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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » D-Cinema...post your pros and cons of the different equipment (Page 3)

This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  8  9  10

Author Topic: D-Cinema...post your pros and cons of the different equipment Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-29-2008 07:08 AM                     quote: Demetris Thoupis Cinemeccanica & Barco Press Release Yes Demitrus, I knew about that... it's the U.S. market they lost... Why? quote: Steve Guttag they BOUGHT the technology/background by buying Electrohome... Not quite true. Electrohome in it's days primarily manufactured LCD and CRT based projectors with the EPS and LVD series of projectors. The last series manufactured by Electrohome and just very briefly were the "Roadie" and "Vista" DLP series just before Christie took over. Christie went on to expand these series and sold thousands of them. Christie claims to be the very first manufacturer to sign up with T.I. for manufacture of D-Cinema DLP projectors and had the purchase of Electrohome in mind specifically for that product. There were many other smaller single chip and three chip Christie DLP projectors before there existed the D-Cinema versions. So you might also say that Christie has the most DLP design experience and the longest standing relationship with T.I. in regards to DLP projector manufacturing. Nothing but the building and some employees)er Brain Trust) exists of Electrohome as it originally was. quote: Chris Slycord Firstly, just because I like one part of some company's projector system doesn't mean I want to purchase their entire projector. I agree that is very true of filom equipment... but actually T.I. dictates what can be and what can't be bought, used, etc. more than you'd like to know... even the lenses, filters and such. The only pieces another manufacturer can add would be case,lamphouse, and rectifier and even this stuff has to be approved by T.I.!! Everything but the prism and formatter boards... which are built to very specific T.I. designs comes from T.I., Christie right now has the edge over everyone else because they patented their own ultra high performance optical coating... none of the other D-Cinema manufacturers have it. Mark  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 08-29-2008 09:55 AM                       Nicely diagrammed Mr. Guttag, but I'm no longer sure who we are trying to educate. Not to be forgotten, TI's license fee is pretty steep so that alone narrows down the field.  |  IP: Logged Ian Parfrey Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1049 From: Imbil Australia 26 deg 27' 42.66" S 152 deg 42' 23.40" E Registered: Feb 2009 posted 05-18-2009 04:20 PM                     To quote Mark's post re equipment rebadging. "But buying someone's light engine, software and or chassis and then re badging it seems pointless to me. Indeed, why not just go right to the source?" Then why don't we just call Christie xenon lamps by their "proper" name...Ushio?  |  IP: Logged Demetris Thoupis Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1240 From: Aradippou, Larnaca, Cyprus Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-19-2009 10:25 AM                     quote: Ian Parfrey Then why don't we just call Christie xenon lamps by their "proper" name...Ushio? No no no. Christie has always been the pioneering name in the movie industry. That is why! They were never bought by anyone. They just stayed unique all the way through the years.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-20-2009 08:35 PM                     Actually DLP of the UK under IMAX built the first prototype cinema machine  |  IP: Logged Jake Spell Master Film Handler Posts: 294 From: Johns Island SC Registered: May 2009 posted 07-03-2009 06:56 PM                     the only D-Cinema projectors I have used were the Christie CP-2000's installed as part of carmike's upgrade. PROS: Plenty of air flow, HEPA filters and liquid cooling of the DLP chips, easy to maintain, very reliable and good looking CONS: LOUD fans, have to manually adjust lens when changing from 2-D to 3-D. Another con was the truly TERRIBLE instillation that Christie did for Carmike. Knowing CArmike they rushed Cristie and didn't pay on time. But now that they have a tech that cares, the problems have been fixed.  |  IP: Logged Phil Blake Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 558 From: esperance western australia Registered: Nov 2003 posted 08-27-2009 06:08 AM                        We have just recently completed a digital DCI digital install in one of our 3 cinemas. We ran with the NEC 1600 and Qube and a few other devices. I have not experienced any other digital projectors at this stage, but i must say the NEC does put up a very good quality image indeed. I am very impressed with quality , the macro settings do take a while to change, one drawback. As we are running DTS and it only has one external input we rigged up a Pioneer preamp processor whit is switchable via serial connection. As we will be splitting inputs from the 1.3K cinex for preshow etc and the 2k Qube . The Cinex has been interfaced with the Panalogic so it now controls the automation. It was a big job setting all this up, but now one button on the panalogic and the show rolls with preshow from cinex the main show from qube using basic cues from the Qube to control the Cinex for lights up at credits and end show , reset defaults. The Old and the New side by side The working side of the unit incorporating the sound system and the servers . Biggest job was relocating the sound system into the new rack. Phil  |  IP: Logged Brendan Penny Expert Film Handler Posts: 121 From: Bundoora, Australia Registered: Dec 2008 posted 09-05-2009 09:36 PM                     quote: Phil Blake we rigged up a Pioneer preamp processor whit is switchable via serial connection We do people spend all this money and then cut corners on the little things. What's an extra 5k in the scheme of things to do it properly???  |  IP: Logged Bill Enos Film God Posts: 2081 From: Richmond, Virginia, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 12-04-2009 01:18 PM                     We had constant issues with water flow on our Barco DP100 until I removed the lamp assy and put a large container of the cooling juice in the lamp area and put the suction hose down to the bottom of the container and placed the discharge line just above the liquid level so that it could be seen and ran the pump for an hour. It took about 40 minutes for the last spurt of air to come out. After closing off everything and closing the valve, the system was pressurized, that was 3 months ago and the cooling system now works as it should. Previously we never ran the system long enough in the open mode to get all the air out, it takes much longer than Barco's instructions indicate.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-04-2009 06:52 PM                     Bill, I agree that Barco's pressurized cooling system is a joke and totally un-necessary. I never had issues with water flow, just seen a number of pressure gauges fail. You can still pressurize it properly with just a tire pressure gauge though!  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-04-2009 08:29 PM                     Barco is the only projector of the DLPs that can hang inverted too due to their cooling system. They have improved the ability to bleed the air out on subsequent units. However, the long burping process is still recommended. Steve  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-04-2009 10:52 PM                     Actually I believe a Christie M or ZX could also operate inverted if you were to also invert the coolant tank... no real reason it couldn't that I can forsee. Mark  |  IP: Logged Brendan Penny Expert Film Handler Posts: 121 From: Bundoora, Australia Registered: Dec 2008 posted 12-05-2009 12:40 AM                     I've heard mumblings that the M has some pretty serious design issues, heat being one of them. Anyone had any experience with these? I've only seen one in operation once and don't have any experience with them.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-05-2009 05:00 AM                     I asked Christie about that Mark and I got an emphatic NO! As for heat issues on the "M"...I haven't encountered that yet. I believe there were/are power supply issues operating it out to 2KW...they have an 1.8KW lamp for it now though. All of my "Ms" are running as low as they can go though so that hasn't been an issue. I have run into a strange lens problem with an "M". When zoomed out for "scope" it could not focus (not even close) and it was uniformly out of focus. Steve  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-05-2009 11:06 AM                     The biggest problem with the M is the boresight adjustment. It's literally impossible to get it re-set correctly if someone has thrown it way out of adjustment... even the main Christie Tech that teaches the training classes couldn't bring one demo unit back into proper flat focus. As bad as this critical aspect is I'd never sell one to anyone. The SB and ZX don't have this issue. The NEC 1600 is far better off in this aspect and many other aspects too!! Just not as compact. I'm not aware of any heat issues with the M but at high altitudes with thinner air and attempting to use just the internal blower system there probably would be... you'd certainly want an external draft kit on it when running one with the 2kw lamp AT ANY ALTITUDE!!! Steve, It could be that your lens is also not properly set up internally. All zooms have internal focus/zoom stops to keep a design within it's intended constraints. It is more likely on your M that the boresight adjustment is so far off but still set equally so it is flat focused when the lens does focus... but the rear element to DLP prism is off far enough that the extreme other end of the zoom range won't focus. This focus issue may well be the end of the zoom that creates the most magnification optically... not the end of the zoom the gives largest image on screen... this is the more critical end for any optical system. It could also be just the opposite all depends on the boresight distance to the prism. There is a central point that is normally established at the factory, probably using a test jig or some fixture and gauges. Television camera zooms and many other zooms for that matter have a built in back focus adjustment that is field accessable on the lens, usually very slightly moving the rear element group slightly fore or aft. This is because like in the M or any other DLP projector the CCDs in a camera or the DLP Chips in a projector are in a fixed plane. IMHO the lans makers went about this whole thing from the wrong end... they went for the adjustment at the projector instead of at the lens. Sure Christie claims you can offset the boresight slightly to compensate for some focus issues but from an optical standpoint it is not the proper thing to do. I asked Strong about a boresight adjustment for the 1600 and they were not aware that there is even one and were pretty sure there wasn't. Mark  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  8  9  10

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.