This is topic Comments and Info on Robert Film Service Lamphouse / Reflector Upgrades 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=004977

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 06-07-2003, 04:35 PM:
 
I know that this has been mentioned in passing a few times in the past, but if anyone would like to share any info, comments or experience regarding the lamphouse / reflector upgrades offered by Robert Film Service in Montreal, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks!
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-07-2003, 06:14 PM:
 
Does Robert have a web site?
Mark
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 06-07-2003, 06:20 PM:
 
I had heard he was in the process of making one, don't know if it's operational yet.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-07-2003, 06:25 PM:
 
A friend in Chicago was all enthused about his stuff, but then seems have changed his mind and that the X-60 glass reflector beats em all. Of course the X-60 glass reflector is extremely scarce. There are a pair in the Dolby Screening room.....
Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 06-07-2003, 09:17 PM:
 
A couple of years ago I bought a xenon 16mm projector modified to run 6000 ft reels from him. I wrote him last summer regarding some questions I had concerning the machine. I'm still waiting for him to answer my letter and e-mails. If you go to his web site (www.robertfilm.com) it says "This site is currently under construction". It has said that for several years. The last phone number I had for him was (514) 337-4956. His address is (or was) 6969 Route Trans Canada, Suite 105, Ville St. Laurent, Quebec H4T 1V8. He had also advertised in Boxoffice a couple of times. I don't know about the reflectors.
 

---

Posted by Michael West (Member # 428) on 06-07-2003, 11:41 PM:
 
daryl; and all
interesting, i am involved with the process of installing equipment for a very small "art cinema" about to be built here and we are dealing with robert film services - this process so far has involved countless emails and questions. i found they have been very responsive. one of the executive board members had dealt with robert film before so that is why we are involved with them again - normally i would have tried at least three dealers and started with that. they seemed curiously determined to up-sell this technilight conversion kit i know nothing about - but specs seem good so we may try it. after much haggling i think we have the equipment we want - all used of course so we will see - nothing finalized yet. certainly will keep you all informed re:cinema, equiptment and all.
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 06-08-2003, 12:01 AM:
 
Thanks for your comments so far guys! Keep 'em coming.

Technilight! That's what they're calling it, I had forgotten. Anyway, I need to light a pair of 100' scope drive-in screens and am interested in hearing about anybody's experience with the Technilight conversions -- especially on large screens.

Michael, could you post these specs that you are impressed with? Thanks.

-- Daryl
 

---

Posted by Greg Pauley (Member # 503) on 06-08-2003, 01:05 AM:
 
We purchased the first technalight conversion kit in the US about a year and half ago and have since purchase two additional kits for super 80's. We were used as sort of a test site and I had to sign a confidentiality agreement, so I don’t feel comfortable posting any pictures or giving detail information about what is done other than to say that the technalight conversion is more than just the reflector. I am not associated with Robert Film Service or Technalight, just a customer. NCS is the exclusive distributor in the US for screens under 60ft and you can purchase directly from Robert for screens over 60ft. I got involved whenever NCS told me about this guy who had a conversion kit that would increase your light output plus allow you to drop a bulb size. I’m the kinda of guy who is willing to look at new ideas provided it doesn’t cost me a lot of money. NCS and Robert made me a deal of installing the kit at their expense and I would agree to purchase if I was satisfied. Hard to go wrong on that deal! I was very impressed with the results which dropped the bulb size down from a 4000wt to a 3000wt with an extremely brilliant white light(no greys) with readings in 20's on a 46ft old matte screen if ran at max amperage. I have been extremely pleased with the conversions and will probably purchase another kit for a super 80 once the metal reflector dies. My experience with Robert Film Service has been nothing but positive with very good customer service. Daryl, I know Robert is doing some of the majors IMAX screens for 35mm with good results but don’t have any personal experience on that size of screen. I know Robert has a 4200 wt bulb and kit that replace a 7000wt bulb. You might want to give them a call direct.
 

---

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 06-11-2003, 03:53 PM:
 
I've never seen one of these, but it's my understanding that what this upgrade involves is mounting an older design Kinoton mirror in a non-Kinoton lamphouse. The ability to use a bulb a 1 or possibly 2 sizes smaller for the same screen illumination is typical for Kinoton lamphouses. What does the upgrade kit cost?

Larry
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-12-2003, 08:31 AM:
 
Certainly being exclusively distributed by NCS will limit their influx into the US market. Most theatre owners I know would never buy item one from them....
Mark
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-12-2003, 09:47 AM:
 
The Kinoton and the Ernamann glass reflector can't be beat for light output. For years Phillips sold the reflector with a ignitor and mounting hardware on a plate called a xenoblock as a retrofit for carbon arc lamphouses (morganite used this kit a lot) (similar to the kniesly kit but better optics).
I question the advantage of upgradingg a old metal box and ignitor when the kinoton and the ernamann lamphouses are reasonable in price to start with.
Also MeOpta makes an excellent glass reflector for OEM apps
 

---

Posted by Mark A. MacLellan (Member # 1776) on 08-01-2003, 10:35 AM:
 
This one made for interesting reading but I think some of the myths have to be debunked. The Technalight conversion system allows for a decrease in lamp size and dramatic increase in light on-screen while improving the definition tremendously. This is achieved by installing a glass reflector (which is not from Kinoton, it is custom made exclusively for Technalight overseas). Kits are available for nearly any lamphouse and the system is currently in use or in testing by the likes of Regal, AMC, Pacific Theatres, Cinemagic, Movieco, Consolidated, Loews, etc. And the website does in fact work...www.robertfilm.com or call the office directly at 514-337-4956. Daryl, you'd be well advised to check out the Technalight system because drive-ins are one of the best applications for Technalight. The 5-Drive In in Oakville has Technalight on all 3 of their screens.
 

---

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 08-01-2003, 07:01 PM:
 
Their site says they can "increase the light output on screen by as much as 500%". If they can do that, compared to a properly aligned modern non-Technalight system (other comparisons would be meaningless/misleading), it would be pretty amazing. I remain very skeptical.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-01-2003, 07:58 PM:
 
There is an internet company playing radio ads claiming a 500% increase in speed, all from your standard dialup phone line. In fact they don't even specify you need a 56K modem. The ad clearly states that you can use any old modem to experience DSL speeds with their fabulous service.

http://www.getjoy.net

I'm calling on that one!
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-01-2003, 09:06 PM:
 
I was told by my friend in Chicago that the reflector is manufactured in Japan for them, about 8 inches in diameter or thereabouts. The lamp was designed for them by Osram and is specially shaped.
Mark
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-01-2003, 09:55 PM:
 
Hmm special lamp means higher operating costs
There are several asian companies that make custom dichroic glass reflectors but most the coatings I have found to be very poor
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 08-01-2003, 10:16 PM:
 
I talked to Robert last week. He's alive and well and still in business and is in the process of getting his website going. I don't know about the upgrades but he's given me good advise and has parts available for the projector he sold me.
 

