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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Barco DP2K-32B is 7FL all to be expected... (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Barco DP2K-32B is 7FL all to be expected... Marco Giustini Film God Posts: 2713 From: Reading, UK Registered: Nov 2007 posted 06-09-2013 03:51 AM                     quote: Dave Handley Steve, you make changing those operational control files sound easy as 1-2-3. I am unsure our installer would be equipped to handle this or anyone under the Strong banner for that matter Sorry but if you don't know how to change the gamma in a D-Cinema projector you're doing the wrong job! It IS easy as 1-2-3 if you know what you're doing. 1. Connect to the ICP 2. Go to the relevant menu 3. Change the gamma value  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-09-2013 11:31 AM                     I think you are confusing an A/V projector that you can just "fiddle" with until "it looks good". That isn't how DCinema systems work (or should) work. They are more precise and one should not just adjust it until "they" think it looks good. It is a catch-22...if you don't see this as easy as 1-2-3 then you don't have the training to really do the work. Your posts, thus far, show someone who cares about the quality of their show but "shoots from the hip" when it comes to alignment. Something that I don't condone. The reason you have a particular light output level is predictable and explainable...it is a matter of having the proper information provided (screen size, gain). Set up can absolutely factor into the final light output too and there are many ways installers deal with particular problems. BTW...if you want to raise your light by 23% for scope...buy an Anamorphic lens...Sure, it is $10K or so for the set up but the increase in light is undeniable and most every Drive-In should have one.  |  IP: Logged Dave Handley Film Handler Posts: 6 From: Hamilton, Ohio, USA Registered: Feb 2003 posted 06-09-2013 07:46 PM                     Come on folks, save some of that sanctimonious spouting for some other forum. Remember you are part of an industry that has so recently seen fit to endorsing some of the most ruinous pummeling of any reasonable quality standard in cinema projection since the industry began:(3 FL scope 3D). Anything goes..so give me an f'in break, please. Thank you!  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-09-2013 08:42 PM                     quote: Dave Handley Thanks for any feedback/suggestions. Dave Well Dave, you did say "any". You didn't say "please pity me and agree my drive-in image is now shit with no hope of it ever improving".  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 06-09-2013 09:05 PM                     Any feedback? Ok here's some. Dave, any chance you used to be a projectionist at this site and they now no longer need you? The reason I ask that is because I've never seen a drive-in's picture get worse after converting to digital, and I've been to a few with some really high end 35mm systems. It just doesn't happen. Digital at a drive-in is brighter and looks better all around than 35mm is capable of. Regardless of this fact, your posts seem to indicate you're not too happy with the change. The fact of the matter the way I see it is that either you are exaggerating the truth on the image quality (that whole "digital sucks" thing), or your equipment dealer under-spec'd your projector, or your installer is an amateur and you should get a real tech in there. Which is it? Enquiring minds want to know! By the way, here are a few NON-photoshopped pictures of a drive-in I installed last month, and they've got a LOT of ambient light both front and behind the screen.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 06-09-2013 09:07 PM                     If you didn't want "sanctimonious spouting," why'd you come to Film-Tech? Don't you know we actually do believe in doing things the right way? (Maybe not, with only 4 posts.) What sort of advice did you expect to receive? More to the point: What did you want to be told? I'm curious. And I'll concur with Brad -- I've seen a few converted drive-in's and they're all WAAAY better with digital.  |  IP: Logged Dave Handley Film Handler Posts: 6 From: Hamilton, Ohio, USA Registered: Feb 2003 posted 06-10-2013 03:24 AM                     Nope, I am not the disgruntled projectionist who just got the boot when digital went in. The two guys who have owned this drive-in now for about 5 or 6 years (former Disney exec's) were interested (naturally) in getting and maintaining really first class film presentation, which I delivered. The place is just a few minutes from my home and has been something of a pet project/labor of love for many years, along with my projection/sound servicing of just a handful of screens around SW. OH, Eastern Indiana and N. KY. The digital image is stunning of course but in this case we all feel it is simply not enough better. It is indeed noticeably dimmer. As the 7FL new level will slide to around 3.5 to 4FL near 4-500 hrs. Average performance then it would seem, be a bit beyond dismal. Contrary to dealer/installer opinion, and based on what I am hearing here (a pretty damned good source of practical and engineering points of view), I believe this can all be improved upon. Thats it, believe it or not. Thanks.