Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: laser phosphor projector vs xenon

This is topic laser phosphor projector vs xenon 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=003041

Posted by Mike Moreno (Member # 4887) on 06-06-2017, 12:39 PM:

Hi guys.
Its been a while since i wrote [Big Grin]

I have been seeing and hearing a lot of phosphor projectors at Cinemacon and i check specs from projectors on both companyes (barco /christie)
someones said phopshor will die soon and that the cost is almos the same than buying xenon lamps. other claims phosphor is the best choice.
I also hear that phosphor has more degradation than lamps over the time.
wich option do you choose?

thans

Mike moerno

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-06-2017, 12:56 PM:

Its certainly NOT cost effective yet. I would use them in places where a projector gets installed and you would have a hard tim accessing the projector to change the lamps. Other than that, Xenon is still more cost effective, and I think it's going to be a while before laser is cost effective, if it ever is.

Mark

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 06-06-2017, 01:03 PM:

The spinning disk which is part of the light source has to be a future maintenance problem.

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 06-06-2017, 01:06 PM:

How does the image compare between xenon, laser phosphor, and laser primary? It SEEMS that the broad spectrum (though "spikey") for xenon and laser phosphor could result in better color rendition for a larger number of people. xenon and laser phosphor also do not suffer from speckle.

Harold

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-06-2017, 02:35 PM:

They are still set up for the same X-Y color specs as a Xenon projector. So shouldn't be any different or it wouldn't meet DCI.

Mark

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 06-06-2017, 02:41 PM:

It SHOULDN'T be any different, but in nature we see with broad spectrum light. It seems that narrow spectrum light MAY result in different color perception for different people depending upon the slopes of the eye's XYZ filters. It seems like broad spectrum light would result in less variation in color perception. Just a thought, not a fact.

Thanks!

Harold

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-06-2017, 03:11 PM:

Broad spectrum is likely something these projectors light sources are capable of... And I agree we see in a broad spectrum. In the end I'm just not sure it's going to look any different than Xenon will look. I have seen phosphor light projectors, just not in a side by side situation with xenon.

Price wise they are definitely not so great.

Mark

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 06-06-2017, 03:25 PM:

The blue is single line laser light, green and red are "full spectrum" taken from the yellow phosphor emission.
The phosphor disk on the NEC NC1100L is replaceable although not exactly easy to get to.
I don't see them as economical unless lamp changes are really a problem. Note that changing the laser module won't be easy AT ALL if the NEC is typical of laser projectors.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-06-2017, 05:33 PM:

Dave,

Exactly! Nothing on the NC-900, NC-1000, or NC-1100 is easy. Always allow "hours" to do even the stupid power switch which is sold as an assembly. Thankfully, they have been pretty reliable except for the NC-900 lamps, and those got quite a bit better with the version 2 lamp.

Mark

Posted by Paul H. Rayton (Member # 1817) on 06-06-2017, 08:22 PM:

One little "gotcha" that hit us at our L.A. venues (one in Hollywood, and one in Santa Monica) is that the 3D glasses are incompatible between Dolby 3D and Barco Laser 3D. We thought we were being so clever to put the laser into the Egyptian, while retaining an NEC 3240 at the Aero. We could simply transport the 3D glasses between the venues and not have several hundred sitting around idle, since both systems work on to plain white screens (no special screens needed). Bad call. The two processes are mutually exclusive in terms of spectrum put out, so new glasses are required. And the laser-type glasses are even more expensive than the Dolby ones! Ouch.
So, if you are planning to have only one laser projector in a complex of several screens that show 3D on occasion, be ready to spend extra cash for double sets of glasses.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-06-2017, 08:55 PM:

That's very good to know Paul. Thanks for the tip!

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-07-2017, 06:30 AM:

Paul, was your laser RGB laser or Laser Phosphor? They are completely different animals. RGB laser is not compatible (different primaries). Laser Phosphor should still use the same spinning disc as xenon and be compatible.

As for laser phosphor versus xenon on image quality...I can't claim to have done any sort of exhaustive research on it but I'll say that the NC1100L is worse than xenon. Put up swept grey scale pattern and you'll see it trip all over itself based on frame rate. It will also pulsate based on frame rate on any image. Color wise, something doesn't seem right about it or it doesn't appear the same as xenon.

Mark, having the same color space does not make the images identical. You can define the points of the triangle and the white point but you are only manipulating the entire spectrum from those points. What happens along the way can vary. Furthermore, laser can more precisely hit its primary colors than xenon that has to be split apart into primaries, first. However, with laser-phosphor, you typically start with one primary (blue is the most popular) and then use another laser to get the other two to make "white" and then ram all of that through the same optical path to break it apart again.

