Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: "series 1" vs. "series 2"

This is topic "series 1" vs. "series 2" in forum Digital Cinema 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=16;t=000613

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-26-2010, 01:36 PM:

I see these terms here. What is the difference, and how does one tell which machine is which? I assume that series 2 is newer/better?

Posted by Frederick Lanoy (Member # 5416) on 07-26-2010, 02:42 PM:

Barco series 2 projectors seem to have more light effeciency thanks to "an advanced cooling DMD process". It can works in full DMD at triple flash (DP 3000 can't). Other evolutions on Barco :

- 4 K ready (1.38 DMD).
- Cleanable filters.
- Lamp power supply are built into the projector.
- Improved lens movement (quicker).
- Easy adjustance convergence (DMD red, blue, green).
- Cooling liquid system is more easy to check and you can add liquid easily.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-26-2010, 03:02 PM:

From a user standpoint...Series 2 is nearly identical to series 1.

The givens are...all series 2 are full-frame triple flash capable, all of the 1.2" based machines have a 4K resolution upgrade path, if TI actually produces it.

A common theme with series 2 machines are around their inputs...most have an empty slot in there somewhere to accept an internal media block. At present, the servers have the media blocks in them. In the future (or so they say), the media block will reside in the projector and something along the order of a Cat6 cable will connect the server to media block.

Internally, much as changed...the controller boards are different (and much fewer), controller software is different (and they reset the version number back to 1...whereas series 1 TI software was out to 14...to drive the point home that they were series 1 machines...even the old 1.3K machines ran on the SAME TI software as the last generation series 1 machines...though I think version 11 or 12 was the last recommended version for the 1.3K machines).

Series 2 machines are supposed to be fully DCI compliant but there is no outward appearance of that. So again, from the user standpoint, there is no difference.

-Steve

Posted by Olivier Lemaire (Member # 5579) on 07-26-2010, 04:02 PM:

I could add that:
* Serie-II are now mandatory - no more serie-I out there (only grey market), and forced by studios in a VPF deal
* Serie-II don't do subtitling but promise they will in a near future (hopefully, Doremi DCP2K can do the subtitling instead...)
* Serie-II are pretty new on the market, and pose some headaches here and there (ICP card issues...), no matter the brand (NEC, Christie...).
* depending on brand/model, of course you could gain some new features, but will also loose some for a while (subtitling, stability) until fixed...

my 2 cents [Smile]

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 07-26-2010, 04:04 PM:

The following "Series 2" projectors are listed by DCI as passing the compliance test:
Christie CP2220, 2230
Barco DP2K-12C, -15C, -20C
NEC NC2000C, NC3200S, NC1200C

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-26-2010, 06:00 PM:

Barco's series do WILL do subtitling within the projector. Barco's latest software update (v.02.01.00.276, issued within the past month) brought about this feature.

Steve

Posted by Olivier Lemaire (Member # 5579) on 07-26-2010, 06:10 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Barco's series do WILL do subtitling within the projector. Barco's latest software update (v.02.01.00.276, issued within the past month) brought about this feature.

Last month was... june.
Serie-II were release january in Europe.

So that means we spent 4 to 5 months without subtitling with Serie-II projectors (in fact more, because Barco latest software upgrade is not yet well dispatched on the field...).

Hopefully for this subtitling issue, Doremi was able to quickly workaround the point to deliver subtitling at the SMS level.

As you imagine, in Europe, subtitling is crucial, as lot "big-cities-theaters" are screening "Original Version - Dubbed"... Hopefully (from the subtitling point of view), in Europe, Doremi is now nearly 90% of SMS base installed...

I still persist: from my point of view, these Serie-II were released far more quickly than the common sense should have performed... but well, afterall, that makes more sales for somes, and more security feeling for others... what a marvelous world, isn't it? [Smile]

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 07-26-2010, 06:37 PM:

On the new Christie projectors the user interface is a touch screen with a stylus instead of the keypad. The status lights are now on the rear corners of the projector.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-26-2010, 07:25 PM:

The Barco update came out in July, actually.

It has been possible, for some time, for the DCPs to have the subtitling information. It is a mater of where the titles are generated.

And yes...in Europe, it would be MUCH more critical to have subtitling addressed and nailed down.

Matt...the first Christie series 1 projectors were touch panels. It was only the ZX and the M that used the "calculator" or as they call it, the CDP. Series 2 Christies are all TPs again.

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 07-26-2010, 07:36 PM:

My bad...I have only seen the ZX and the 2230 in person and assumed it was a series 1 vs. series 2 thing.

Having ZX's, I am used to the CDP. Why did Christie revert back to the touch screen for the Series 2?

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 07-26-2010, 08:13 PM:

Our barco II's already have the media block outside the server and are inside the projector, connected by a pcie cable

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-26-2010, 08:45 PM:

Questions lead to answers, which leads to more questions.

What is the "media block"? Is it the thing that converts bits to HD-SDI, or something else?

Can series-I machines be upgraded to series-II? Is there any reason why one might want to do so?

Is triple-flash useful for anything other than 3D?