---

Posted by Mark A. MacLellan (Member # 1776) on 08-02-2003, 08:42 AM:
 
Haha, more myths. Technalight uses one of 4 or 5 approved lamps but the only one that is specially designed (not off-the-shelf) is the 4200W and it is typically only used in very large screen applications to replace a 7000W lamp. Thus, the 4200W is less expensive to purchase, lasts longer and consumes less electricity (therefore it does not increase operating costs). As for the reflector, I have never seen a coating more reflective or evenly applied than the Technalight reflector. I can tell you it's clearly superior to anything from Kinoton or Meopta that I have seen. And Larry, everyone I have ever talked to is skeptical at first but refer to Greg Pauley's comments on his systems. At any rate, it's hard to argue with 20fL on a 80'+ wide screen!
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-02-2003, 10:05 AM:
 
Call me a sceptic but there are some limiting factors to the amount of light a reflector can gather
One of the limiting issues is the anode shadow . It is the basis of determining the overall diameter of the reflector vs the rear hole diameter and the first focal point
The coating is very consistent from all the manufactueres I have delt with the issue is the long term durability
The basic reflector is ellipsoidal in design with some designs having a parabolic section at the rear
There have been attempts at a secondary reflector in horizontal designs but again the large anode shadow has been the limitation of there usefullness
The smaller electrode size is the main reason that many of the ecapsulated lamps such as cermax have such good output
Also the other limiting factor is the coupling effect of the the speed of the reflector and that of the lens and also the working distance vs the apperture size
the lumen output of a lamp is fixed item at a specified current and at one theatre I witnessed a method the discussed company took to get more ligt out of a kniesly constellation conversion they went from the 3000H running at 100ampres to a 3000HS lamp and overdrove it to 130 ampres which for the short lifespan the lamp had did produce far more light the analogy you can't get something for nothing
It would be interesting to see a picture of the inside of one of these conversions and verified data of the output by an unbiased outside test Until then sceptical I will remain
 

---

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 08-04-2003, 12:03 PM:
 
Not to criticize Greg Pauley (who did not purport to be providing precise data), but his comments indicate nothing even close to the 500% figure. The statement "...4000 wt to a 3000 wt with an extremely brilliant white light(no greys) with readings in 20's on a 46 ft old matte screen if ran at max amperage." is so vague as to be meaningless (E.G.: What were the pre-modification fL and color temp readings with a brand new bulb and reflector? What were they post-mod? What bulbs and currents were used before and after the modification? Were there any other changes in the system such as lenses, IR filter, port glass, etc?).

Does anyone know what this modification costs?

I agree with Gordon that until a fair, unbiased test is presented, I don't buy it.
I also would like to see photos...I distrust these "secret" things.

Brad reminds me of the "$19.95 miracle device increased my gas mileage to 200 miles per gallon!!!!" ads in the back of Popular Science, or more recently the "increase the size of your T-()-()-L by at least 10 inches without painful weights or shots" spams. Wouldn't it be great if they were true!
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-04-2003, 12:35 PM:
 
Certainly no one will disagree that more light can usually be obtained by proper alignment and treating the lamphouse/projector/lens as an optical SYSTEM, rather than unrelated parts. It's also possible that a xenon lamp with a more compact plasma might allow the design of more efficient collection optics. Both of these seem to be part of the Technalight system. You may dispute the actual numbers, but IMHO, it does seem to be more than just "smoke and mirrors".

"Great minds think alike": The same Kodak Enhanced Theatrical Exhibition (ETE) program that produced the "Quickermittent" design also developed a lamphouse design that improved light efficiency and uniformity:

"Design Improvements for Motion Picture Film Projectors", November 2001 SMPTE Journal, Volume 110, pages 785-791.
 

---

Posted by Mark A. MacLellan (Member # 1776) on 08-04-2003, 01:55 PM:
 
John Pytlak, my hero! I think his comments on the Technalight system have captured the essence of what it is...a "system". Otherwise, it would just be called a reflector (actually there are six depending on the lamphouse involved) or a lamp (of which there are 5 with a sixth in testing). Installation of Technalight encompasses not just changing the lamp, reflector, heat filter as necessary and the reflector mounting hardware. It means that the entire optical path is aligned from lamp to lens using very specific alignment tools and proceedures. I am a Technalight certified installer and I can tell you that I had never aligned a lamphouse/lamp that way before. This is also the reason the entire system has a "Patent Pending" and not just a specific lamp or reflector.

And as for Gord's and Larry's comments...well, the world is full of critics! Larry, I read the website again and I believe it indicates that light can be increased by as much as 500%. This is true in some situations and in others the increase will be 50%, 200%, whatever. I would submit the following to you: If you are an independent cinema operator with a burnt reflector and crappy light on screen then I don't think that a 500% increase in light would be "meaningless", although I understand your point about a "fair comparison" and it is well made.

With respect to Gord's information on the design of a reflector, it is a little more involved than perhaps he mentions but he has captured the essence of it and all of this and more was taken into account when designing the Technalight reflectors. That's why there are "approved" lamps...they work with the reflector in a particular way. And before anyone asks, although Gord implied it, the Technalight reflector and indeed the entire system DOES hold up over time, primarily due to the drastic reduction in heat.

Now, I feel compelled to point out something else. Skeptical I can understand....so was I. But keep in mind that the "skeptics" within this forum cannot dispute two solid facts(A) they have no personal, first-hand experience with the system and (B) the likes of Regal, AMC, Pacific Theatres, Cinemagic, Movieco, Consolidated, Loews, etc. have signed on with many purchasing multiple systems and others still in the evaluation/tasting phase. In fact, Regal has a Technalight modified 35mm projector in EVERY Imax projection room nationwide and John Durliat, Quality Assurance Director for Regal, wrote and said that "The Technalight system has helped Regal Entertainment Group attain brightness levels on our large format screens once thought impossible to achieve. The system combines tried and true engineering with state of the art technology." At Universal Studios in Orlando they said, "We recently installed Technalight in several of our projection systems and we are very pleased with the results. The brightness and clarity is amazing, not to mention it pays for itself in savings." There are six Technalight systems at the Terminator 3D attraction.

OK enough! I think the sales and results say it all. John, didn't you see a Technalight demonstration in Buffalo?
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-04-2003, 02:04 PM:
 
Yes, I visited the Regal IMAX Theatre in Buffalo NY during their installation for their 35mm projector late last year, so I saw the basics of the installation. Unfortunately, I did not have a light meter of my own to verify the before-and-after measurements, but "results may vary" with the particular equipment anyway.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-04-2003, 03:04 PM:
 
I did a patent database search and couldn't find the patent pending on technalight what is the number
John the use of the combining lens in the kodak system is not emtirely new
Years ago I installed Phillips first horizontal xenon system that was novel to say the least
The lamp was mounted horizontaly in the box with 4 condensor lens mounted around it focusing the light outwards to 4 flat mirrors that were focused onto a cloverleaf negative combining lens
When lined up it produced probably the flatest field of light I ever saw but keeping it that way was a problem and in those early days of horizontal lamps the failure mode was usually dramatic and with the 4 condensors 4 cold flat reflectors and the cloverleaf reduced to dust was too expensive
 

---

Posted by Greg Pauley (Member # 503) on 08-04-2003, 03:04 PM:
 