The method of making the light absolutely has an effect on the outcome. Some have removed the yellow notch filter from the NC900 to obtain more light and then justified it by saying they calibrated the light. That is like having a parametric EQ in the system with a 20dB boots at 125Hz and say you EQed the room with bass and treble. Yeah, at 40Hz and 12KHz and even 500Hz it measures right but there spike at 125Hz remains. The notch filter is there for a reason.

So back OT. Laser-Phospher makes ZERO financial sense for most cinemas. If you look at the cost of xenon lamps versus the increased in purchase price for laser-phosphor, at no time is laser-phospher cheaper, over the life of the unit/ As others have noted, if the projector will be in an inconvenient place to change lamps, then the extra labor to deal with that will need to be factored in. Note too, the filter system for laser-phosphor is essentially the same as xenon so you STILL have a labor factor there.

Another thing to note is the decay rate on lasers. Most manufacturers quote a life span to when the laser output drops to 1/2. Think about that for a moment, if you spec a projector that when new hits 14fL, the manufacturer is telling you when it hits 7fL!!!! The BOTTOM end of SMPTE spec is 11fL. So, what you really want to know is when that laser drops to below 11fL on your worst format and if you have a constant height screen. So forget the 20,000-30,000 claim. Odds are, before you would have changed your 7th lamp, you are out of spec and looking at a new set of lasers!

Now, what you CAN do (and this applies to RGB laser too) is to spec a projector 1-over what you need and run that laser in the basement when new. Then you could push that laser replacement time WAY out there to 50,000-70,000 hours. With lasers you can run them way down and they won't fuss the way xenons will (it varies with the lamp). But if you do spec a larger laser projector, the graphs for cost just got spread further apart!

With respect to other image parts, laser-phosphor offer zero advantage. The contrast doesn't improve, no resolution benefits...etc. With RGB laser, then you get contrast improvements, color space improvements with a side of speckle.

Watch out for misleading ads too that proclaim that with xenon that the light drops to 50% in order to "sell" the laser-phosphor, just about all of our systems are xenon and they are all designed to remain with SMPTE spec from day 1 to day of removal (at warranty). And that can be up to 3200-hours for a 2KW lamp. One nice thing about xenon is that there is a wide range of lamp wattages to choose from. The key is to select the right size for your application to keep the light in the right range. For Barco, you can use from 850-watts to 2200-watts in the DP2K-12C. Likewise, on Christie, there is a 1400-watts at the low end and 2300-watts at the high end. NEC has 1200, 1500 and 2000 watts on their NC1200C. Pick the right lamp for your screen (I used the bottom end .98" machines as the example because they are the right sized machine for MOST cinemas until you get into the really big screens and the S2K projectors have noticeably crappy contrast ratios and often don't have xenon light sources.

Oh and Mark, the NC900C lamps remain crappy past version 2. Would you believe they are on their 4th revision with lamp models 06 and 07 (odd number lamps are inverted, even numbered lamps or for normal projector orientation)? I don't know if I've had any of the "04" lamps die yet but just had another 02 die.

Posted by Paul H. Rayton (Member # 1817) on 06-07-2017, 03:20 PM:

Yes, it is an RGB laser installed (DP4K-30L), which accounts for our little "problem" with the incompatible 3D viewing glasses. I didn't specifically state it previously, but our NEC 3240 in Santa Monica is xenon, and uses the Dolby color wheel.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-07-2017, 05:27 PM:

Steve,

I've had very good luck with the amps starting with version 2. I still see a few failures of them, but so few compared to the original lamps that it's really not much of a factor any longer and I have 30 some NC-900's out there. I actually have one customer that has to run on just one lamp because his screen is small and non perf and running two his image wold be way too bright. He is still on the original lamp that came with the projector and it's over 2800 hours, had several other sites miracously make it to warranty... but not many. There is an NC-1000 for a good reason!

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-07-2017, 07:55 PM:

The 02 lamps are getting between 2000-2400 hours for me. The original lamps got between 700-1500 so yeah, they are an improvement but I"ve yet to have ANY NC900 lamps hit 3000 hours.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-07-2017, 08:20 PM:

I've had quite a few lamps hit the warranty mark and the customers get pretty disappointed when that happens because then they have to buy the replacement, even a few of the original lamps did that some how. Why NEC did not just go straight to the 450 watt lamps that are in the NC-1000 to begin with is beyond me.