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-10-2013 06:37 AM                     While the 4.5 +/- 1 fL for 3D does indeed suck (you've never seen me endorse 3D or excusing 3D from meeting the standards, the DCPs for 3D are TIMED for 4.5fL so that the blacks are not lost so it ISN'T "anything goes" It acknowledges the shortcomings and provides, in a controlled way, a suitable solution, for now. Everyone that I know in the industry WANTS 3D to also be at the 14fL standard...hence the laser light sources to allow larger screens AND 3D to attain the same standard as 2D. The big winner on lasers for 3D would be Dolby, believe it or not. They would shoot from 10% (on a good day) efficient to 50% efficient! Filtering light aways takes away...much better to start with what you need. I don't think the Drive-In situation has been adequately evaluated though. 14fL on a Drive In screen, by and large, can look ugly due to the screen construction. Coming up with a suitable Drive-In PCF would probably mitigate much of working with less reflected light.  |  IP: Logged Dave Handley Film Handler Posts: 6 From: Hamilton, Ohio, USA Registered: Feb 2003 posted 06-11-2013 09:07 AM                     First off I would like to correct some information I put out here about this install. The throw is 230', 80' wide screen. So scope throw ratio is 2.87 and flat is 3.59. The installer has installed the 2.8-5.5 lens which is actually useable BUT forces maximum magnification for scope. I'm not an optics expert, but I have always noticed a steep downturn in light output at extremes of zoom useage, especially magnification (yes I compensated for projected image size). With a 2.15-3.6 lens available I suspect that would have been the correct choice and not the 2.8-5.5. Brad scores once more I think on this! The other correction is although the advance spec sheet stated a 6.5KW bulb, the machine was delivered with the standard 6.0 KW Ushio and a PHILLIPS 6KW spare (which needs to go right back to where it came from) The port glass is probably non-coated lead free however I havent had the chance to check it(strong product). The entire port frame needs to be removed, turned upside down and re-installed for the reflection issue I previously mentioned (this is a drive-in, not an indoor cinema). I do know that if normal eighth inch plate glass has been used we get another 1.5 to 2 fl of light loss. I would very much like to see Steves recommendations on PCF changes related to Gamma reduction put into play here, but I am not sure this project is currently in the right hands to get it done and this equipment is of course theirs for at least a year. Any suggestions? His recommendations on going with anamorphic setup I actually early on suggested to the owners, but due to Barco removing that option from their catalog, I assumed it was no more. I since have come to question the validity of it at all for two reasons. We dont have the option of prime lensing (only light sucking zoom PLUS the anamorphic) and we no longer have an image carrier with significantly more useable vertical space than its native aspect of 1.78 (gotta double check this). But even if we had that 23% gain (which WAS the kind of gain with 35mm and its 2X factoring), getting in this case that 7fl. up to 8.6 fl. falls short of a high enough goal to justify that ten to fifteen grand. So if ever there was a moot point... Thanks for the feedback! Brad, those pics look like MAGIC has happened on a drive-in screen. Of course some of us know the first pinciple of magic: lie like a rug (lol). Seriously, good job--it looks breath takingly incredible.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-11-2013 11:38 AM                     The imager has a ratio of 1.896:1 so your throw ratios are wrong. Using your supplied data the Flat throw ratio would be 3.62 and the Scope would be 2.88 so the lens chosen is the correct one. Generally speaking, a zoom lens will be "brightest" with the lens zoomed for the largest picture (towards the short-end of its range). If the gain of your screen is indeed 1.0, then on a new 6.5KW lamp, you could expect 9fL on scope. With an Anamorphic, basically 12fL. It is the difference between being in DCI compliance and not. As for adding an anamorphic, it is true that Barco has turned their back on it...but the lenses are still there (Schneider/Isco) and Moving Image Technologies makes a mount/mover for it. Using the GPIO port on the projector, you could trigger the lens to move in at the correct time. But moving back to reality a bit. Anyone that specifies a system based on the NEW lamp is a bit deceitful (though that is how it is done). If the gain is really 1.0, then about 6.5 is about as much as one can sustain (sans anamorphic). However, I hear with a fresh coat of paint like the SW A-100, the gain is closer to 1.4 or 1.5 (I have not measured to verify). If so, then that changes things a bit. With 1.4 gain and getting the port glass right, it would bump up to about 9.7fL and again, with an anamorphic, we are up to just shy of 12fL. More importantly, with an anamorphic, the light needed between scope and flat move much closer making the lamp's life a bit better. As for gamma and such being in the right hands...whos hands do you want it in?  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

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.