Thanks Larry for not criticizing me, I get enough of that when I go home . I don’t want to get into a dog and pony show for technalight, but I commented about the system because I had purchase 3 technalight kits. I know several others on the forum have seen the system installed from scratch and may have their own opinion including John’s post above. I know all the information listed in your post about pre and post conditions as well as some you didn’t mention, including testing the reflector against a new one after about a year in service. I monitored the readings for almost a year before I purchased two other kits to fit some Super 80's. I think several of the majors did the same thing, select a site for a test and monitor the outcome for a period of time before ordering additional kits. I think the cost is a little different depending on the type of lamphouse you are converting, but you could call NCS for a price. I won’t list the price that I paid because I got a special deal for being willing to take a chance on a new idea and don’t want to cause problems with others wanting him to match that price. Although, the last time I talk to Robert he told me the prices had dropped some, so I might have paid more . I don’t think it’s unusual for a small company with a new idea or product to try and keep the lid covered on startup to keep it from being copied. If you noticed Brad doesn’t list the ingredients or instruction on how he produces film guard, but offers a money back guarantee if you’re not satisfied. The companies that are buying the kits obviously get to see the results of the conversion and have the option of purchasing or not. I’m sure as more of these kits are sold and on the market there will be more technical information available. Also, my kits did not involve any modification to the lens or port glass.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-04-2003, 03:09 PM:
 
The published Kodak SMPTE Paper cites three previously published lamphouse design references and patents. The Kodak (Andrew Kurtz) patent is U.S. Patent No. 5,754,278, issued May 19, 1998.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-04-2003, 03:13 PM:
 

quote:

---

"Design Improvements for Motion Picture Film Projectors", November 2001 SMPTE Journal, Volume 110, pages 785-791.

---

Is that paper available in digital form somewhere? (Probably not, or you would have linked to it in the first place, but asking hurts nobody.)
 

---

Posted by Mark A. MacLellan (Member # 1776) on 08-04-2003, 03:22 PM:
 
Technalight Patent & Trademark Info....

Provisional Patent Application 037A.0001.P1 (U.S.)

Canadian trademark application serial number 1136223

United States Trademark Office application serial number 76/397814
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-04-2003, 03:23 PM:
 
If you are an SMPTE member, it should be available in the on-line password-protected SMPTE library.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-04-2003, 03:24 PM:
 
Zeiss Ikon in the fifties equipped the ernamann 8b and 9 with a small negative lens directly behind the apperture plate that was matched to the projection lens to increase the flatness of field
I can't rememeber its name let alonw pronounce it but it started with a B
The current Meopta machines still use this technology to improve flatness of field
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-04-2003, 03:31 PM:
 
I recall that Zeiss also used multifaceted "honeycomb" condensers in their vertical lamp Xenosol III lamphouse, in addition to the small secondary mirror. I also recall that they were a bit** to align.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-04-2003, 03:43 PM:
 
The honeycomb was used for 900w or smaller lamps
The two piece optical system was actually very sim[,e to align
also that US patent number 037A.0001.P1 comes back invalid
 

---

Posted by Mark A. MacLellan (Member # 1776) on 08-04-2003, 03:55 PM:
 
My experience with the Patent & Trademark office is that they don't move too fast for anything or anyone so maybe they are behind on their registry. But I've seen the papers from Washington DC so.......
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-04-2003, 09:34 PM:
 
I see kodak has another patent aplication for a method of preventing buckling of film application # 20020071099

The Zeiss Ikon device that was placed between the lamphouse and directly behind the apperture was called the
"Bidfensterlinse" and produced considerable increase in light according to Richard Mitchell
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-04-2003, 10:12 PM:
 

quote:

---

I see kodak has another patent aplication for a method of preventing buckling of film application # 20020071099

---

Yes. The Kodak Enhanced Theatrical Experience (ETE) program explored many areas that could improve presentation quality.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-05-2003, 05:39 AM:
 
I think the Meo 5XB also has a "Bildfensterlinse" (=aperture lens). But it has been a while since I worked with one, so I am not 100% sure.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-05-2003, 07:42 AM:
 
Here, on my 2000th post...

The problem people are having with "claims" is the complete lack of documentation. Its all very hush-hush but "trust us it works." Technical claims that have not been subject to peer-review are just that, claims and should not be taken as facts. Using the big chains as a claim of quality is a joke...they are rarely about quality they tend to push the industry in the opposite direction and instead, compete for bankruptcy.

If the patents are indeed applied for, then they are protected. As such, the developers should be writing papers for such organizations like the SMPTE and BKSTS. Then demonstrate their invention to the societies. That is how engineering accomplishments are presented, not "pssst, we got this great new product is will make a sun out of a flashlight, tell everyone but don't dare be specific."

Now if they don't have a patent or a patent pending then there would be liability around discussing it though if they are documenting their designs those documents can be used to help show when the work was being done.

I can neither dispute nor support the claims but mere words of the greatness is also unsupportable.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 08-05-2003, 10:03 AM:
 
Boy, I couldn't agree more more with you Steve on this one.
 

---

Posted by Mark A. MacLellan (Member # 1776) on 08-05-2003, 01:14 PM:
 
I made the decision to post some information in this forum not because I wanted to promote the product or gloat about it. Rather, I have been reading some of the "buzzing" about Technalight and some of the speculation was incorrect so I wanted to set the record straight.

Some of you describe my information as unsubstantiated claims. That's fine. We have nothing to prove to anyone here; believe it or don't believe it. As someone who works in the biz and loves film, I'd be excited if someone told me about something that could enhance the projected image very dramatically.

And there is no element of "trust us, it works" with this product. Each and every client who has purchased the system since it's inception has taken a "trial period" to evaluate the results. As Greg Pauley said, he monitored his readings on conversion #1 for almost a year before buying two more conversion kits. Many others have done the same kind of thing.

I guess there's not much else to say other than I have never seen a better motion picture presentation than that of Technalight and nobody will ever convince me different. We have just hit the crest of the R&D wave after 5 years of development and refinements and experimentation. I make no apologies if some people feel that we have not followed the proper protocol to present this "engineering accomplishment".

But quite frankly, some of you will always pick this apart no matter what because everybody is entitled to their own opinion. The most important thing is this: Are those purchasing the systems satisfied with the results? Yes. Are their cleints, Joe & Cindy patron, seeing a much brighter image, with better definition and more vibrant colors then before the Technalight installation? Yes. 'Nuff said.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-05-2003, 02:13 PM:
 
Once you have your patent protection in hand, writing an SMPTE paper should be fairly straight-forward. In addition to discussing the basics of the technology, actual data showing the improvement over other designs could be presented, perhaps comparing the performance of various alternative designs that were considered.