Mark

Posted by Anders Nordentoft-Madsen (Member # 3334) on 06-08-2017, 09:32 AM:

Barco BPL projectors are NOT compaible with Dolby 3D (it's not supported). Barco 6P Laser is an entirely different beast, best 3D I have ever seen, but yes, both projector and glasses are expensive.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 06-08-2017, 02:35 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
With respect to other image parts, laser-phosphor offer zero advantage. The contrast doesn't improve, no resolution benefits...etc. With RGB laser, then you get contrast improvements, color space improvements with a side of speckle.

At a demo Barco claimed that they managed to slightly improved the contrast ratio of the phosphor machines. Nothing huge, I believe it was 2500:1. Does your experience say otherwise?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-08-2017, 05:14 PM:

I have not seen nor even heard the claim. 2500 would be 25%, which would be substantial.

Contrast isn't lost at the light source. So I would think it is a bogus claim. Barco is heavily invested in LP laser so they will try anything to sell it.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 06-08-2017, 06:30 PM:

Barco has 2400:1 in the CLP and BLP specs. How much that is in practice compared to otherwise identical Xenon machines remains to be seen. I guess it is rather easy to bump the contrast a bit like that by established measures and sacrificing some light output. I also guess once they advertise their systems with the 'laser' buzzword, they also need to show off at least *some* improvement in contrast, given all the HDR/high contrast hype.

At least now Barco has worked out a laser light output warranty.

- Carsten

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 06-08-2017, 06:35 PM:

I'm wondering if they sacrificed a little light in order to get some better contrast?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-09-2017, 06:47 AM:

I see in their literature that for the "C" series it is "up to 2400:1." The "B" series is listed as 2400:1.

Whatever they are doing it isn't inherent in the LP technology.

As for the 10-year thing, as I understand it, they get to pick your projector and they get to remote in and control it and you pay for it. Well yeah, I can pick a laser system and sell you a warranty up to 10-years that will ensure you light output makes it too, even without a Barco brand projector. It is still cheaper to run xenon, at the moment.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 06-09-2017, 08:51 AM:

We're on Barco and Sony UHP. I couldn't care less for LP. I would love to see the full-white spektrum of LP. A tiny blue laser line, and yellow and red phosphor? Even worse than early LED white light. I can hardly imagine this is comparable to xenon or modern UHP.

- Carsten

Posted by Alan Gouger (Member # 543) on 06-09-2017, 10:05 AM:

Ive yet to see a nice green from any laser technology they lean to lime green. A deeper green might cost light and heat during the modulation process. Luckily its hard to detect
when screening a film.

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 06-09-2017, 12:30 PM:

Here are my notes on laser projector color after a discussion with their laser guru:

The laser projector attempts to duplicate the "broad band experience" of color. If, for example, we see a color of red at 650nm, our eyes, using XYZ filters, would have a substantial amount of output on the X and the Y filter. The laser projector with red lasers at 638nm and 658nm would be missing the Y component, so some green is added in to give the same XYZ. Monochromatic green at 550nm would have mostly Y and very little X or Z. However, a wide band green would have some X and Z, so they run the red and blue lasers to give the proper XYZ.

These are my notes after a telephone conversation, so they are not a direct quote.

Harold

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 06-09-2017, 02:12 PM:

That, in my quite possibly ill-informed opinion, isn't "broad spectrum" but dilution. Even though it may look "natural" and less intense to the eye, this is like turning down the color knob on an old TV set, it's simply desaturation. "Broad spectrum" means needing multiple laser wavelengths in the region of each color, not washing out pure colors with the other primaries.

Would anyone care to comment on the following statement: RGB (non-phosphor) laser projection is to digital projection what Technicolor was to film.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-09-2017, 07:36 PM:

I would tend to disagree with that statement. Digital projection, by nature, depends on the purest Red Green and Blue light and that has nothing to do with laser. The more precisely they hit their wavelengths, the more precisely the projector can hit its color. But if you skew the triangle a the start, you are going to forever be trying to compensate. Conversely, the more sloppy you are on your wavelengths, the more sloppy the color is going to be over all. You can only be as precise as your source color(s).

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 06-09-2017, 08:59 PM:

Since the eye has XYZ sensors, it'd be great if we could excite them individually to produce whatever can be perceived. However, there are no wavelengths that would exclusively excite the X, Y, or Z sensors. My thoughts on color perception (with some other stuff) is at http://ftp.uslinc.com/ftp/Products/LSS-100P/Documents/Technical/ColorMeasurement/ColorMeasurment%20LSS_160525.pdf .

