alignment tools and proceedures. I am a Technalight certified installer and I can tell you that I had never aligned a lamphouse/lamp that way before. This is also the reason the entire system has a "Patent Pending" and not just a specific lamp or reflector. And as for Gord's and Larry's comments...well, the world is full of critics! Larry, I read the website again and I believe it indicates that light can be increased by as much as 500%. This is true in some situations and in others the increase will be 50%, 200%, whatever. I would submit the following to you: If you are an independent cinema operator with a burnt reflector and crappy light on screen then I don't think that a 500% increase in light would be "meaningless", although I understand your point about a "fair comparison" and it is well made. With respect to Gord's information on the design of a reflector, it is a little more involved than perhaps he mentions but he has captured the essence of it and all of this and more was taken into account when designing the Technalight reflectors. That's why there are "approved" lamps...they work with the reflector in a particular way. And before anyone asks, although Gord implied it, the Technalight reflector and indeed the entire system DOES hold up over time, primarily due to the drastic reduction in heat. Now, I feel compelled to point out something else. Skeptical I can understand....so was I. But keep in mind that the "skeptics" within this forum cannot dispute two solid facts(A) they have no personal, first-hand experience with the system and (B) the likes of Regal, AMC, Pacific Theatres, Cinemagic, Movieco, Consolidated, Loews, etc. have signed on with many purchasing multiple systems and others still in the evaluation/tasting phase. In fact, Regal has a Technalight modified 35mm projector in EVERY Imax projection room nationwide and John Durliat, Quality Assurance Director for Regal, wrote and said that "The Technalight system has helped Regal Entertainment Group attain brightness levels on our large format screens once thought impossible to achieve. The system combines tried and true engineering with state of the art technology." At Universal Studios in Orlando they said, "We recently installed Technalight in several of our projection systems and we are very pleased with the results. The brightness and clarity is amazing, not to mention it pays for itself in savings." There are six Technalight systems at the Terminator 3D attraction. OK enough! I think the sales and results say it all. John, didn't you see a Technalight demonstration in Buffalo?  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 08-04-2003 02:04 PM                        Yes, I visited the Regal IMAX Theatre in Buffalo NY during their installation for their 35mm projector late last year, so I saw the basics of the installation. Unfortunately, I did not have a light meter of my own to verify the before-and-after measurements, but "results may vary" with the particular equipment anyway.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-04-2003 03:04 PM                     I did a patent database search and couldn't find the patent pending on technalight what is the number John the use of the combining lens in the kodak system is not emtirely new Years ago I installed Phillips first horizontal xenon system that was novel to say the least The lamp was mounted horizontaly in the box with 4 condensor lens mounted around it focusing the light outwards to 4 flat mirrors that were focused onto a cloverleaf negative combining lens When lined up it produced probably the flatest field of light I ever saw but keeping it that way was a problem and in those early days of horizontal lamps the failure mode was usually dramatic and with the 4 condensors 4 cold flat reflectors and the cloverleaf reduced to dust was too expensive  |  IP: Logged Greg Pauley Expert Film Handler Posts: 173 From: Huntington, WV, USA Registered: Jun 2000 posted 08-04-2003 03:04 PM                        Thanks Larry for not criticizing me, I get enough of that when I go home . I don’t want to get into a dog and pony show for technalight, but I commented about the system because I had purchase 3 technalight kits. I know several others on the forum have seen the system installed from scratch and may have their own opinion including John’s post above. I know all the information listed in your post about pre and post conditions as well as some you didn’t mention, including testing the reflector against a new one after about a year in service. I monitored the readings for almost a year before I purchased two other kits to fit some Super 80's. I think several of the majors did the same thing, select a site for a test and monitor the outcome for a period of time before ordering additional kits. I think the cost is a little different depending on the type of lamphouse you are converting, but you could call NCS for a price. I won’t list the price that I paid because I got a special deal for being willing to take a chance on a new idea and don’t want to cause problems with others wanting him to match that price. Although, the last time I talk to Robert he told me the prices had dropped some, so I might have paid more . I don’t think it’s unusual for a small company with a new idea or product to try and keep the lid covered on startup to keep it from being copied. If you noticed Brad doesn’t list the ingredients or instruction on how he produces film guard, but offers a money back guarantee if you’re not satisfied. The companies that are buying the kits obviously get to see the results of the conversion and have the option of purchasing or not. I’m sure as more of these kits are sold and on the market there will be more technical information available. Also, my kits did not involve any modification to the lens or port glass.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 08-04-2003 03:09 PM                        The published Kodak SMPTE Paper cites three previously published lamphouse design references and patents. The Kodak (Andrew Kurtz) patent is U.S. Patent No. 5,754,278, issued May 19, 1998.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 08-04-2003 03:13 PM                        quote: "Design Improvements for Motion Picture Film Projectors", November 2001 SMPTE Journal, Volume 110, pages 785-791. Is that paper available in digital form somewhere? (Probably not, or you would have linked to it in the first place, but asking hurts nobody.)  |  IP: Logged Mark A. MacLellan Film Handler Posts: 23 From: Montreal, Quebec Registered: Jul 2003 posted 08-04-2003 03:22 PM                    Technalight Patent & Trademark Info.... Provisional Patent Application 037A.0001.P1 (U.S.) Canadian trademark application serial number 1136223 United States Trademark Office application serial number 76/397814  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 08-04-2003 03:23 PM                        If you are an SMPTE member, it should be available in the on-line password-protected SMPTE library.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-04-2003 03:24 PM                     Zeiss Ikon in the fifties equipped the ernamann 8b and 9 with a small negative lens directly behind the apperture plate that was matched to the projection lens to increase the flatness of field I can't rememeber its name let alonw pronounce it but it started with a B The current Meopta machines still use this technology to improve flatness of field  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.