Here is a link to the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) website, with instructions on how to submit a paper to the Board of Editors for publication in the SMPTE Motion Imaging Journal:

http://www.smpte.org/smpte_store/journals/

It's probably too late to prepare a paper for presentation at the SMPTE Technical Conference in NYC this November 12-15, but here is a link:

http://www.smpte.org/conferences/145tech.cfm

If you are an SMPTE member with an on-line password, here are some examples of technical presentations from past conferences:

http://www.smpte.org/members_only/library/download.cfm?file=pytlak.pdf

http://www.smpte.org/members_only/library/download.cfm?file=morton.pdf

And here is the on-line SMPTE Motion Imaging Journal:

http://www.electronicipc.com/JournalEZ/mo/toc.cfm?code=4539001
 

---

Posted by Mark A. MacLellan (Member # 1776) on 08-05-2003, 02:20 PM:
 
Thanks so much John. I will save all of that info so I have it close at hand. This is something that we have certainly discussed on occasion and something I'd like to see happen in the near future but with all of us being on the road selling & installing...well, time has been a challenge. Thanks again!
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-07-2003, 11:14 PM:
 
Well here is a 3K technoalite reflector installed



Sorry for the poor quality of the shots
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-08-2003, 12:41 PM:
 
Nothing about that stuff is special. Thats an Ernamann reflector and what appears to be a standard 3kw Christie xenon lamp. I guess thats why he is so secrative about the whole thing........there's nothing special at all in there.
Mark @ CLACO
(using Denis's Computer)
 

---

Posted by Mark A. MacLellan (Member # 1776) on 08-08-2003, 01:02 PM:
 
I hesitate to even respond to this but the ignorance astounds me. This is not an Ernemann reflector. It is not a Christie lamp. It is not even a 3K lamp, or even close to that. This is actually one of the earliest prototypes produced and looks nothing like the system on the market today. I recognize this installation...
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-08-2003, 08:46 PM:
 
It is a 3K lamp and was installed less than a year ago and you will note I haven't been critical of it but it is sure nothing new in technology of either installation or design
 

---

Posted by Mark A. MacLellan (Member # 1776) on 08-09-2003, 12:48 AM:
 
Gord....did you happen to note the make/model of this lamp when you took the pictures?
 

---

Posted by Rick Long Jr (Member # 541) on 08-11-2003, 10:42 AM:
 
Mark, is your system in use at the Galaxy in Cambridge? If so, could you drop me an e-mail?
 

---

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 08-18-2003, 01:04 PM:
 
That looks exactly like a Kinoton reflector. Since Kinoton sold a large number of these to RFS it makes sense.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-29-2003, 03:14 PM:
 
The other day i was at a theatre that was installing some new backlit poster cases made by a company called Technalight in Peterbourgh Ont. So I think registration of that name as a trade mark will be difficult

[ 08-29-2003, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Gordon McLeod ]
 

---

Posted by Mark A. MacLellan (Member # 1776) on 08-30-2003, 10:33 PM:
 
Techni-Lite Systems Inc. manufactures sign-related materials.

Technalight is a registered trademark in the US and Canada owned by RFS Inc.

I really dislike people who don't check their facts.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-31-2003, 04:42 PM:
 
I really dislike companies that make claims but can't back them up! Really now, I think RFS is making a fool out of themselves. If there is really a patent pending(which I doubt)then revealing how it works will not hurt them as they are protected, it will only give them the credibility they now lack.
Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Mark A. MacLellan (Member # 1776) on 08-31-2003, 04:57 PM:
 
Well, what can I say? There is indeed a patent pending or I would not have said so, to do otherwise would be false. The nature of the patent application is such that the application is not published for 18 months. And as for credibility, I don't think RFS has anything to prove to anyone except those who are actually interested in purchasing the system or have already purchased it. Thus far, everyone's been more than satisfied. I did another install in Canada this past week and it was another 21 fL with unbelieveable resolution. The client seemed more than impressed and has already paid their bill so someone explain to me how that makes a fool out of RFS? As I said before, my only goal is to dispell myths and misconceptions. Bottom line is that despite the patent pending why should any details of how the system works be released? To what end? For what purpose or profit? To satisfy some "know-it-alls" on filmtech.com? That's a waste of time and effort.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-31-2003, 05:50 PM:
 
Any patent application that is not publioshed is very prown to being tossed out by the courts at a later time if any prior art refutes it
So far prior art I could see would be
1 Conversion of existing lamphouses
well Kniesly LP associates Phillips all made conversion kits
2 Use of a coated glass reflector Well allmost all the top lamphouse use that
3 Laser alignment of the optical components was covered in Glen Bergen's work at ORC years ago and has been standard practice for years
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-01-2003, 03:26 PM:
 
Mark M. said......
"To satisfy some "know-it-alls" on filmtech.com? That's a waste of time and effort."
_________________________________________________________________

Mark,
That statement I'm sure will be not taken lightly by anyone here on Film-Tech. Especially by those that put forth tremendous effort to keep this fine site available to all. So why do you "waste your time" here on Film-Tech? That seems pretty funny to alot of us. Please contribute something useful for a change in your upcomming posts.

Why would it be a waste of time and effort to post the facts here? Isn't the goal of RFS to sell these conversions? If the information on the conversion and how it works(so we can sell them to our customers....da) were available on this site then RFS probably wouldn't be able to keep up with the demand. Be it known that many other much more important products have been announced on this site that today are highly sucessful.

Mark, indeed, if I were the one in charge at RFS I would certainly curtail doing anything with you. Its begginning to get obvious to me and alot of others that post here that there IS something you and RFS are trying to hide. Perhaps the pending has been rejected..... perhaps all this is nothing new and is all available off the shelf as others here have pointed out.

Mark @ Claco
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-01-2003, 03:35 PM:
 
I for one have read 4 pages of this bickering and this is getting old because the member questions are not being answered. Forgetting everything I have read let me ask the simple question, where in the North Texas area can I see a Teknolite conversion first hand? Either it dramatically improves the light as compared to a properly aligned modern lamphouse or it doesn't. With only two people on the forum claiming that it works (one of which works for the company), I would like to see one first hand. If it produces the light as promised, I won't stop raving about it.

(If Mark can get the website address wrong when slamming members, I can misspell Tecknerlite. )
 

---

Posted by Mark A. MacLellan (Member # 1776) on 09-02-2003, 01:00 AM:
 
OK, let me try to state a few facts. You may believe them if you wish or don't believe them. In the intertest of contributing something constructive let me say the following:
1) Technalight components are not available off-the-shelf. Some are custom made in our machine shop(s) and the reflectors are manufactured exclusively for Technalight overseas.
2) Neither I nor RFS have nothing to "hide" about the system and if we did there would not have been the success we have seen thus far (with hopefully more to come). Rather, it is an issue of trying to protect the product in an industry rampant with copy-cats. Yes, I know you're going to say "If you have a patent application then why worry...." but why invite trouble? There have already been knock-off attempts and I just don't think it's worthwhile to invite others. And no, the patent application has not been rejected. Some of you are so cynical and suspicious, I don't understand it. I'm guarded, yes....but not dishonest.
3) I don't think that contributing to the forums on www.film-tech.com is a waste of my time. Rather, I find the site useful and the comments on Technalight interesting, if not a little incorrect at times. But what bothers me is this negativity that certain members have without having actually seen the results.
4)I thought Brad's point was a good one and he posed perhaps one of the most useful questions thus far. Brad, the answer is the IMAX theatre at the Edwards Houston Marq*e 23 & IMAX. There is a 35mm system there with the Technalight kit. This is the nearest installation to Dallas that comes to mind.
Lastly, let me restate that I'm not here to rave about the product or try and sell it to anyone. I merely began my posts in order to dispell some of the comments that I felt were incorrect. I'm no expert, all I can speak for is what I know to be true and what I have seen first-hand. I haven't been dishonest in any of my forum posts. As I said, just a bit guarded and there's a reason for that. Bear in mind that while I'm a true believer in the product I did not develop it nor do I own the trademark or have any claim to the intellectual property. It is not my place to discuss anything about how it works, that would be up to the developer/patent applicant.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-02-2003, 02:40 AM:
 
I don't get to Houston very often, but the next time I do I will try and make it a point to stop in and check out that IMAX screen running something on 35mm.

