Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Automation Suggestions

This is topic Automation Suggestions 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=008570

Posted by Brant Veilleux (Member # 2877) on 03-12-2007, 08:43 PM:

I’ve got an install I am working on and am looking for some advice as to what Automation System I should look toward, or away from. I have not run across any systems that I am real impressed with in the few years I have been tech-ing. Though, most of the equipment I service is pretty old.

The newest automation system I have in the field is the Component Engineering TA-10. The system is pretty basic, which I like, but I have had a lot of boards go out on them. I also find that the operators don’t clean the optics and most of them have the film presence and motion bypass switches on, which defeats the purpose of having automation.

The new theaters needs are not that complex, just the basics are needed, failsafe, lights, audio, projector, lamphouse, and fire alarm controls. My initial thought is to steer away from programmable queues and like complexities.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 03-13-2007, 12:38 AM:

I don't know if it is available in your region but I can recommend the Panalogic system. It may be available from Smart.

It is flexible and reliable. Once you get the hang of it (and it took me a while) you can program it to do almost anything and change any operation on the fly.

I like it because it is gives the theatre the closest thing toa manual presentation by a skilled operator.

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 03-18-2007, 05:01 AM:

CA21 all the way

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-18-2007, 09:56 AM:

One thing is for certain... with the new RoHS lead free compliance thing going on you WILL have more trouble with who ever's automation you put in. RoHS affects everyone! There is no longer that nice Cadmium plating on switch and relay contacts that once existed. I would definitely say stay away from any electro-mechanical stuff at any cost, the type with cam timers and the like. At least with computer based automations you eliminate the cam timer switches. Stay away from TA-10's... they are really living dinosaurs and we have enough trouble with them to warrant that statement. The Panalogic or CA-21 is very nice stuff. What ever you put in don't depend on the automation and the whimpy plastic switches to do the motor switching... use an auxiliary contactor for that purpose exclusively!

Of course an actual real living individual would be the best "Automation Choice" [Cool]

.

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-18-2007, 05:32 PM:

Even the CA21 and the CA2000 use relays to "talk" to some equipment like the projector, masking, dimmers....etc. RoHS has been going on for some time now...and much of the electromechanical devices have RoHS compliannce already. Certainly time will tell if the RoHS stuff will work as well as their former components. I know for most solvents it has proven to not be the case. That is, the enviro-friendly solvents tend to work less effectively than their O-zone depleating counterparts. This was much worse immediately after the switch versus now.

However, many things are becoming serial or ethernet controlled so relays are becoming less necessary. The Panalogic dimmers are RS232 controllable, for instance. Current cinema processors also offer RS232 control versus contact closure and the CA21 and CA2000 can work with those.

Remember too, that automations like the CA21 and the CA2000 were designed in countries that use 230VAC power which has half the current of our 120VAC powered motors. Thus, it is a necessity to use a buffer relay/contactor to control these higher current motors. Remember that it is important that the relay can handle the surge current when the motor turns on...not just the running current which will be MUCH less.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-18-2007, 05:46 PM:

My point above was that at least with the CA21/Panalogic type you are not also dealing with a cam timer. I have had quie e number of fairly new cam timer switches fail in recent months. Mike Blaksley in Forsythe was one place we experienced a failure. BEfore this switch over to lead free I had but one or two cam timer switch failures in 20+ years.

Mark

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 03-18-2007, 06:34 PM:

Steve, does this mean that all the new audio processors are also RoHS compliant?

Posted by Joel N. Weber II (Member # 3530) on 03-18-2007, 08:14 PM:

As of a year or two ago, RoHS compliance was only legally required in the European Union. Has the regulatory environment changed since then?

There are also exceptions for certain types of equipment that require high reliability. I believe aircraft avionics are one exception. Soekris believes their computers are another exception:

quote:
Current lead-free solder replacements all have lower reliability than the lead based solder. There are therefore some exceptions in Annex 7 of the 2002/95/EC Directive for equipment that requires higher reliability, specifically servers and network infrastructure equipment, under which the current Soekris products clearly fall. Manufacturers of these products have the option of continuing to use lead based solder but are still required to eliminate the other 5 substances (RoHS-5).

Regardless of the legal requirements in a particular area, a lot of more recent electronic components have been made without lead just so that they can be made in a one-model-fits-the-whole-globe fashion, so everyone is affected.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-19-2007, 12:53 AM:

The CP650, JSD-80 and XD10P are RoHS compliant. I can't say for certain that the CSP1200 is...my guess is that it is not since it was designed before RoHS and every component as well as the manufacturing methods would have to be checked against it. However, SMART/Panastereo may have done just that by now since the CSP1200 is a good export product for them.

