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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » laser phosphor projector vs xenon (Page 4)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Author Topic: laser phosphor projector vs xenon Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 10-23-2017 10:52 PM                        Yes, the Christie site is an advert rather than a study, the object of the exercise being to promote their new RGB laser projector. They appear to have made the strategic decision that they are not going to "go there" with laser phosphor at all, and simply offer traditional xenon arc projectors, plus RGB laser. That's all fair enough, but I do think that the facts and figures about xenon projectors presented in the Christie site are a little, shall we say, spun. The most glaring one is their "Fact 2", comparing total ownership and running costs of a xenon arc projector with a laser phosphor one, using the example of 20K lumens for for 30K hours. What it doesn't mention is that some sites will need to have a service tech change bulbs (extra costs), and the further towards the upper end of the light output range you get with xenon, the cost of the bulbs and the frequency with which you need to change them increases. Oh, and a reflector is very unlikely to last for 30,000 hours: you'll probably need to replace at least one during that time. Once you add up all those costs that the article doesn't mention, it starts to become clear why laser phosphor projectors are selling. Christie is making a strategic bet that the cost of RGB laser will come down quickly enough that sinking R & D resources into laser phosphor makes no sense, especially as Barco and NEC have already brought a range to market. By the same token, as soon as a battery pack that can drive an electric car for 300-400 miles becomes available for a sane price, hybrids will be dead in the water, because there will be no need or reason for the half-and-half compromise technology.  |  IP: Logged Marco Giustini Film God Posts: 2713 From: Reading, UK Registered: Nov 2007 posted 10-24-2017 07:22 AM                     Fact 4: Xenon lamps only drop to about 97% of their initial brightness at the end of their life!  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-24-2017 12:21 PM                     quote: Fact 4: Xenon lamps only drop to about 97% of their initial brightness at the end of their life! LOL! I've never had any xenon lamp be 97% of it's initial brightness at the end of life, especially 6kw's. More like low 80 to mid 80% range and that can still put you in the acceptable +/- range. If you spec the projector properly and are able to start them fairly low, with enough increase range left till end of life, then possibly. But that's not what I have seen. And Xenon Mercury is even worse at holding brightness and both Sony and the little NEC are known for falling off a lot at only 50% lamp life. Mark  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 10-24-2017 09:54 PM                     Leo, I've run the numbers 9-ways to Sunday. Until you get into the big lamps (4,500 and up), Laser Phosphor NEVER makes more financial sense (even with the cost of changing lamps). And I mean it never even comes close. Most laser-phosphor systems are under-specced by using a similarly sized laser system to xenon. The laser will fall significantly below acceptable levels before it dies and will condemn that screen to crappy light until the exhibitor ponies up for a new laser module and then gets to bat that TCO even further out of the park. The only people buying the LP projectors are those that are buying the hype without really running the numbers. For the record, I've changed exactly ZERO reflectors on our DLP systems thus far and we have some that have been in a LONG time. Now, once you get into the big lamps, the tables change a bit. Xenon gets progressively more expensive (the lamps cost more, they last less time and generate a LOT more heat to deal with). The problem is, most of our big lamp candidates are places like Drive-Ins where the extra $10K for LP would never be made up due to the short operating seasons. In the mid-Atlantic area, it is about one lamp a year. in the New England area, closer to 1 lamp every 2 years. The other area where I would have liked to have gone the LP route was for Dolby 3D. Rather than two lamp houses with different lamps but LP and Dolby 3D are not compatible. It is a shame because Laser can be ramped up and down without the stress it will do to Xenon. Changing lamphouses (or lamps in non-Barco) is another step that has to be factored into a day that might have a mix of 2D and 3D.  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 10-25-2017 01:50 AM                     I think the major problem with LP is indeed the period when the laser array runs out of its lifetime. At least with xenon, the exhibitor knows what the running costs are and he can factor it into their operational expenses. Once the laser engine on an LP runs out of steam, which we still don't have any reliable figures of, how many exhibitors are going to pony up the cash to replace those expensive light sources? Also, when you bought a whole set of those projectors around the same time, chances are they'll fail you around the same time.