Harold

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 06-10-2017, 04:18 AM:

Very interesting Harold, thanks

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 06-10-2017, 09:03 AM:

All the color science that deals with human perception from the recent century was done with broader spectrum light sources. And all was based on 'human' samples. We can't measure the human eye and color perception. We can only make statistical observations of sensory stimulus.

I don't think we have enough science on narrow spectra color perception yet. At least it seems that the color science/transformations that is built into current projectors is not capable of dealing with this properly. Keep in mind that all this market is currently dominated by more or less only two or three different manufacturers with their specific DCI cinema processor IP. This is not something that get's revolutionized every few weeks, it's quite static.

I think that is the reason why some people are concerned about the visual/perceptional quality of current laser projectors. Also, people tend to think that 'clean', narrow sources make color science 'easier', 'straighter'.
I don't think that is the case, as our eyes never had to deal with laser or very narrow band light during their evolution. Also, it is rather easy nowadays to build filters for every wavelength and nearly every passband characteristic to adopt white light/broad spectrum sources.
Laser wavelengths to date can not be chosen arbitrarily, not with projection and all it's implications in mind. Then comes 6p and the need to choose suitable PAIRS of critical wavelengths. Speckle reduction, some of which is based on spectrum spreading or modulation. Not easy.

That said, a Barco 6P delivers a hell of a snappy and overall impressing 3D picture already (at least if a silver screen is avoided - which exhibits far too much speckle). It just appears a bit too expensive given the fact that probably only the second or third generation will get the remaining bits and pieces togehther to justify the price and effort.

- Carsten

Posted by Tom Bert (Member # 5719) on 06-19-2017, 04:29 AM:

On this topic: "I see in their literature that for the "C" series it is "up to 2400:1." The "B" series is listed as 2400:1.
Whatever they are doing it isn't inherent in the LP technology."

The SLP/CLP/BLP contrast ratio spec IS higher than on the respective Xenon-equivalents. This is thanks to the smaller etendue of the LP lightsource. Less stray light from the start --> higher CR at the end

On the topic of XYZ colors vs spectrum: this is the whole domain of "metamerism". In a nutshell:
- the theory behind measuring and quantifying colours (= putting a XYZ- or xyY-number on something that is inherently a continuous spectrum) dates back to 1931: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space
- the light sources to build up that theory where broadband. When applying them to narrowband sources (laser, but also LED or OLED) tweaking of the formulas is required
- the problem is that broadband sources by nature average out the integration in the math (across gender, age, race,...); not something trivial when trying to the same for narrowband (the 'filters' in my eyes are slightly different than in your eyes)

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-19-2017, 07:10 AM:

And yet none of the other LP manufacturers claim a higher contrast ratio. I get the higher efficiency but not the higher contrast.

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 06-19-2017, 08:40 AM:

Tom, GREAT to see you and your expertise here!

On stray light and xenon, can there be a lamp enclosure that prevents or minimizes stray light?

Harold

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 06-19-2017, 03:11 PM:

Tom,

Would you get the same contrast improvement by retrofitting an existing machine?

Posted by Pietro Clarici (Member # 4937) on 06-20-2017, 07:17 AM:

Tom,

Can you comment on your high-contrast smart laser range that was pre-announced today by Ymagis/EclairColor and just give ballpark contrast and brightness numbers? Looks like they could be of extreme interest to independent exhibitors like myself who would like to transition from S1 and S2 projectors to 4K laser, but could never afford a flagship LHC machine. Thanks!

Posted by Tom Bert (Member # 5719) on 07-24-2017, 08:02 AM:

On Q1: "can there be a lamp enclosure that prevents or minimizes stray light?". It is possible to apertures in the light path: that boosts contrast, but also sacrifies brightness. No free lunch I'm afraid

On Q2: "Would you get the same contrast improvement by retrofitting an existing machine?". Yes, same improvement.

On Q3: "comment on your high-contrast smart laser range". Too early to share specs I'm afraid.

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 09-17-2017, 02:46 PM:

I had my first Laser Phosphor movie experience last night, at the brand new Landmark at 57 West in NYC that opened Friday. I don't know what brand was behind the projectors, but Landmark advertised the use of laser projection even before the venue opened, without giving any specific details. Judging by the type of theater and the history of the chain, I'm guessing they are Barco Smart Laser LP projectors.

My show was at Screen #6, which I would assume is one of the bigger ones, but the screen is nowhere near as massive as Alamo Drafthouse Downtown Brooklyn theater #7. In fact, it's one of those awful "mask-less" screens with rounded edges in a fixed 1.85:1 ratio. So yes, it was like watching TV in public, my feature was mother!, a film which I looked up almost zero information on beforehand, so the awfully letterboxed Paramount logo gave me a middle finger to my expectations.