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 07-27-2010, 01:26 AM:

In Europe the last generation of Series 1 DP3000 as well as the OEM engines DID do tripple flash full frame. I think that the timing for series 2 was great unlike a comment above. All companies lacked certain features that could not be software upgraded and needed some complete redesign (e.g Barcos' pressurised cooling with the thought that people would be mounting the projectors upside down) and others that were greatly improved in series 2 projectors.
Demetris

Posted by Tom Bert (Member # 5719) on 07-27-2010, 02:01 AM:

On the subtitling support by Barco: http://www.barco.com/en/pressrelease/2575/en

Other difference (most were already mentioned above) is that Barco's B-series (1.2" chip) was expanded to 3 "family members", building on the modular concept. People looking for high brightness and/or 4K-readiness can find a best match for their screen size out of 3 models now. (Total Series II family has 6 members.)

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-27-2010, 03:55 AM:

Scott, the "Mediablock" is the last step of getting the DCP files into a video format for the projector. It is the secure area within a "server" or player. By moving the media block into the projector, you are moving the secure part into the projector rather than having to re-encrypt (e.g. cinelink) to move it over HDSDI lines between the mediablock and the projector in an encrypted fashion.

In essence, it is the "player" part of the system without the storage part (in hardware terms).

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 07-27-2010, 08:25 AM:

The Media Block will eventually lead to lower total cost for D-Cinema as you can use a much lower cost off the shelf server now that the media block is inside the projector.

There is also now the possibility of streaming content from a central library server directly to each projector and not even have a local server at all. There is work being done on this as we speak.

Posted by Tom Bert (Member # 5719) on 07-27-2010, 09:20 AM:

Note that the IMB is actually a necessity (more than making things compact or less expensive): the existing cable bandwidth (between server and projector) will not be sufficient for 4K-per-eye 3D.

The other benefits are of course welcome [Wink]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-27-2010, 10:11 AM:

Not really...with 3G-SDI...there is sufficient bandwidth to run just 4 cables and get 4:4:4 4K...I trust coax cables MUCH more than UTP (Cat 5/6). I even trust it more than Fiber...which is where we will be going...also a means of moving high bandwidth content.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-27-2010, 11:47 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Not really...with 3G-SDI...there is sufficient bandwidth to run just 4 cables and get 4:4:4 4K...I trust coax cables MUCH more than UTP (Cat 5/6). I even trust it more than Fiber...which is where we will be going...also a means of moving high bandwidth content.

Are the newer digital projectors using 3G-SDI, or are they still using two links like the older ones. I was looking on the Kramer site for something unrelated, and they have several products for 3G-SDI now.

They're putting Cat 6 in the fefurbished area and the new build here at the moment and I don't like it. It's much stiffer than Cat 5e, and the fact that it's LSZH makes it even worse. The Cat 5e LSZO which we've been using for some years now isn't too bad. Cat 6 has larger minimum bend radius requirements than Cat 5e; they're having to use larger trunking, and special corner pieces to meet these requirements.

Cat 6a is even worse; I hope we never see the unshielded version, it's huge, about 9 mm in diameter, and strangely shaped to prevent cables laying neatly next to each other - necessary to reduce crosstalk. The shielded stuff is actually smaller than the unshielded. Most of it has a shield around each pair, and then another overall shield. I'd rather have fibre if we need that sort of bandwidth.

Most of our fibre is now OM-3 laser optimised stuff, that will handle 10G Base-SR if we need it to in future. Have very few problems with fibre, as long as it doesn't use MTRJ connectors, and we've just retired the only switch which did use those.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-27-2010, 11:50 AM:

What are people doing that requires cat 6 utp that won't work equally well with cat 5e utp?

And what are the reliability issues with utp cabling? For in-wall and server room installations, it's fine, as long as the 100-metre run-length limit is observed. As long as the cable is made properly and tested before installation, the only real weakness should be the RJ45 connector, but that is only really an issue if the connector is repeatedly inserted and removed. For a permanent install, I don't see this being a real problem. Yes, there is some really cheap cable out there that can be brittle or which has fewer twists for some pairs, but I am referring to quality cable from Belden or similar.

The only real win for fiber should be with long runs or in electrically noisy environments. The fiber "cable" itself is actually quite fragile.

(Note that my experience with this stuff is in IT/data center use, not cinema. Your mileage may vary, etc., etc.)

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-27-2010, 01:41 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
What are people doing that requires cat 6 utp that won't work equally well with cat 5e utp?

Nothing that I'm aware of. Cat 5e is good for 100 m of 1000 Base-T, and anything else you're likely to put through it, analogue telephones, ISDN, Token Ring, RS-42, RS-485 etc., is less demanding. If you're wanting to use 10G Base-T then you need Cat. 6a, unless you're only running a short distance. Cat. 6 seems almost pointless, but many organisations insist on using it now. It's quite a bit more expensive than Cat. 5e, and they're installing tens of kilometres of the stuff in our building at the moment. I suppose that if you had a situation which was just marginal for Cat. 5e, overlength or in a very noisy environment, you might do better with Cat. 6.

quote: Scott Norwood
And what are the reliability issues with utp cabling? For in-wall and server room installations, it's fine, as long as the 100-metre run-length limit is observed. As long as the cable is made properly and tested before installation, the only real weakness should be the RJ45 connector, but that is only really an issue if the connector is repeatedly inserted and removed. For a permanent install, I don't see this being a real problem. Yes, there is some really cheap cable out there that can be brittle or which has fewer twists for some pairs, but I am referring to quality cable from Belden or similar.

