Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: A new Digital cinema outsider

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » A new Digital cinema outsider (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: A new Digital cinema outsider

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-10-2006 12:32 PM

quote: Gordon McLeod
But there were many other companies marketing off brand working solutions
Now when will the Ballantyne model 6 Dcinema with a PD50 server be available

Gord,

Bwa ha ha... that was really funny but stop and think about it... any Ballantyne built D-C projector couldn't be WITHOUT....

Leaky water cooling seals to finish impregnating the booth floor with glop where the Pro 35 was removed

The only light engine completely encased in an all nylon coolant casing that would frequently crack

At least some lateral jiggle built into the image

Parts would have to be frequently NLA or at least the wrong parts should be received when parts are ordered

Mark

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 12-10-2006 06:43 PM

quote:
John (welcome back by the way!), what about 2x compression instead? That would allow use of existing 'Scope lenses and plates. I'm just thinking of many multiplexes where they have just two lens barells in their turrets. Introducing a second anamorphic (1.5x) in addition to the existing infrastructure could be problematic for them.

This idea would be the same as when running hardlocked 1.85 trailers printed in at the head of 'Scope features. It would work for screens with Common Height, but admittedly with Common Width you would end up with a 1.85 image within the smaller 2.39 area. But this is in fact correct!

It sure would help increase light efficiency a bit. Typically "flat" 1.85:1 is about 20 percent less efficient than "scope" for light --- this proposal makes them equivalent for light. Yes this idea is very feasible today, and used for 1.85:1 aspect ratio on "scope" trailers.

| IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 12-10-2006 07:11 PM

Brian: good idea. I am not willing to accept the idea that CW is acceptable. Louis

| IP: Logged

Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 12-10-2006 07:47 PM

I'm willing to bet that most of the these big "purchase" deals are actually leasing deals. If I'm right, it wouldn't be that big of a deal to change technology when better technology arrives.

If I were a chain, it's the only way I'd go.

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 12-10-2006 10:59 PM

quote:
John Pytlak: It sure would help increase light efficiency a bit. Typically "flat" 1.85:1 is about 20 percent less efficient than "scope" for light --- this proposal makes them equivalent for light. Yes this idea is very feasible today, and used for 1.85:1 aspect ratio on "scope" trailers.

Yes, we have discussed this before. John's comment rings true when you watch one of those 1.85 trailers on a Scope print - a good image on the screen.

It would be sensible to have a single lens set up for all new features and trailers - then we could slip another lens into our turret (perhaps an Academy Format lens or a 1.66 lens).

John, we all Pray that the new year will bring you excellent health.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.