Yes, the Paramount logo, and not some windowboxed Flat trailer in a Scope container before. The opening trailers were presented in Flat, with some letterboxed Scope trailers in the mix, even the now-classic Landmark Theaters logo animation filled up the entire screen in it's simplistic grandeur of text and rainbows. But, of course, this isn't the thread to discuss showmanship gone wrong.

My first impressions of the visual quality of Laser Phosphor was a colorful and striking trailer for Woodshock. The fidelity of the colors and cinematography almost felt glossy and surreal, like a very polished and clean glass window to another world, as if the splendor of cinema and special effects were perfectly translated as a live performance. And a big part of my impression was due to Woodshock's production values itself, as the following trailers, two documentaries and a period piece, weren't up-to-speed. I'd argue the other three trailers looked no better than it would on any DLP or SXRD projector. I had previously only seen the trailer to Woodshock on a DLP, the difference it makes on the LP is very impressive.

Back to mother!, I can't tell if the graininess of the feature had something to do with laser speckle, or the 16mm negative it was shot in. The Paramount logo that opened the film had some nasty speckle to it, and having only seen mother! once in that particular environment, I don't know if grain was added to the Paramount logo in post, but I do know the colors were graded. Also, it's important to take note that between the trailers and feature, the projector had to switch from Flat to unmasked Scope, so that may add something to the artifice. As far as contrast ratio is concerned, the black bars on the screen were bright as day, considering this is as pure of black you may ever get in D-Cinema, it does not place LP above xenon for me.

And no, I did not notice "speckle" in the trailers as intensely as I did in the feature. So the film could be grainy, or scope mode in screen #6 is "speckle-y."

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 09-17-2017, 03:29 PM:

Is speckle possible on a laser-phosphor projector? I look at these as a fluorescent light using a laser to excite the phosphors instead of a mercury vapor arc. I think it should be relatively broad band like xenon, but with peaks at different wavelengths.

Harold

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-18-2017, 03:13 AM:

Current phosphor laser projectors usually use two lasers or at least two separate laser sources (consisting of multiple diodes), one that excites the phosphor and the other one as a direct source for the blue component. I'm not entirely sure if Barco also uses the blue component as a direct light source though.

So, in the red and green components, you will not have any speckle, but I guess the blue component is somewhat prone to speckle.

Then again, I didn't see any speckle in the DP2K-8SLP, even when projecting a 100% BLUE image and neither in a pro-consumer oriented projector from Epson, the LS-10000. The LS-10000, most definitely has two separate laser sources.

Posted by Tom Bert (Member # 5719) on 09-19-2017, 05:58 AM:

quote: Harold Hallikainen
Is speckle possible on a laser-phosphor projector? I look at these as a fluorescent light using a laser to excite the phosphors instead of a mercury vapor arc. I think it should be relatively broad band like xenon, but with peaks at different wavelengths.

It is theoretically possible, since some direct laser light (blue, in case of 'normal' LP. blue and red, in case RB LP) still hits the screen. However, since it is only a -small- fraction of the total luminance, the perception is much lower than on RGB laser. We have 2000+ LP installs in the field on screen gains going from 1.0 to >2.4... and had no complaints on speckle so far

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-19-2017, 11:10 AM:

Since the human eye is least sensitive to blue the speckle that may be created there if they are using it as a direct light source probably wouldn't be so noticeable. Its difficult enough to see a stuck blue pixel or two...

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-19-2017, 06:32 PM:

Normally, the Blue-laser goes through a diffusing wheel so I question just how much of a laser the light is by the time it enters the integrating rod.

That said, i know that NEC has a service mode (for when the cover is off) where they shut off the blue-only laser and only let the one that goes through the phosphor wheel continue so I guess it must still be laser-like enough.

Posted by Amrik Kailey (Member # 10229) on 10-21-2017, 03:54 AM:

Here is a study/facts regarding xenon,laser phosphor or RGB pure laser by Christie Digital itself

http://www.lamptolaser.com/index.html

enjoy

Posted by Frederick Lanoy (Member # 5416) on 10-21-2017, 04:39 AM:

It looks more like marketing with some technical explanations than facts to me.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-23-2017, 03:17 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
And yet none of the other LP manufacturers claim a higher contrast ratio.

That's because all existing systems excepting Liemax use a prism system for the light engine. And that is where the contrast is lost. Diffraction in the prism's themselves and then the light passing by itself again more than once. Coatings only help so much here. Not until one of the D-Cinema manufacturers is smart enough to dispense with all the thick glass will things ever get better in that realm. I just hope Liemax doesn't own all the patents on doing that.