As far as people ripping you off, I know FAR TOO WELL what you are talking about. What is really pathetic are the people who will ultimately steal your product and market a knock-off as a "direct replacement". So of course putting aside the fact that these people are directly stealing from you (much like video pirates steal movies from the studios), add to that the product failing to provide a similar quality performance, and then as a result people blame you for the poor results that they see. (I won't even begin to get into the lowlife scum dealers who support the thieving manufacturer by peddling the illegal product. They are just as bad of thieves as the guys making it.) In my case it is damaged film claims from something that doesn't even have my company's name on the friggin' bottle...yet it is somehow MY fault that they bought a knockoff product! So yes I can fully appreciate the aggravation you have and the possible confusion you may be dealing with, which is why I would like to take all doubt out of it and see a legitimate Technalight conversion first hand.

Back to the subject, let's say you have a Christie SLC lamphouse running a 6K lamp on a 50 foot 1.0 gain screen with everything fully laser aligned producing light output so blinding that if you don't back off the bulb and burn the rectifier at about 85-90% power the image will flicker. With a Technalight conversion in that same lamphouse, what size bulb would be needed to obtain that same need for patron sunglasses? Also, could you provide a ballpark price guesstimate for the conversion? Is there any hot spot in the Technalight system as compared to an unmodified SLC?
 

---

Posted by Mark A. MacLellan (Member # 1776) on 09-02-2003, 12:34 PM:
 
To produce the same light as the SLC, properly aligned with a new 6K lamp I would suggest that we could probably do it with a 3000W lamp but my preferred option would be a 4200W lamp, which could achieve the results without diffiulty. In fact, the 4200W lamp is the largest that we use in Technalight and we commonly replace 7K with the 4.2K, with better light than the 7K and less heat, less energy consumption, etc. One set of results from a Super 80 conversion we did from 7K Strong reflector to 4.2K Technalight reflector yielded a 55% increase in light and 20% better uniformity, both reflectors had been realigned prior to taking light readings and the 7K was new. The Stong reflector we used for compoarison was not "new" but showed no sign of deterioration. We tried to be as fair with the comparison as the situation allowed. So maybe that's an example of the kind of improvement I'm talking about. Oh, by the way, we did an experiment by replacing a 7K (the same Strong reflector) in a Super 80 with a 3K (Technalight reflector) and we got 9% more in terms of footlamberts and 23% better uniformity.

As for a ballpark price, I'd say about $3800usd MSRP, but there are discounts for multiple purchases and we have a reflector buy-back program as well to save a little money for the client. Most conversions are in this range, with only a fluctuation of $100 or so depending on the components involved. The SLC conversions, like the Super 80, are some of the easiest and quickest that we do now. We have done many of each.

Now as to the issue of uniformity, I am about to contradict myself. I said that I didn't come onto film-tech.com to rave about the product but perhaps one of the greatest things about Technalight is the uniformity. It is flat...I mean REALLY flat. Bright but flat. The install I did last week was a small screen and the conversion was a Super Lume-X with a 2000W lamp running at 80A. I normally am satisfied with "pretty even" uniformity but in this case I had to back the lamp up in order to tone-down the light to an acceptable level and that gave me incredible uniformity. Uniformity of light is something that is very important to the Technalight process and something that we promise the client when we sell the system. More light and better uniform than your existing reflector. Remember, the Technalight reflector(s) were designed (the curve, size, vortex, etc) and manufactured to match particular lamps to maximize the efficiency of the system.

Thanks for asking some good questions Brad, I hope my comments above were informative.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-02-2003, 01:26 PM:
 
Do you sell your system to others in the field, or must RFS do the install and alignment?
 

---

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 09-02-2003, 03:48 PM:
 
I've installed several of the systems (with Robert) and agree with Mark that they work.
I don't see any reason for RFS to give all the details of the mirrors used etc., if someone thinks the product is BS then so be it.
I don't suggest there is any "magic" involved.
Maybe there are lots of lamphouses that use efficient optics and get equivalent light output from equivalent lamps, I don't know. We've been involved with Strong conversions and a complete lamphouse switch with the RFS kits already installed. I've had very little experience with Christie consoles and none with conversions in them, so I can't comment on them.
One simple fact is that a screen that is lit OK with a Strong 7kw console is lit OK with a 4200W conversion. That's a significant saving to the theatre in power and lamp cost, and my impression is that the light uniformity with the Technalight kit is better than can be attained with the Strong mirror. There is a penalty in having a glass mirror - it will likely be destroyed by any lamp explosion. We've all probably seen metal mirrors that are dented and scarred but still in service giving horrible light, maybe forcing a replacement mirror isn't a bad idea. I've also seen many new metal mirrors that are distorted, and metal mirrors that have been distorted by bad mounting design or bad handling/installation. This makes getting decent light uniformity impossible.
 

---

Posted by Mark A. MacLellan (Member # 1776) on 09-02-2003, 04:01 PM:
 
Well, here's how this works and I'll try to make it not sound complicated. In the United States, installations on screens LESS than 70' in width are sold by NCS and installed by either a "certified tech" or RFS. Screens of 70' in width or greater can be purchased directly from RFS and are installed by RFS. We do this because those really large screen applications require a bit of a special touch and the boss likes to be absolutely sure they're done properly.

When I say "certified tech" I refer to someone who was trained by RFS to install the kits. There are a few tricks when it comes to installing these but the real reason for insisting on the tech training prior to installing Technalight is that if the system is installed by someone who doesn't quite know what they're doing then it's Technalight that gets the bad name, likely not the tech. So in order to make all things equal we make sure that anyone installing the system has been trained by RFS. Thus far there are a couple of us here at RFS, six techs in the US and of course I would include Dave Macaulay and some of his coworkers in Toronto as well.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-02-2003, 06:46 PM:
 
Actually I would have to ask why NCS was chosen as the sole retailer of the kits in the states? I can't say that I know of another dealer that would purchase anything from them. They don't have a very good reputation here in the states either. Is this going to be a permanent thing with NCS or is this going to expire and then other dealers will be given training and dealerships? I would certainly be interested at that point.
Its always been my policy to not sell anything that I am not a dealer for. Being a 2nd party dealer to things in the past has normally only complicated things further.

I actually have a 15/70 3D site that could probably benefit from this conversion as well as a 35/70 machine going into that same site soon with a 7kw Super Highlite.
Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Mark A. MacLellan (Member # 1776) on 09-02-2003, 07:50 PM:
 
Interestingly, we have had some experience with 70mm. At Universal Studios Florida they run six Ultra 80's for the Terminator 3D attraction all with Technalight installed. It worked out very well with double the light on-screen than pre-Technalight. Now if they could just figure out who's going to buy the place so that there might be a budget for more!

