I particularly like the wealth of information it displays at one time like the countdown to end of session.

Take a look...
http://www.panalogic.com/panamation/Panamation.html

------------------
"It's not the years, honey...it's the mileage".
Indiana Jones

Looks interesting, but the Christie/Pennywise system is much more straightforward and less cluttered in my opinion.
 

Most systems running today are good, but are usually more cumbersome to use in one or more areas than they need to be, especially given today's technology.

I think it can be safely said that the mouse/gui driven interface is the proven industry standard for computers, so it would make sense to bring cinema automation into this realm. The Apple Macintosh introduced the world to the advantages of a mouse-driven interface back in 1984, so cinema automation has not, for the most part, kept up to date with the rest of the IT industry.

It would seem that Panalogic thinks so too. I think it's a great step.

Personally, I'd be a bit nervous about any of the computer-driven cinema automation systems. Part of my concern here is about obsolescence (conventional relay-based automations can easily last for a decade or more, but PC hardware is generally obsolete in only a couple of years and replacement parts, even for garden-variety generic PC hardware, tend to be difficult to find or impossible to get after a few more years), and partly because of reliability. If something goes wrong with a "conventional" automation system, you end up running one screen manually and, at worst, you lose the status indicator panel. No big deal. If something goes wrong with a computer-based automation system wherein one box controls all the screens in a gigaplex, major problems could result.

One idea that I would like, however, would be microprocessor-based automation systems which could be (but would not have to be) programmed through a terminal interface using a laptop attached via serial cable or over a theatre's LAN (give each automation box its own IP address, and allow telnet access from, say, the manager's desktop computer). You could even add a nice little GUI interface to this as well, but the guts of the system would still sit in the automation controller at each screen and nothing would depend upon the existence (or lack thereof) of the controller computer.
 

Honestly, what is theatre automation but "industrial process control" in disguise. The same technology that's used to run plastic molding machines or printing presses can be used to run a projector. It's nothing but motors and contacts. Actually, I bet a plastic press is a lot more difficult to program for than a projector. There are limit switches, over/under temperature sensors and all kinds of "emergency conditions" that projectors wouldn't have.

I've looked into making an automation out of a PLC and it seems to me that it could work. If I had the $$ I'd try to make one myself.
 

From what I gather, each cinema needs to have it's own Panalogic automation such as the CA-1400 or the newer CA-2000, then there is the option of full network control via the Panamation.

If so, this would give one the best of both worlds, as you stated.

There is a 4-screen near where I live which uses Panalogic automation, so it would be interesting to see if they add the option of Panamation control. I'd love to see it in operation!

Randy: There is virtually no difference between an industrial step controller and a cinema automation system. In fact, my father used to use an Omron step controller for an injection molding machine he was developing years ago. One of the theatres I recently worked at used almost the exact same model of Omron step controller! So you are exactly right about that.

I like the idea of PLC because they are relatively simple to implement from the standpoint that they are so widely used in many different industries, for so many complex things that projectors might actually be a step down.

I imagine that once the equipment is installed the programming could be written and installed from a laptop computer or even one of those handheld gismos. Once the programs are written they can be flashed into the PLC, pretty much on a mass production basis. If there is a need for a specialized program it should be simple for a properly trained person to write it and download it as well. Assuming there are passwords and such, keeping unauthorized people from changing things is easy too.

On the other hand, if the PLC goes down you're screwed. You can't troubleshoot it nearly as easily as other kinds of automation. From what I know of PLC's manual controls are often added in as a backup. I wouldn't even think of using them if there weren't manual controls.

I guess what I'm saying is that there are all these new computerized automation systems comming out lately and I don't see why PLC's wouldn't be just as good as they are.