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 10-25-2017 05:24 AM                     And then, after some 10.000 or 20.000 or 30.000 hrs - who guarantees a replacement light source is available at all? These are not 'off the shelf' devices like xenon bulbs. - Carsteh  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 10-25-2017 11:05 PM                        Steve, I'm sure that you're right about the math, but all I can say is that I am seeing these machines sell in significant numbers. A similar syndrome applies to the current generation of hybrid and electric compact cars: the people who buy these have fallen for the hype and not done the math, too. A Prius costs $12-15k more out of the door than an equivalent gas-engined car, and a typical owner will never recoup that in reduced operating costs during its service life. The overall cost of ownership will be significantly more in almost all cases, but people still buy the things. Interestingly, some auto makers have not attempted to launch a hybrid or short-range pure electric to compete in this market sector (and Honda even pulled out, terminating the Insight after the 2014 model year, and never progressing beyond experiments with an all-electric Fit). I suspect that they've decided to wait until they have the technology to offer something that really does reduce the overall cost of ownership over a given number of miles/years, to a figure significantly below that of a traditional, ICE-powered vehicle. When that happens, their potential market will expand beyond customers who want to buy a status symbol. That market is now saturated and highly competitive. I guess that Christie has launched this major propaganda offensive against laser phosphor because it believes that it now has achieved that equivalent point, and can offer a pure RGB laser projector with a total cost of ownership to rival or even undercut that of a xenon-lit machine. I'm further guessing that their new RGB machine has an ownership cycle cost that is close to, but still significantly north of, a similar power laser phosphor machine from their competitors, hence their desire to publicize the shortcomings of laser phosphor. As others have pointed out, another issue is that we simply don't know if the service life claims being made for both RGB laser and laser phosphor are anywhere near accurate, because these things haven't been in revenue-earning service in the field long enough for any to wear out. The same applies to reliability and maintenance costs. So anybody buying one is making a leap of faith, hence Christie emphasizing xenon arc illumination as the tried and tested devil you know, and thus suited to the risk-averse customer.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 10-26-2017 06:58 AM                     The hybrid-electric car isn't a similar comparison. As you've noted, it isn't necessarily a cheaper choice. However, some want to just pollute less and accept it being a costlier way of living. Without jumping off the rails into a political discussion, most things that reduce environmental impact are costlier. In the Xenon/LP discussion, we are not even bringing environmental impact into the discussion. It is strictly the business decision on what is the more profitable way to operate. I recently did a quote for a guy looking to build a sizable complex and he is VERY sharp on working a spreadsheet for all factors of this business. I asked about RGB/LP/Xenon and his VERY fast answer was xenon. He had already run the numbers. I think Christie's CP4325-RGB could be the game changer in laser projectors for as long as projectors have a place in cinema (I still think direct-view screens are the end-game, once they allow sound through the screen and preferably flexible so they can be shaped and repairable, while affordable...white a few stipulations but I think in time they will get there).  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 10-26-2017 07:25 AM                     Leo - Christie DOES offer a laser phosphor machine - the CP2208-LP. Admittedly, probably only because all competitors offer BLP now. I guess many operators buying BLP do it for two main reasons: - they believe the reliability claim or negotiate service contracts to back up - they see a marketing benefit, being able to advertize 'laser projection' for a fraction of the cost of 3P or 6P. I think that is the main reason, why BLP is sold in the quantities we see. Weird as it is, what may not make sense technically or by numbers for the exhibitor, may make sense economically for the manufacturers. These machines are also sold as being 'maintenance free'. They are no longer considered the heart of a cinema, but just another commodity item like your coolers, HAVAC, etc. See how many press releases we see about 'all laser multiplex'. It is hard to believe how much thrust the 50 year old buzzword 'laser' can have in all sorts of markets... it still works far better than FullHD, 4k, HFR, HDR, etc... - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 10-26-2017 07:37 AM                     Laser is a household name and not in use in most houses. You can't advertise 4K because the house is ahead of cinema on that one. As for maintenance free. Last I checked, they STILL have filters to keep up with (the biggest maintenance for the end user aside from changing the lamp periodically) so they are hardly maintenance free. Just maintenance reduced. Another "benefit" to the LP machine is the ability to vent into its environment (no roof top blowers to install, maintain).  