Some pairs should have more twists than others; the cable's designed that way to reduce crosstalk between pairs.

quote: Scott Norwood
The only real win for fiber should be with long runs or in electrically noisy environments. The fiber "cable" itself is actually quite

Our LAN is copper from core switch to severs, fibre from core switches to edge switches and copper onwards from edge switch onwards. Our SAN is all copper, because it's all in one room, except for a couple of links to another building for backup purposes.

Our main building is a strange shape, and 100 m doesn't go far; many of our fibre runs are more than that. Some runs through an underground car park to another building, that was just within range for the OM-1 multimode that was installed there. We were using FSSI in those days. The other building has a totally different supply, not only does it have a separate substation to the main one, but the 33 kV substations feeding these substations are different. One building is well overvoltage, and the other, until a couple of weeks ago when a new HV feed was installed was well undervoltage. Goodness knows what the ground potential situation would be between these buildings.

Copper takes much more space than fibre; the 16 core fibre cables which we run to our comms rooms are not much larger than a single Cat. 6, and smaller than Cat.6a. There are about 20 of those fibre cables, and if we were to use copper then it would tak eight cat. 6 to replace each one. We have one 24 core fibre cable which is even thinner, it's almost exactly the same size as a Cat. 6. Many of our older switches only support Gigabit uplinks on fibre; the newer ones will take copper as well. No risk of mains Voltage finding it's way onto data cabling if cable are damaged by workmen etc. With multimode fibre it's easier to fault-find; shine a white test light down the fibre, and see if it comes out of the other end. (Usual warning about not looking into a fibre, or a fibre connector, unless you're sure what is on the other end).

Most cabling is pretty reliable if it's locked in a comms room away from users, but I would say that the fibre is more reliable than the copper, at least now that we've got rid of the few MTRJ connectors. Fibre is not that fragile, but I wouldn't want it to the desktop.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 08-16-2010, 07:40 AM:

BTW - any recent news on 4k-DLP?

- Carsten

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-16-2010, 02:27 PM:

quote: Sam D. Chavez
The Media Block will eventually lead to lower total cost for D-Cinema

Yea, the pricing on GDC I believe fell just over 2 grand per unit!

Mark

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 08-16-2010, 04:12 PM:

quote: Stephen Furley
With multimode fibre it's easier to fault-find; shine a white test light down the fibre, and see if it comes out of the other end.

You can also do the same test with Single Mode Fiber. You may have to move the light source around a bit because the core is much smaller, but you definitely will see light.

On the fragility issue: I have seen some newer SMF that can litterly be tied in knots with no loss in signal level or introduction of errors.

In my area we have FTTP with SMF. One fiber with bi-directionality using different lambdas.

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 09-28-2010, 12:37 PM:

I just finalised an installation abroad with a Series 2 Barco DP2K-20C. I have to admit I was actually pretty impressed as the differences from Series I from an installer point of view are significantly better. Software is ultra fast and the lens movement is also considerably faster. There are even preconfigured macros from Barco which you can use or alter and the brightness is simply astonishing. I did this with a Dolby 3D system and result was excellent. Even though I am not a pro digital person, I do understand the benefits of it and do accept that they can offer a great experience to the public once configured correctly. Dolby 3D is by far my favourite 3D system. I also had the chance to play around with a new NEC series projector. The only remark I would make is the lack of performing consecutive functions rapidly unlike Barcos' ultra fast response. As far as performance I think the NEC also do deliver very well besides the dreaded "please wait for lamp to cool" function [evil]

.
Demetris

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-07-2010, 09:22 PM:

Demetris...

The "wait to cool" function can be disabled in the set up software if desired.

Mark

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 10-08-2010, 02:34 AM:

On one hand, their theory is correct as it is unwise to strike a hot lamp but its good to know that this feature can be disabled.
Demetris

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-12-2010, 04:51 PM:

I agree Demetrus. I have one location in Montana that has awful power bumps... pretty consistantly too. I have a UPS on everything except the projector ballast... If they get a bump the lamp goes out and then a few seconds later comes back on again... They are still on their first lamp (4kw) at this location... about 400 hours into it and I inspected that lamp a couple fo weeks ago and it looked darn good. At this location if the lamplife ends up being shortened by disabling this feature then we may have to consider installing a large seperate UPS just for the ballast. It wouldn't have to run the lamp for more than say 5 minutes at a time.

Mark

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 10-13-2010, 07:22 AM:

I did not install one Mark I just had the pleasure to see one in a test location and test a bit interfacing a Doremi server to it so I am not really familiar of the program side. The result on screen was excellent so that is the extend of my experience with them. The only thing I had to try and error was the way the macros should have been handled from the server as there was a specific sequence with certain delays to turn the lamp on, raise the dowser and select the correct channel.
Demetris