I suppose there are reasons why NCS was chosen as the distributor, reasons that would not involve someone at my level. However, I can only speak highly of my own dealings with them as their supplier...I've never been a client. Ironically, I HAVE been a client of RFS for many years before joining the team and I purchased one of the first Technalight kits, before a single one had hit the US market. That's how I came to make the jump from exhibition to the equipment supply side. I should also point out that ALL technical support for the product comes directly from RFS. When clients have questions, they call us first. The majority of the conversions to date have been installed by RFS. Our approach is much more than slapping a FedEx label on a box and firing it out the door. The philosophy is that we don't just sell a reflector and a bunch of parts.....only the resulting projected image is what matters.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-03-2003, 09:58 AM:
 
Mark,
Perhaps you could check with the powers that be at RFS and see if they would be interested in another dealer. While this line is not meant to bash NCS I can unequivocally state that we nor our customers ever consider buying or having any dealings with NCS. It is they which have established the poor reputation that preceds them down here in the states.

Since we directly service close to 400 screens having other dealers on tap trained to install your upgrade kits would certainly be more beneficial to your sales.
Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Mark A. MacLellan (Member # 1776) on 09-03-2003, 11:19 AM:
 
The next generation of the Technalight system is in the manufacture stage as I write this and will soon be in the testing stage. If all goes well we'd like to see the next evolution complete before the end of 2003. It's my belief that the decision was made to go with NCS due to this evolutionary nature of the product and the fact that RFS, at the time that Technalight was ready to launch on the US market, had no exposure or "contacts" in the States. But Mark, it is certainly very enlightening to hear your comments on NCS and I would always be interested in similar opinions from others, so thanks! I guess what I'm trying to say is that I would not consider the existing situation to be permanent and I would welcome an "opening up" of the distribution in the US and abroad. I'll do what I can for ya....
 

---

Posted by Greg Pauley (Member # 503) on 09-03-2003, 04:32 PM:
 
Let me be the first to disagree with Mark’s comments about NCS. Maybe he has experienced problems out west with NCS, but my experience with the Cincinnati branch over the last 15 years has been excellent. I have dealt with Barb Cammack and until recently Mitch Bryson and have nothing but high regards for Barb and NCS. The Cincinnati branch of NCS has handled several builds for us over the years and has always come through with everything that was promised and on time. I can’t really speak about their tech service, since we handle all our tech work in-house. Mark, I think it’s kinda of funny that you have gone from “ RFS is making a fool out of themselves” to can we be a dealer for technalight, all in a couple of days.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-03-2003, 06:49 PM:
 
Greg,
Its good that you've had positive experiences with NCS. At least someone has. My negative experiences were back in the Midwest and in the south east. Technicians were sent out to do important jobs on location film work that were not qualified to even be working in the field. I was ultimately called in to straighten out the mess in those locations. NCS had also made for themselves a bad reputation in the midwest area. In fact I had hired an ex NCS tech to work for my company and well....I can't say anything more than that on this site.....

As for RFS. I'm glad that Mark has cleared the air about the system, and we are sure interested in it. I'm sure that others which were skeptical here are now also interested in the conversion. We at Claco are always interested in selling our customers the best options available. It did seem though that Mark M. thought that this site was a waste of time and I think he now feels differntly about that. Indeed it is a good site to expose at least some information on it so more are in the know. Most companies and I'm sure RFS included are always looking to expand its horizon and get further into the different film markets that are out there.
I look foreword to eventually upgrading some nearby systems at a 6 screen drive in, and at two local Large format theatres in the near future.
Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 09-03-2003, 07:46 PM:
 
We have done many retrofits in the past using the meopta and some ernamann (balzer) and some galileao reflectors and had good results but the cost factor comaperd to a whole new box (with new ignitors etc) really negated the value compared to just buying a new ernamann or kinoton lamphouse.
The only cases we have recently done that was to retrofit some verticle lamphouses were the rear protruding soundheads made fitting a new lamphouse on difficult
 

---

Posted by Mark A. MacLellan (Member # 1776) on 09-05-2003, 03:07 PM:
 
Mark, were you referring to National Cinema SUPPLY or National Cinema SERVICE?
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-05-2003, 05:45 PM:
 
Mark,
My experience, and some of my past Midwestern independents experience with both companies would rate about the same. Almost all of them never delt with either of them again after their first experience. Back then a couple of the National Cinema Supply offices also farmed out some of their work to outside contractors to be done. That sometimes creates more problems than it solves. Keep in mind that this was around 10 years ago though. Perhaps some miracle has happened and there are now competant people there doing a good job. That would be great and is how things should be, but most of the better technicians are working for the smaller supply dealers these days, or in buisness for themselves making far better pay then they were willing to provide.

The stuff I was called in to straighten out on the location film productions in Florida was due to inexperienced personel which National Cinema Service sent out from the home office in Louisiana.

As far as the branch managers leaving...it was due to dislike of the company...... and that was with National Cinema Supply.
Mark
 

---

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 09-06-2003, 01:02 AM:
 
I just looked at Strong's Product Bulletin 36 (PB-036) and it mentions instant void warranty on their consoles and lamphouses if non-Strong parts are installed or unauthorized modifications are performed. It also mentions the consoles and lamphouses using non-Strong parts and/or unauthorized parts will be no longer UL approved.

I would assume if this conversion were done to say a Highlight console or a Super Lume-x lamphouse then it's not UL approved and Strong won't warranty anything on the equipment. Anyone from Strong care to comment? Pat Moore maybe?
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-06-2003, 07:53 AM:
 
As to UL...generally, any changes to a piece of equipment would require resubmitting for UL approval, if one wanted to get hypertechnical about it.

As to the warranty...First off, who is buying new lamphouses/consoles and then installing a retrofit kit? If it is after the first year of operation, then it is really a moot point since the warranty has expired.

I think you will find that most manufacturers will void warranties if modifications cause a problem. If the modification didn't cause a problem, then who is making a warranty claim?

An easier example would be a wiring change...if someone came up with a "better" way to wire the console...bypassing that pesky circuit breaker because to dumb kids keep bumping it off and using smaller easier to work with wire. Hey 18awg should be good enough for my 5000 watt console...it works fine for my house lamp and it is pretty bright....etc.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 09-06-2003, 10:56 AM:
 
"Hey 18awg should be good enough for my 5000 watt console...it works fine for my house lamp and it is pretty bright....etc. "
Good idea fuses don't get bumped off
 

---

Posted by Mark A. MacLellan (Member # 1776) on 09-06-2003, 11:49 AM:
 
Yeah, Steve makes a good point here in that warranties only go for a year anyway so it's a bit redundant, huh? And yes, who the heck would buy a brand new console or lamphouse and then install a third-party upgrade kit in the first year? If brand new gear is what you want then I would suggest looking at the Technalight console, due to become available within a few weeks. If all goes as planned the Technalight console (serial number 000001) should be on display at ShowEast. Complete with UL cert and everything

As for the UL approval, yes I would expect that any modifications performed, such as a Technalight conversion, would void the UL cert, whether they be "electrical" in nature or not. But for the record, Technalight conversions do not require rectifier or lamphouse re-wiring, it's simply hardware & lamp changes and realignment.