One reason Dolby only has the CP650 (for complete cinema processor...the DMA8 Plus is also available as an adapter and is RoHS) now is RoHS...they did not want to redesign the other products for compliance...one may have to completely start from scratch since EVERY component in the product must comply.

Posted by Richard May (Member # 2627) on 03-19-2007, 08:07 AM:

I like the Xetron Maxi12XPC. It has all the basic functions plus interlock,slide projector switching,masking,curtains,fire input,etc...I have only had one of the boards go in about 100 units installed. They come in wall mount or console mount. The cue detector can be set up different ways too. Great unit....

Posted by Brant Veilleux (Member # 2877) on 03-19-2007, 02:46 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Of course an actual real living individual would be the best "Automation Choice" .

I couldn't agree more. I feel that automation creates a real disconnect between the operator and the equipment. Though, some may say turning on the motor, dimming the house lights, opening the dowser is a lot to ask.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 03-19-2007, 03:35 PM:

quote: Brant Veilleux
The newest automation system I have in the field is the Component Engineering TA-10. The system is pretty basic, which I like, but I have had a lot of boards go out on them. I also find that the operators don’t clean the optics and most of them have the film presence and motion bypass switches on, which defeats the purpose of having automation.

Interesting. I've had no problems with the TA-10. Other than the board replacement you're talking about, it sounds like your problems have mainly been around the FM35 failsafe. In the past 5 years, I've had to clean mine once, and that was no big deal. They've been bulletproof ever since.

The bypass switch placement sounds like a training issue to me, though it's admittedly a way to get around a failsafe problem. You'll have challenges with that no matter what equipment you use, if the staff is allowed to take the covers off and play with the internals or if they can't get something fixed promptly.

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 03-19-2007, 09:32 PM:

My experience with TA-10's has been pretty flawless. In fact, in 5 years, I believe the only parts I ever had to service was the occasional FM-35. They are pretty simple, for a solid state system. I can think of MUCH worse automations to use rather than TA-10's. TA-10's were extremely popular in the northwest.

If simplicity is your goal, go with a Christie 3Q. It can't get any simpler than that, (except a human being pushing buttons at the correct time). But I don't care for the Speco failsafes that are packaged with them (or any drop-switch failsafe for that matter. The wisest option would be to add a cue expander to give yourself more cues to work with.

If you are looking for flexibility in the future, Pennywise or Panalogic are the way to go. I service a theater with Panalogic automations, and it is evident that they had digital in mind when designing the model installed at this theater. Ironically, on houses where 35mm was removed entirely, a Pennywise DCA21 took its place. An equally good digital pegboard automation.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 03-20-2007, 04:24 PM:

Just noticed a few interesting comments about the best automation being a live person to manually run the show. I disagree. I am a firm believer in the operator being at the machine to supervise the start of the show and I have run and seen flawless shows with great showmanship run manually. However, I think to expect a human being (most likely more than one) to run every show the exact same way, with the same functions being activated at the exact same time every show is a little far fetched. A well designed and installed automation controller with well thought out and properly placed cues will provide the consistency of every show being executed perfectly in the same exact way every showing. It also provides the back-up of a failsafe in case of a film break, You can also add sensors for the lamp, sound head LED, and Platter so that if the lamp doesn't strike or goes out, the platter stops, or the sound goes out the show will stop and an alarm will activate so that the operator can immediately investigate the problem.

Theres no replacement for a qualified operator who cares about proper presentation and showmanship. No automation will replace that but if used properly as a tool to assist a good operator it will provide a level of consistency that would be difficult for a human to recreate.

My personal choice for an automation would be the Component Engineering TA-10 or the automation that Louis Bornwasser produces at Entertainment Engineering Inc.(Hadden Theatre Supply). Its A great product Louis!

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 03-20-2007, 04:47 PM:

I'd have to agree with Sean... except for the part about Louis' automation, which I've not had the opportunity to try.

When I automated my booth, the goal was to duplicate what I would do, were I there to push the buttons. I got to take my "best show", and teach it to a computer, interfaced to a TA-10... and then duplicate it by 3... something I would NOT have been able to do myself.

Like building a print, the front-end of the week takes a certain amount of busywork... but once done, it puts out a polished presentation every time I push the button.

I'm also of the thought that one should be at the machines when starting... at least at the beginning of the night. As my double features are spliced on one platter, I will sometimes arm the mid-show restart and head downstairs... but even then, not very often. Old school, maybe... but I'm comfortable with the attitude.

I know some of you don't do it this way. If it works for you, fine. But I think this is where some of the attention to detail gets lost. If the setup doesn't force an operator to be there, some operators just won't be. If nobody's there to look at the focus when the machine starts, and that process is duplicated through the day in a multiplex, it's not hard to understand why things can look a little soft.

Posted by Raphael Friedland (Member # 3453) on 04-02-2007, 05:04 AM:

Brant Veilleux
look into your privet massages