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 10-26-2017 12:47 PM                     A laser projector should also be a bit more energy efficient, this should be true for both the RGB lasers and phosphor lasers. Another advantage might be the fact that a laser projector technically does not require a mechanical dowser, it can kill the lasers in an instant and fire it up again miliseconds later without doing much harm to the laser engine itself. It can do the same with its total power output, which might be somewhat beneficial when switching between 2D/3D, compared to ramping up a xenon bulb, which will inevitably cost you some extra lifetime. I hope, that over time, the laser diodes in those laser light sources become individually replaceable. Although they'll last longer than xenon, they still are de-facto consumables.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 10-26-2017 11:31 PM                        quote: Steve Guttag The hybrid-electric car isn't a similar comparison. Actually I think it is: both are cases of a technology that is more expensive to use than competing ones that do the same job, but a market exists for it of customers who are willing to eat that cost for other reasons, be that political correctness, the marketing possibilities of the word "laser," or whatever. quote: Steve Guttag ...most things that reduce environmental impact are costlier. Veering slightly OT but related, that doesn't remain the case forever. Immature technologies and/or ones made in small quantities and which are unable to benefit from economies of scale are costlier than mature ones and/or ones that are manufactured on a large scale. We had solar panels put on our roof last December. We ran the numbers very carefully first. Assuming no increase in the cost of power purchased through the wire from SoCal Edison (and we all know how reliable that assumption is likely to be!), those panels will pay for themselves in kWHs within 6-7 years: call it 10 if we hadn't had the federal tax credit. The system is fully warrantied for 25 years. So if we're going to stay living here for 7-8 years, which we intend to do, we'll be into profit on the system. A system with the same generating capacity bought a decade ago would have cost three times the price, and would not have been able to generate its purchase price during its design life. The same applies to automotive battery technology: they're gradually coming down in price, increasing in capacity, and reducing in time taken to charge. If these improvements continue at the current rate, they will start to undercut the cost of ownership of an internal combustion engined car by the early to mid-20s. Same thing for RGB laser projection, if, as you point out, massive great TVs don't blow projection itself out of the water first. What we have at present is an immature technology competing against a mature one (xenon arc illumination), and that sort of change almost never happens overnight.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 10-27-2017 07:31 AM                     It isn't the same comparison because the LP projectors are being sold on a lower TCO, which is a lie. For projection technology, I absolutely think Laser will supplant xenon, as you say, when the cost comes down enough to make the decision a wise one. I think the Christie CP4325-RGB might be the projector that tips the scales (we'll see in 2018) but I also think projectors will give way to direct-view screens with the likes of OLED and similar technologies. It is all a matter of what makes the most financial sense.  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 10-27-2017 11:18 AM                     quote: Steve Guttag It isn't the same comparison because the LP projectors are being sold on a lower TCO, which is a lie. Let's call it an assumption, albeit a very open ended one. Right now, you simply cannot do a realistic TCO calculation for any of the current laser systems, neither the LP or the RGB ones. Like it was mentioned before, nobody knows what it will cost to replace a failing laser source, or if they even will be available and nobody knows what the exact lifetime will be. We only have indicative numbers from the suppliers, but none of them is willing to give you any guarantee, like 80% of the initial maximum power output after x-thousand hours for example. I guess that if one of the projector manufacturers is willing to give such a warranty, and the numbers work out, then there's really no reason not to go for laser, whether it's LP or RGB. And yes, "100% laser projection" does have some marketing or "marquee value" too. As for the LED wall or "direct-view" screens like you call them, I see potential in them too, but I guess we'll first see an iteration of laser projectors, before they'll make some serious inroad. There are still too many limitations right now, which first need to get sorted out. I also expect Christie and Barco, both present in the professional digital signage business, to be somewhat reluctant to offer "direct-view" alternatives, as they'll be afraid to cannibalize their own market with those kind of screens.  |  IP: Logged Amrik Kailey Film Handler Posts: 2 From: Punjab, India Registered: Oct 2017 posted 10-27-2017 11:22 AM                     Here are the preliminary specs of CP4325 RGB to get the idea whats in store https://www.christiedigital.com/SupportDocs/Anonymous/CP4325_RGB_PrelimSpecSheet-EN.PDF  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

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.