Back to the topic of NCS(s)...I confess I have no experience with National Cinema Service, never talked to them. It's National Cinema Supply based in Tampa who are our distributors in the United States. I have dealt with a great many people within the organization over the past year & a half and have nothing but raves for them. Ten years ago is a long time with the way things (and people) in this business change and certainly pre-dates me and Technalight. But I can assure you (the collective "you") that if RFS felt that National Cinema Supply was not representing our product in a favourable light or if their customer service to the end-user fell short of the mark, we would be most concerned. I have never, not once, ever felt that anyone at NCS has been anything less than a total professional. But ya know, I'm sure that everyone reading this would agree that every single service/supply company has it's detractors and disgruntled customers, RFS included.

Well, like to write more but gotta run. I just realized I have to change some 18awg wiring in a lamphouse...I'm sure I saw a roll of 16awg speaker wire back in the shop somewhere
 

---

Posted by Erick Akers (Member # 875) on 03-04-2004, 05:34 PM:
 
All Bullshit aside,

Has anyone witnessed this system in service?

I know that I'm still interested!!!

Thanks,

Erick
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-04-2004, 06:41 PM:
 
I would have to say that having to purchase anything through NCS would preclude our ever using it. RFS certainly could come up with a better distributer...prehaps one of the U.S. lamp manufacturers as they would be technically more adept at handling this sort of thing. With NCS you never know who is going to show up at your site and how qualified they really are. This has been one of my customers biggest complaints about them. They have some very qualified and some very unqualified techs.

Also, another major overlook is that most theatre supply dealers generally don't buy through other theatre supply dealers, they generally will offer their customer an alternative instead.

Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Mark A. MacLellan (Member # 1776) on 03-04-2004, 09:09 PM:
 
Umm, it still sounds like we're confusing National Cinema Supply with National Cinema Service. However, let me also clarify that Technalight is now distributed by CineLite in Connecticut. There is also an entirely specific program in place for re-marketers and re-sellers. Historically, RFS has performed the initial one or two Technalight installations for each new customer. When the customer has determined that they will proceed with further installations RFS personnel train a tech of the customer's choice, either an in-house tech who works for the theatre company or a tech from an outside service company that the chain normally uses for their service. We have encountered both situations in the past. As I had said in previous postings, all tech support and components originate directly from RFS in Montreal. Hope that clears up the issue.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-04-2004, 09:48 PM:
 
Ok, So this is where it leaves me.....

1. We would be buying through a U.S. Distributer and paying a premium to them for your product.

2. You are shipping the equipment DIRECTLY to us from Quebec as well as sending ONE OF YOUR technicians to us to oversee the installation(good idea since you guys do know all about it!).

3. Other than taking a cut of the profits from both of us, and probably more from me, what exactly is this distributer providing for either of us? To me it looks as though they are just acting as an unnecessary middle man.

4. Who is CineLite? Just a division of NCS I would presume since both have Conn. locations .There is no web site for them in doing a search on Google. But there are a number of other companies called CineLite that come up.

5. Setting it up this way makes no sense to me nor to a few other dealer friends I know. simply said, this is not how cinema supply dealers will generally do buisness. Of the hundreds of vendors we sell products for none of them are a distributer of products.

Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Mark A. MacLellan (Member # 1776) on 03-04-2004, 10:42 PM:
 
Well, I'm sorry that this approach does not please some but it is part of a very deliberate marketing strategy that is working very well. Of course, anyone who sells or services Kinoton (just an example) has to go through a "distributor", Kinoton USA. So I don't believe it is that unusual.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-05-2004, 08:21 AM:
 
Ok, So you still haven't answered questions 3 and 4. Also, Kinoton USA is a vendor not a supply dealer. You've got CineLite and Technalight...Lite and Light... you guys seem pretty confused to me.
Whats your booth number at Showest where presumably you or your "distributor" will be showing the product? What Las Vegas theatre will the demo be at?

Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 03-05-2004, 08:54 AM:
 
A manufacturer with hundreds of products like Kinoton who insists on providing good service to its customers on another continent many time zones away has to decide whether to open a sales/service/parts/marketing/warehouse facility in that location themselves, or to set one up with people already familiar with the market. Kinoton chose the latter, of course, Kinoton America (We selected America rather than USA or US purposely to include our friends in other countries we serve in North and South America, like Canada.) This is rather different than a very small company just across the border. This is not to say there's anything wrong with what RFS is doing; the impetus for having a distributor is much different however.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-05-2004, 08:32 PM:
 
Always found the support BLS provides is exceptional to engineers that service kinoton equipment in the field
 

---

Posted by Mark A. MacLellan (Member # 1776) on 03-06-2004, 12:51 AM:
 
Of course, it has not been BLS since 2002 but whatever...I agree that the service is excellent.
I'm can't make ShoWest this year myself but I do know that CineLite has a booth and that the Technalight console will be there. As for where they are...I'm not aware of the booth number off-hand. My focus in recent months has been filling orders and keeping the production end of things moving. The marketing efforts are directed by CineLite so I'm not completely in-the-loop with respect to what they have planned but for anyone who's genuinely interested I'm sure I can find out. Note that I said genuinely interested
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-06-2004, 04:56 AM:
 
Mark,
I think you would find that with the exception of a couple of Techers here that we are all very interested in it. Its just a very unfortunate decision that Technalight made as a choice for U.S. Distributer.

I can think of at least a dozen or so locations, about half of them Drive Ins, right off the bat that would benefit from the conversion.

Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-06-2004, 07:55 PM:
 
Personally I would rather replace the lamphouse with a newer one and gain the better optics with new wiring and ignitors
If one wants to retrofit there are many good sources of reflectors out there Kinoton's Ernamann's and Meopta's all are available on a OEM basis
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-25-2004, 06:42 PM:
 
Ok, I did much investigation into this system while at Showest. First off, The folks representing the Technilite equipment at the Cinelite booth were giving out information that was both true and not true. The untrue information was that dicro coated metal mirrors have a huge efficiency loss after just 500 to 600 hours of use. Although I didn't say anything to them during our discussions this statement seemed rediclous to me so I talked to the people from Optiform who were at Showest that make most of the metal mirrors used today in cinema lamphouses and was told the following. "This is definately not true. In actuality there is a 4% to 7% loss in efficiency of a brand new dicro coated metal mirror after about the first 600 hours of use. Then the dropoff in efficiency is extremely gradual over about a 10 to 15 year period." I tend to side with this information because I have many 10 plus year old metal dicros in the field that still perform extremely well, including one in my vintage Toledo, Ohio made Strong Super LumEx that is at least 20 years old. All in all it seems to me that the drop off in efficiency is similar to the drop off of a typical low power LED..... Some in the first few hundred hours and then very gradual over many many years.

What I will say is that this modification apprently does work and will for the most part perform as claimed. It is based on the glass reflector combined with the use of the new Osram short gap 4200 watt lamp. Although, according to the people at Optiform it would be very easy to make a metal dicro mirror that would achieve the exact same results.

Technilite is so confident of the efficiency of this system that they will come out and install it and if the end results are not as they claim you are not obligated to purchase it. So there is no real risk involved here.

There was also mention by Technilite prople of the possible need to also try to tweek the system by the use of newer style lenses...so depending on what lenses you have in use now you may also be purchasing new lenses at much additional expense to be able to get the last lumen of light onto the screen.

The operational down side to me and one that is very obvious is that this system uses the recently developed short gap xenon lamps that have a relativly short 500 hour warrantied life. The Osram folks did mention to me that they have been working dilligently on increasing this with good results out to 750 hours. This may not be a problem for the average 5 month out of the year drive-in, but this could be a big deal to hard top theatres that run 12 plus hours a day... they'd go through alot of expensive lamps!