Mark

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-23-2017, 10:52 PM:

Yes, the Christie site is an advert rather than a study, the object of the exercise being to promote their new RGB laser projector. They appear to have made the strategic decision that they are not going to "go there" with laser phosphor at all, and simply offer traditional xenon arc projectors, plus RGB laser.

That's all fair enough, but I do think that the facts and figures about xenon projectors presented in the Christie site are a little, shall we say, spun. The most glaring one is their "Fact 2", comparing total ownership and running costs of a xenon arc projector with a laser phosphor one, using the example of 20K lumens for for 30K hours.

What it doesn't mention is that some sites will need to have a service tech change bulbs (extra costs), and the further towards the upper end of the light output range you get with xenon, the cost of the bulbs and the frequency with which you need to change them increases. Oh, and a reflector is very unlikely to last for 30,000 hours: you'll probably need to replace at least one during that time.

Once you add up all those costs that the article doesn't mention, it starts to become clear why laser phosphor projectors are selling. Christie is making a strategic bet that the cost of RGB laser will come down quickly enough that sinking R & D resources into laser phosphor makes no sense, especially as Barco and NEC have already brought a range to market. By the same token, as soon as a battery pack that can drive an electric car for 300-400 miles becomes available for a sane price, hybrids will be dead in the water, because there will be no need or reason for the half-and-half compromise technology.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 10-24-2017, 07:22 AM:

Fact 4: Xenon lamps only drop to about 97% of their initial brightness at the end of their life! [Smile]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-24-2017, 12:21 PM:

quote:
Fact 4: Xenon lamps only drop to about 97% of their initial brightness at the end of their life!

LOL! I've never had any xenon lamp be 97% of it's initial brightness at the end of life, especially 6kw's. More like low 80 to mid 80% range and that can still put you in the acceptable +/- range. If you spec the projector properly and are able to start them fairly low, with enough increase range left till end of life, then possibly. But that's not what I have seen. And Xenon Mercury is even worse at holding brightness and both Sony and the little NEC are known for falling off a lot at only 50% lamp life.

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-24-2017, 09:54 PM:

Leo,

I've run the numbers 9-ways to Sunday. Until you get into the big lamps (4,500 and up), Laser Phosphor NEVER makes more financial sense (even with the cost of changing lamps). And I mean it never even comes close. Most laser-phosphor systems are under-specced by using a similarly sized laser system to xenon. The laser will fall significantly below acceptable levels before it dies and will condemn that screen to crappy light until the exhibitor ponies up for a new laser module and then gets to bat that TCO even further out of the park.

The only people buying the LP projectors are those that are buying the hype without really running the numbers. For the record, I've changed exactly ZERO reflectors on our DLP systems thus far and we have some that have been in a LONG time.

Now, once you get into the big lamps, the tables change a bit. Xenon gets progressively more expensive (the lamps cost more, they last less time and generate a LOT more heat to deal with).

The problem is, most of our big lamp candidates are places like Drive-Ins where the extra $10K for LP would never be made up due to the short operating seasons. In the mid-Atlantic area, it is about one lamp a year. in the New England area, closer to 1 lamp every 2 years.

The other area where I would have liked to have gone the LP route was for Dolby 3D. Rather than two lamp houses with different lamps but LP and Dolby 3D are not compatible. It is a shame because Laser can be ramped up and down without the stress it will do to Xenon. Changing lamphouses (or lamps in non-Barco) is another step that has to be factored into a day that might have a mix of 2D and 3D.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 10-25-2017, 01:50 AM:

I think the major problem with LP is indeed the period when the laser array runs out of its lifetime. At least with xenon, the exhibitor knows what the running costs are and he can factor it into their operational expenses.

Once the laser engine on an LP runs out of steam, which we still don't have any reliable figures of, how many exhibitors are going to pony up the cash to replace those expensive light sources?

Also, when you bought a whole set of those projectors around the same time, chances are they'll fail you around the same time.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 10-25-2017, 05:24 AM:

And then, after some 10.000 or 20.000 or 30.000 hrs - who guarantees a replacement light source is available at all? These are not 'off the shelf' devices like xenon bulbs.

