Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Strong Lumex /super lumex

This is topic Strong Lumex /super lumex in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004537

Posted by Tom Fermanian (Member # 1094) on 02-12-2003, 10:31 AM:

Guys & gals!
I am being offered a few Strong Lumex lamphouses to replace some older kneisley conversions & pups (glass reflectors) in few smaller theatres that we operate. I am familiar with the Super Lumex which are excelent, but regular LumeX , I don't know,?? is light as adequate between both models?? we operate mostley 2000W or 1600W, but would standardise with 2000W, all our rectifiers (irems) are capable for 2000w operation. what are your toughts? (ps we cannont spring for new equipement, then I would put more modern lamphouses) thanks all! Tom

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-12-2003, 10:45 AM:

The lumes is great for 16mm but for 35mm the pup will even give you better light and anything is more reliable ignitions

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 02-12-2003, 04:46 PM:

Gordon, maybe you can verify this (or shoot it down)...
I asked about a lumex recently, was told that it had been designed for the Super Trouper and that because of the reflector type & close proximity to the front of the lamp, it wouldn't be a great choice for film. The cabinet not having doors might be a pain, too??

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 02-12-2003, 05:51 PM:

If you get a Lume-x, it works best with a Strong power supply. The igniter circuit likes to have at least 100 volts "No load" in order to work properly. IREM power supplies generally only develop around 75 volts "no load". The Lume-x does NOT have an emergency ignite switch like the Super Lume-x does. Other brands of lamphouses like ORC also require you to lift off the top half of the lamphouse to change/inspect the bulb.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-12-2003, 09:32 PM:

Jack, I don't know for sure, but if they are talking about the 65000 "Yellow Dog," I had two of those in operation at Cinema 5 in Mount Vernon. The lamps did give a very nice light on the screen, and the lamps were virtually trouble free until someone put a under-rated blower in them to save a couple of bucks. The lamps then went through bulbs like crap through a goose. When we got Cinema 5 back from Plitt, I discovered that error and installed the correct blowers in them, and the lamps again performed virtually trouble free until the theatre finally closed.

However, for them to operate properly, the concave heat filter/condenser lens has to be installed. Without it, forget about getting the bulb to focus properly. I had them behind some PRO-35's. (your favorite machine) [Big Grin]

Ken, there are still two of those laying in Shelton - without the condenser lens. When they were in service, they would not light up an ape's butt without the aid of a flashlight. They are the "Blue Dogs" up there, mine were the "Yellow Dogs."

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-12-2003, 09:33 PM:

They were originally designed for use on 16mm projectors (that is why the negative lens in the front
They are fussy about ignition even with high nolad voltage rectifiers often repetedly fireing the lamp
even light but not a lot of it

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-12-2003, 09:35 PM:

Gordon, wasn't the ORC M1000 integrated lamp also orginally designed for 16mm?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-16-2003, 11:41 AM:

The use of the Lum-Ex on the Super Trouper came along after the Lum-Ex was marketed. The carbon arc Super Trouper was sold up till fire departments started to have problems with them being used.
The present Super Trouper is a vauge resemblemnce of the original version and is by comparison a piece of crap!
Mark

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 02-16-2003, 01:56 PM:

quote:
The present Super Trouper is a vauge resemblemnce of the original version and is by comparison a piece of crap!
Mark

Yet another exemple why carbon was best!

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-16-2003, 06:41 PM:

What's so horrible about the current generation of Super Troupers? I'm only familiar with the arc models.

How good are the xenon conversions for Super Troupers? (Yes I know that the conversion kits are almost impossible to obtain now.)

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-17-2003, 04:29 AM:

For some reason xenon supers just don't seem to put out the quality of light that the carbon arc ones did. It's hard to get the field even across the aperture and the light just doesn't have the "punch" of the old lamps, to put it in imprecise terms. Changing to xenon required a reworking of the barrel optics (specifically the rear lens which is now a more complex affair than the carbon arc's simple double convex lens). Don't know if this contributes to the attributes I see in the xenon lamp's output or not.

From an operator standpoint, the new lamps don't feel or work as smooth as the old ones. The new ones are quite a bit lighter and don't have the bearing surfaces that the old ones had--they feel cheap to me. Plus, the newer cradle design places the center-of-gravity of the instrument well above the pivot point, leading to over-center changes in the instrument's balance, especially with the long-throw barrels. With the new lamps you have to balance them for one rather narrow range of tilt angles and live with either a nose-heavy or tail heavy lamp at any other angle, or run with more tilt friction than you might otherwise use (I used to use almost no friction). The old lamps' center-of-gravity was much closer to the pivot point and therefore they could be balanced over a correspondingly greater range of tilt angles. Also, the xenon long-throw barrels place the color boom at the front, making the lamp rather awkward to operate if you don't have long arms, though I have to admit the front-mounted boom allows one to make simultaneous moves that were difficult with the old center-mounted boom. Nothing here that couldn't be accomodated by an experienced operator--it's just that I didn't appreciate the changes in feel that came with the newer lamps. Personal opinion and obviously now a moot point, but I very much prefer the older lamps' heft and feel for doing finesse work (which we did a lot of, in the 'Vegas shows of old).

Posted by Robert Throop (Member # 61) on 02-17-2003, 08:28 AM:

Can someone tell me why the bulb in a Super Trouper is mounted backwards with the anode closest to the reflector?

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-17-2003, 09:37 PM:

The reason it is mounted backwards is typically most followspots are angled downwards so stepply that the horizontal lamp is beyond is angular position of stability and the flame will bow over the top of the anode
Since it is closer to verticle operation the anode is then in effect on top
This produces a less of a flicker when the unit is panned back and forth as well

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-18-2003, 07:16 PM:

"Yet another exemple why carbon was best!"
_________________________________________________________________

Jack, Being carbon or not has nothing to do with the overall quality of the Super Trouper at all. The light is not as good, but still is not really bad with a 2kw in it. The main thing I was making refrence to was the overall design/build quality of the new Super Trouper as compared to the old one......

The older followspots had a construction quality to them that was amazing. UNfortunately, everything relating to quality has been left out of the new versions. They are also unreliable as all get out and do not have nearly enough lamp cooling either.....ya can't cool a 2kw with just the small seal blower in the Lum-Ex.
Mark

[ 02-18-2003, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gulbrandsen ]