This is topic Strong Ultra 80 vs Cinemeccanica ZX 8000 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=006821

---

Posted by Ari Nordström (Member # 288) on 01-02-2005, 05:47 PM:
 
Hello everyone,

We're going to throw out our old Cinemeccanica Zenith X4000 lamphouses after some 28 years of service, and are considering the Strong Ultra 80 to replace them. However, our usual tech also happens to be a Cinemeccanica rep and would like us to consider their ZX 8000 house.

Now, a search on the forums gave the Ultra 80 some very nice reviews but I couldn't find anything on the Cinemeccanica house so I'd very much appreciate any information you might have on both of these houses. And also, I'm assuming that at 4.5 kW, the Ultra 80 wouldn't be too harmful to 35 mm prints. Is this safe to do?

We show both 35 and 70 mm, today with 4 kW standing OSRAM bulbs and IREM rectifiers. The projectors are Zeiss Favorit70s with water-cooled gates. Our screen is fairly large (about 15 meters) and the old houses haven't really been up to the task. The IREMs we'd like to keep, though, if at all possible.

Best regards,

/Ari
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-02-2005, 06:15 PM:
 
We've run Strong Ultra-80s up to 6K (with a heat filter) on 35mm.

No problems. I haven't worked with the Cinemeccanica lamphouse so I can't comment on it.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-02-2005, 08:20 PM:
 
You may want to verify that the strong can be placed at the right working distance on those prevost(zies) favorites. The optical soundhead sticks out the back so it might be an issue
The cinemecanica lamphouse (especially the glass mirror ones) will produce very good light
 

---

Posted by Andrew McCrea (Member # 674) on 01-02-2005, 09:21 PM:
 
I've also heard very good things about the Ultra 80, however I've only been near a Super 80 and it produced very good light with a 4500w xenon. I've heard the Ultra 80 is a better choice however as it has much better cooling!

The sales literature for the Strong series of lamphouses can be found here:
http://www.strong-cinema.com/downloads/specs/lamphouse/Lamps.pdf

Hope this helps!
 

---

Posted by Ari Nordström (Member # 288) on 01-03-2005, 01:32 AM:
 
Thanks, all.

As for the optical soundheads, they're being replaced by red light thingies in short order. I assume they'll stick up in the back some but I don't have the numbers yet.

I'm thinking Ultra 80 for the moment if everything else works out. We can get a very good deal from Strong.

Steve, would you say that the heat filter is essential?
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-03-2005, 02:23 AM:
 
I generally run a heat filter on anything above 3KW on any metal reflector. Strong's metal reflectors run a cool as anyone elses that I've come across so yes, I would say a heat filter is essential. The Ultra-80 has the heat filter as a standard piece of equipment. It is optional on the Super-80 (same lamphouse, less cooling).

Steve
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-03-2005, 09:53 AM:
 
A heat filter is certainly "essential" to protect B&W silver image prints from heat damage with larger lamps, and is "recommended" for reducing "focus flutter" with any print:

Heat Damage Part 1

Heat Damage Part 2

quote:

---

New theater construction emphasizes "wall to wall" images on screens that often exceed fifty feet in width. Only five years ago, the average xenon bulb power was 2000 watts. Today, power levels of 4000 watts are common, with some theaters using as many as 7000 watts to project 35 mm film onto 80 foot screens.

Focusing all that power through a postage-stamp size piece of film can cause problems ranging from image flutter and focus drift to permanent print damage like blistering, scorching, fading and dye migration. In our years of studying the effects of excessive heat on film, Kodak has identified three major areas of concern: improper or non- existent use of heat filters,
excessive bulb current, and maladjustment of bulb focus causing a "hot spot."

Heat Filters

Use of efficient heat filters is recommended for all projectors and is mandatory for any lamp larger than 2000 watts. Aluminized, silver, or rhodium surfaced reflectors without heat filtration are intended only for specialized applications and should not be used for theaters. Xenon bulbs emit a large amount of their energy in the infrared portion of the spectrum. Excess infrared energy absorbed by the film is a major source of heat damage, especially with blackand-white prints (silver grains absorb more infrared energy than color dyes).