- Carsteh

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-25-2017, 11:05 PM:

Steve,

I'm sure that you're right about the math, but all I can say is that I am seeing these machines sell in significant numbers. A similar syndrome applies to the current generation of hybrid and electric compact cars: the people who buy these have fallen for the hype and not done the math, too. A Prius costs $12-15k more out of the door than an equivalent gas-engined car, and a typical owner will never recoup that in reduced operating costs during its service life. The overall cost of ownership will be significantly more in almost all cases, but people still buy the things. Interestingly, some auto makers have not attempted to launch a hybrid or short-range pure electric to compete in this market sector (and Honda even pulled out, terminating the Insight after the 2014 model year, and never progressing beyond experiments with an all-electric Fit). I suspect that they've decided to wait until they have the technology to offer something that really does reduce the overall cost of ownership over a given number of miles/years, to a figure significantly below that of a traditional, ICE-powered vehicle. When that happens, their potential market will expand beyond customers who want to buy a status symbol. That market is now saturated and highly competitive.

I guess that Christie has launched this major propaganda offensive against laser phosphor because it believes that it now has achieved that equivalent point, and can offer a pure RGB laser projector with a total cost of ownership to rival or even undercut that of a xenon-lit machine. I'm further guessing that their new RGB machine has an ownership cycle cost that is close to, but still significantly north of, a similar power laser phosphor machine from their competitors, hence their desire to publicize the shortcomings of laser phosphor.

As others have pointed out, another issue is that we simply don't know if the service life claims being made for both RGB laser and laser phosphor are anywhere near accurate, because these things haven't been in revenue-earning service in the field long enough for any to wear out. The same applies to reliability and maintenance costs. So anybody buying one is making a leap of faith, hence Christie emphasizing xenon arc illumination as the tried and tested devil you know, and thus suited to the risk-averse customer.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-26-2017, 06:58 AM:

The hybrid-electric car isn't a similar comparison. As you've noted, it isn't necessarily a cheaper choice. However, some want to just pollute less and accept it being a costlier way of living. Without jumping off the rails into a political discussion, most things that reduce environmental impact are costlier.

In the Xenon/LP discussion, we are not even bringing environmental impact into the discussion. It is strictly the business decision on what is the more profitable way to operate.

I recently did a quote for a guy looking to build a sizable complex and he is VERY sharp on working a spreadsheet for all factors of this business. I asked about RGB/LP/Xenon and his VERY fast answer was xenon. He had already run the numbers.

I think Christie's CP4325-RGB could be the game changer in laser projectors for as long as projectors have a place in cinema (I still think direct-view screens are the end-game, once they allow sound through the screen and preferably flexible so they can be shaped and repairable, while affordable...white a few stipulations but I think in time they will get there).

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 10-26-2017, 07:25 AM:

Leo - Christie DOES offer a laser phosphor machine - the CP2208-LP. Admittedly, probably only because all competitors offer BLP now.

I guess many operators buying BLP do it for two main reasons:

- they believe the reliability claim or negotiate service contracts to back up
- they see a marketing benefit, being able to advertize 'laser projection' for a fraction of the cost of 3P or 6P. I think that is the main reason, why BLP is sold in the quantities we see. Weird as it is, what may not make sense technically or by numbers for the exhibitor, may make sense economically for the manufacturers.

These machines are also sold as being 'maintenance free'. They are no longer considered the heart of a cinema, but just another commodity item like your coolers, HAVAC, etc.

See how many press releases we see about 'all laser multiplex'. It is hard to believe how much thrust the 50 year old buzzword 'laser' can have in all sorts of markets... it still works far better than FullHD, 4k, HFR, HDR, etc...

- Carsten

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-26-2017, 07:37 AM:

Laser is a household name and not in use in most houses. You can't advertise 4K because the house is ahead of cinema on that one.

As for maintenance free. Last I checked, they STILL have filters to keep up with (the biggest maintenance for the end user aside from changing the lamp periodically) so they are hardly maintenance free. Just maintenance reduced.

Another "benefit" to the LP machine is the ability to vent into its environment (no roof top blowers to install, maintain).

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 10-26-2017, 12:47 PM:

A laser projector should also be a bit more energy efficient, this should be true for both the RGB lasers and phosphor lasers.

Another advantage might be the fact that a laser projector technically does not require a mechanical dowser, it can kill the lasers in an instant and fire it up again miliseconds later without doing much harm to the laser engine itself. It can do the same with its total power output, which might be somewhat beneficial when switching between 2D/3D, compared to ramping up a xenon bulb, which will inevitably cost you some extra lifetime.

I hope, that over time, the laser diodes in those laser light sources become individually replaceable. Although they'll last longer than xenon, they still are de-facto consumables.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-26-2017, 11:31 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
The hybrid-electric car isn't a similar comparison.

Actually I think it is: both are cases of a technology that is more expensive to use than competing ones that do the same job, but a market exists for it of customers who are willing to eat that cost for other reasons, be that political correctness, the marketing possibilities of the word "laser," or whatever.

quote: Steve Guttag
...most things that reduce environmental impact are costlier.