All in all we are still interested in trying this system out for ourselves and expect the claims made to be true for the most part. I hope the clairfications above will remove some of the mystery about this system and make thigns a bit more clear for those that have criticised it and failed to do their homework.

Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Greg Pauley (Member # 503) on 03-26-2004, 01:01 PM:
 
Mark,

My understanding is the 4200wt short gap lamp is used for large venues replacing the 7000wt bulbs. My three technalite kits all use regular Osram 3000WH bulbs on 48 foot screens and you should be able to get a couple thousand hours on those bulbs. Technalite was sold as a way to reduce a bulb size and at the same time increase the light on the screen. Most independents with limited funds would find it hard to purchase a system that would cut your bulb size on one hand, and on the other hand force you to purchase a more expensive bulb with half the life expectancy. This is not the case, at least with the systems that I purchased. I don’t have experience with every lamphouse manufactured, but my experience with dicro coated metal mirrors such as used in the strong lamphouses lose a lot of light after couple of years. The metal acts as a heat sink and causes degradation in light output over time even with good ventilation.
 

---

Posted by Mark A. MacLellan (Member # 1776) on 03-26-2004, 02:16 PM:
 
Greg....agreed, your interpretation is correct. And now there is a new Technalight reflector that we have just introduced in the past few weeks with a hot coating that allows someone to replace a 4K or even a 5K with a 2000W/H and expect more light with greater uniformity. The hot coating, when using only a 2K lamp, has not been determined to introduce any heat disadvantage. The reflective properties are even greater with this one than our dichro but obviously you're limited to using a 2K or perhaps a 2.5K before heat starts to become an issue.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-26-2004, 05:55 PM:
 
2K xenon lamps with hot reflectors do not like high silver or black and white prints as there is a lot of focus and blistering issues
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-27-2004, 01:12 PM:
 
Gerg,
I'm sorry but both you and the information given out by Technilite regarding metal mirror dicro fading is simply dead wrong. How long a metal dicro lasts is simply dependent on how well it is cooled. Having known this for quite a few years past its the main reason that I always specify ALOT of airflow for cooling. As a result of proper cooling I've simply not experienced any of the fading problems and pretty much see what the engineers at Optiform talk about. When you loose your forst mirror to an explosion you will be thinking that it would certainly be advantagous to see Technilite contract with Optiform for a metal mirror!!

Keep in mind that the dicro coating on the glass mirror is pretty much the same as whats vaporized onto the metal mirror and it is subject to the same fade rates and temperature excursions as the metal mirror is. Thats an unfortunate law of physics in the case of either mirror. Optiform has in fact told me that the heat reflected by either a glass or metal dicro mirror of equal specifications is just about the same in the UV and IR regions when measured with a spectroscope. If you don't believe what I've stated above than I'd be more than happy to supply you with the mans name and his phone number at Optiform via e-mail. He asked me not to post his name on line but said he would be more than happy to back me up on these statements.

Our Technilite installations would mainly be in drive ins and on large indoor screens. The outdoor installs would in fact require the 4.2k short gap Osram to attain the needed amount of light. All of these screens are in a somewhat high ambient light level area of town and there is also one screen with a 19" focal length lens for flat that will eat up some of that light. There is no lens available as a replacement for that screen so it has to run with what it has for lensing. As for the indoor versions it would probably be with the 3K lamps and I don't remember having mentioned any life span problems or concerns with those lamps.

As for Gords assumption about B&W estar film. It may require one or two extra heat mirrors in the optial path to keep things cool enough. A water type heat filter in the optical path would also work very well for B&W estar.

Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 03-27-2004, 02:27 PM:
 
The Cinelite connection to National Cinema Supply maybe at arms length. Dan Miller, who was in the booth, has involvement in both companies.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-27-2004, 03:14 PM:
 
Richard, You are correct! They slipped up and left a National Cinema Supply card in the brochure folder they gave me. Not to worry though as we still plan on giving it a try.

Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Mark A. MacLellan (Member # 1776) on 03-27-2004, 03:32 PM:
 
On 08-08-03 Mark Gulbrandsen wrote:

"Nothing about that stuff is special. Thats an Ernamann reflector and what appears to be a standard 3kw Christie xenon lamp. I guess thats why he is so secrative about the whole thing........there's nothing special at all in there."

Note: the reflector and lamp in question are the Technalight glass reflector and the OSRAM 4200W/GS.

On 09-01-03 Mark Gulbrandsen wrote:

"Perhaps the pending has been rejected..... perhaps all this is nothing new and is all available off the shelf as others here have pointed out."

On 09-03-03 Mark Gulbrandsen wrote:

"I can unequivocally state that we nor our customers ever consider buying or having any dealings with NCS."

On 03-04-04 Mark Gulbrandsen wrote:

"I would have to say that having to purchase anything through NCS would preclude our ever using it."

And then...

On 03-25-04 Mark Gulbrandsen wrote:

"What I will say is that this modification apprently does work and will for the most part perform as claimed."

On 03-25-04 Mark Gulbrandsen wrote:

"All in all we are still interested in trying this system out for ourselves and expect the claims made to be true for the most part."

On 03-27-04 Mark Gulbrandsen wrote:

"Our Technilite installations would mainly be in drive ins and on large indoor screens."

On 03-27-04 Mark Gulbrandsen wrote:

"...left a National Cinema Supply card in the brochure folder they gave me. Not to worry though as we still plan on giving it a try."

And there's my absolute favourite, from 03-25-04:

"...for those that have criticised it and failed to do their homework."
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 03-27-2004, 04:06 PM:
 
The battlebot war between the Marks

To quote another Mark by the name of Twain....."It is no harm to be an ass, if one is content to bray and not kick" ......"A man with a humped-backed uncle mustn't make fun of another man's cross eyed aunt."....Car vous vieillissez vous deviendrez plus humble ( not Twain but bad French )
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-27-2004, 04:09 PM:
 
Yes Mark, And so whats your point? I did brush aside anything I did say in the past. I DID do my homework on both sides of the fence while at Showest and came up with the information I supplied above.....

Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 03-27-2004, 10:10 PM:
 
Y'know, this package has been debated to death for over a year now. I've seen their presentation, and I have no opinion on it, one way or another. But, looking back on it all, I'm wondering if it's not just a matter of convenience for the exhibitor. Many of you guys are, at one level or another, expert in the technical practice of this art. What Technilite does may not be very impressive to you, especially if you have the ability to supervise a system from spec to final operation. But, for the schlub out there who doesn't have the benefit of your collective expertise, perhaps it can be said that Technilite has put a package together that exhibits some level of improvement over what's in a lot of those booths now. If one of you was commissioned to maximize light efficiency at a particular theatre, you might also take a systems approach, evaluating and making changes in the reflector, lamp, shutter & lens combinations that you personally consider optimal. THAT opens wide a discussion over what constitutes "optimal", which also probably means there's no possible resolution to this thread other than locking it altogether
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 03-27-2004, 10:24 PM:
 

quote:

---

And there's my absolute favourite, from 03-25-04:

"...for those that have criticised it and failed to do their homework."

---