An efficient heat filter removes most of the damaging infrared energy produced by the lamp. Most heat filters rely on diachronic coatings on the reflector, making it reflect visible light and absorb infrared energy. Consoles with vertically-mounted bulbs usually use a flat diachronic mirror set at a 45-
degree angle, which reflects visible light to the aperture and transmits the unwanted infrared energy to a heat sink.
The efficiency of heat filters varies among manufacturers, and is affected by the age and condition of the dichroic coatings. When purchasing new lamphouses, compare the efficiency of the heat filter system in rejecting unwanted ultraviolet and infrared energy. Always keep the surface of the mirror and heat filters clean and dust free, using the cleaning procedures
recommended by the manufacturer. Dichroic coatings are very fragile and easily damaged if cleaned improperly. Heat filters with obviously worn, pitted, or damaged dichroic coatings should be replaced. Do not remove heat filters or use reflectors with no heat protection, even to get a bit more light on the screen. You'll get a bit more light-and a lot more heat damage

---

 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 01-03-2005, 10:09 AM:
 
I have used the ZX 8000 in an installation with a 22 meter screen with excellent results. The unit uses a dichoric glass reflector which is much more even and easier to aline versus the Strong 80 series lamphouses. The build quality versus Strong is also much better. The weak U.S. dollar should be giving Strong a price advantage and should do well compared to the antique lamphouse you are now retiring. If you go with the Strong a heat filter is highly recommended since metal dichorics are not as efficient in IR elimination compared to glass.......also make sure that there is proper clearance for the Strong unit to be used with the Prevost and the ignitor is set for the lower no load D.C. voltage of the IREM.
 

---

Posted by Ari Nordström (Member # 288) on 01-04-2005, 01:34 AM:
 
Well, yes, I'm rather thankful for the weak US dollar for the moment. Moneywise, the Cinemeccanica cannot compete.

And thank you all, again. This is all very useful information.
 

---

Posted by Erick Akers (Member # 875) on 01-04-2005, 02:16 AM:
 
Ari,
Is your e mail address up to date?
I would like to speak to you about the Zeiss Favorit 70's.

(currently I am restoring a match pair and could use some advice)

I believe we share A mutual friend, Paul Rayton.

He Sent me a copy of the 70mm Bull Shit convention DVD, and I sent a 70mm short with him on his last trip.

You run a beautiful theater!

Please get in touch,

Erick
 

---

Posted by Ari Nordström (Member # 288) on 02-03-2005, 07:16 AM:
 
I thought you'd like to know that we've installed the Ultra 80 houses now. The installation was largely painless, in spite of us deciding to put them in on the same day as the Göteborg Film Festival opened last Friday. They really produce beautiful light.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-03-2005, 07:54 AM:
 

quote:

---

I've heard the Ultra 80 is a better choice however as it has much better cooling!

---

Actually the Christie lamphouses have the best cooling system of them all and the highest light output.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-03-2005, 09:19 AM:
 
Mark the christie also has an excessivly high colour temperature as well and if one filters its output to SMPTE spec (which is what prints are timed to) then the loss of light negates any gains
 

---

Posted by Thomas King (Member # 2745) on 02-03-2005, 09:58 AM:
 
"And as always I will chime in after Gordon and clarify that the SMPTE recommendation is 3 decades old..."



(Quoting Brad, obviously)
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-03-2005, 10:06 AM:
 
"And as always I will chime in after Gordon and clarify that the SMPTE recommendation is 3 decades old."
which is still the standard that all film labs time prints to and if any group was to change that it would be based on a choice by DOP's and the colour timers not a sole equipment manufacturer
It isn't an acident how the chromaticy of projected light was derived
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-03-2005, 06:58 PM:
 
I've also yet to see the Christie out light the Strong too (since we all have to chime in our standard lines here).

Steve
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-03-2005, 08:35 PM:
 

quote:

---

Mark the christie also has an excessivly high colour temperature as well and if one filters its output to SMPTE spec (which is what prints are timed to) then the loss of light negates any gains

| IP

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Just run some Schneider film Mark on a Christie...do the same on a Strong...note the difference.

---

I have Steve.... The Christie wins by three lengths!..... Yawn.....

Mark
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-04-2005, 10:29 AM:
 
Only if you are trying to blister the film... :sizzle:
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-04-2005, 06:51 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by Matt Zeiner (Member # 1914) on 02-05-2005, 01:51 AM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Without a doubt...on a wattage by wattage basis...Christie heats up the gate and lens more than either Strong or Kinoton. Kionton is definately the coolest, then Strong...Christie is significantly hotter. Just run some Schneider film Mark on a Christie...do the same on a Strong...note the difference.

---

...uninvited to the brawl, but here I am. Agreed with Steve on that.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-05-2005, 07:31 AM:
 

 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 02-05-2005, 09:23 AM:
 
Meow....hisss....hiss...nice cat fight I think I am the only reply that has worked with both the 80's and the ZX8000.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-05-2005, 09:30 AM:
 

 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-05-2005, 11:59 AM:
 
Richard I have worked with most of if not all the cinemecanica lamphouses as well as strong and many other makes of strainge parentage as well
 

---

Posted by Matt Zeiner (Member # 1914) on 02-05-2005, 02:15 PM:
 
Me too...
 

---