Veering slightly OT but related, that doesn't remain the case forever. Immature technologies and/or ones made in small quantities and which are unable to benefit from economies of scale are costlier than mature ones and/or ones that are manufactured on a large scale.

We had solar panels put on our roof last December. We ran the numbers very carefully first. Assuming no increase in the cost of power purchased through the wire from SoCal Edison (and we all know how reliable that assumption is likely to be!), those panels will pay for themselves in kWHs within 6-7 years: call it 10 if we hadn't had the federal tax credit. The system is fully warrantied for 25 years. So if we're going to stay living here for 7-8 years, which we intend to do, we'll be into profit on the system. A system with the same generating capacity bought a decade ago would have cost three times the price, and would not have been able to generate its purchase price during its design life.

The same applies to automotive battery technology: they're gradually coming down in price, increasing in capacity, and reducing in time taken to charge. If these improvements continue at the current rate, they will start to undercut the cost of ownership of an internal combustion engined car by the early to mid-20s. Same thing for RGB laser projection, if, as you point out, massive great TVs don't blow projection itself out of the water first. What we have at present is an immature technology competing against a mature one (xenon arc illumination), and that sort of change almost never happens overnight.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-27-2017, 07:31 AM:

It isn't the same comparison because the LP projectors are being sold on a lower TCO, which is a lie.

For projection technology, I absolutely think Laser will supplant xenon, as you say, when the cost comes down enough to make the decision a wise one. I think the Christie CP4325-RGB might be the projector that tips the scales (we'll see in 2018) but I also think projectors will give way to direct-view screens with the likes of OLED and similar technologies. It is all a matter of what makes the most financial sense.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 10-27-2017, 11:18 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
It isn't the same comparison because the LP projectors are being sold on a lower TCO, which is a lie.

Let's call it an assumption, albeit a very open ended one. [Wink]

Right now, you simply cannot do a realistic TCO calculation for any of the current laser systems, neither the LP or the RGB ones. Like it was mentioned before, nobody knows what it will cost to replace a failing laser source, or if they even will be available and nobody knows what the exact lifetime will be. We only have indicative numbers from the suppliers, but none of them is willing to give you any guarantee, like 80% of the initial maximum power output after x-thousand hours for example.

I guess that if one of the projector manufacturers is willing to give such a warranty, and the numbers work out, then there's really no reason not to go for laser, whether it's LP or RGB. And yes, "100% laser projection" does have some marketing or "marquee value" too.

As for the LED wall or "direct-view" screens like you call them, I see potential in them too, but I guess we'll first see an iteration of laser projectors, before they'll make some serious inroad. There are still too many limitations right now, which first need to get sorted out.

I also expect Christie and Barco, both present in the professional digital signage business, to be somewhat reluctant to offer "direct-view" alternatives, as they'll be afraid to cannibalize their own market with those kind of screens.

Posted by Amrik Kailey (Member # 10229) on 10-27-2017, 11:22 AM:

Here are the preliminary specs of CP4325 RGB to get the idea whats in store

https://www.christiedigital.com/SupportDocs/Anonymous/CP4325_RGB_PrelimSpecSheet-EN.PDF

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-27-2017, 11:57 AM:

Marcel,

No, I'm saying that the straight up cost of the LP projectors is more expensive on a lumen-per-lumen basis without factoring in the replacement cost of the LP engine.

It isn't hard math either. The LP version of most any projector is about (all amounts are in USD) $10K. So, if you are using say 2KW lamps, you get a 3000+ life span. Just using the numbers offered now (20K to 30K hours before half light level), your xenon cost outlay is under $5,000. With xenon you are in SMPTE spec the entire time, presuming you are sized right to begin with and again, we're comparing same-same (same projector but LP version, pick your favorite brand).

As you move up in size of lamps, the gap narrows to the point where around 4K it is a wash and 4500 and up the LP is likely the cheaper way to go (running 6.5K xenon is an expensive lamp and 7K is even more so (about $1,500 for a whopping 300-hours). Furthermore, lasers are going to be more stable than the big xenon lamps.

So I get the desire for laser but if you are a "typical" cinema, they just don't make sense. If you are a PLF or pushing 4K/4.5K and beyond, then it is something to consider.

Again, we have drive ins where due to the nature of the business, their large lamps are not such a cost factor and it would take on the order of a decade before the break-even point arrived, presuming zero laser failures.

I think laser prices will drop and this gap will narrow. When it does, I'm good with it.