Descriptive Audio

[Steve Guttag]

I am going to have to say it. If your still using a DSS200, or a CP650. I would really take a look at your business model in the coming years. I know its hard out there. But seriously... At some point respect your audiance and upgrade your equipment.

I am occationally watching session at some older independants with 14year old projectors with fuzzy and dim images on screen because the light engines are done. the air filtration in those old light engins is non existant, small particulates form a residue on the optical surfaces, dropping lights levels below 48nits (14fl) and introducing a fuzzy feel, less scrip image.

I know its a difficult time to purchase, but at some point...

I guess I'll pile on on this one.

James, can you or anyone else, from the auditorium, tell a DSS200 server is running the show or some modern server? Does it look any different? Does it sound any different? No? I didn't think so. Now, the realities are, the newest one is over 10-years old now and we are seeing mediablocks fail (CAT 862 and CAT745) and when that happens, the server is done. Most of the other parts that go into that server, being that is was a Supermicro, are somewhat available still, but it is getting harder.

If the theatre is using the Dolby Showmanager TMS, swapping to a new server does mean also factoring in a new TMS (and possibly LMS) system into the cost of things as no new server will integrate.

Moving over to the projectors. Can you explain to me just what, in a "old projector," series 1 or series 2, is causing "fuzzy" images? Are DLP chips actually losing their ability to put out the same 2K worth of pixels? Are lenses losing their MTF to the point of having "fuzzy" pictures? if the picture is less sharp, it isn't due to vintage since we're for the most part, using the same lenses now as then.

Perhaps it is the light level. This is a place where things degrade over time as dust finds its way across optics and the reflector(s) will degrade over time. Reflectors are available for most S1 and all S2 projectors. optics can be cleaned (some in the field, some via a suitable facility like Strong or the OEM).

Odds are, if a system is looking dingy now due to low-light, it is doing so because the system was under-speced on day-1 (gotta get the sale and putting in a more appropriately sized projector is far-more expensive than putting a smaller projector with a high-gain screen). The entity that goes for the cheaper route on day-1 is less likely to think that they need to swap out equipment for large money. And, if they do, they'll likely put in an under-sized projector with a gain screen again...thereby getting you another dingy picture, but with laser light source (at least the reflector won't degrade but the rest of the light path still will and the lasers will fade).

Never in our industry's history has the business model depended on regular projection/sound upgrades to keep doing what you did yesterday. Typically, the upgrades brought about some sort of new picture or sound format and/or a long-term cost savings by reducing labor or being otherwise more efficient. Never has the industry just thrown away working equipment merely due to age.

I have the vast majority of the theatres that we support that are still running the same equipment we put in, predominantly, from 2010-2013, that still hits SMPTE specs and they do include Dolby DSS servers, Barco Christie and NEC projectors. If you specified correctly then, they're still going to this day and are not "struggling."

The things that are definitely reaching their end of service life are the servers of that era (any brand). I'd say we're approaching the 30-40% failure point on the DSS servers and I have been very clear to our clients that run them that they are one day away from a sudden failure (mediablock). We have been keeping a loaner unit, just for our clients, to bridge the gap between a server failure and a new server going in though getting new servers, post the Covid era supply chain issues, have subsided (though the memory/storage availability seem to be stirring things up again). I don't think I have many people interested in changing out projectors that are working.

[EDIT]: to correct the exact opposite meaning was used in comparison of the correct size projector versus a cheaper projector with a gain screen.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Over the years, the bits and bytes get dusty and that will result in some fuzzy edges around them.

Obviously, there is wear and tear on equipment, but I still maintain some venerable Barco DP100s until this day and are still impressed with the picture they're putting out. Your optic path gets hammered with high-intensity light and still quite some remaining UV light and it may wear down certain filters or slightly discolor surfaces over time. But optic elements can be cleaned and this takes care of most of the degradation done by the inevitable dust built-up.

I think the beauty of the DLP design is that it's a relatively low-maintenance affair, compared to the alternatives. A Sony SRXD chip will most likely completely fried after 12 years, beyond anything that can be solved with normal calibration, but I don't see that on a well-maintained DLP machine. Most machines around here are slowly pushing well beyond the 10-year mark. You see that some multiplexes are starting to to phase out their projectors in bigger bulks, but smaller houses mostly upgrade one projector at a time, where it's often the biggest room getting a laser projector and upgrade to 4K. The replaced projector will either be used down-the-line in another room or as a spare.

[Jim Cassedy]

I do agree somewhat that, generally speaking, digital projectors will show their age
more than audio processors. I've worked several preview screening rooms here in
SF that still have CP-650's, and we still use one for 35/70mm film in the venue I'm
at. (and I own two of them as loaners and 'emergency spares' ) Sure they can't do
channel mapping and a few other tricks, but when set up and calibrated correctly,
they still put out great audio. Last week I ran a 35mm SR print of CARRIE II, and
last night a MONO print of another title, and both times, when I walked into the
back of the auditorium to check sound levels, I was really pleased and somewhat
surprised at how good both tracks sounded. I've always said that there are some
films where the SR tracks sound better than their digital ones. Our digitalstuff is
processed by a TRINNOV OV-2, which also does a great job on DCP's and
the occasional Blue-Ray if I haven't had time to do a conversion, but I'm not
quite ready to toss my CP-650's into the trash yet. (although, as I've
photographically documented in past posts, there was a time, for a while,
that I was literally using one of my spares as a doorstop. lol)

[Steve Guttag]

I would agree that, historically, sound equipment has a much longer life-cycle than anyone could expect from the likes of anything associated with digital cinema. I think the DSP based units, which the CP650 is part, are going to be shorter lived than the traditional analog ones. We recently moved and the decision of what to keep and what to pitch had to be made. Things like the CP65 made the cut because, for a film theatre, we can keep that going near indefinitely. The CP650 also was kept as a 1-stop film processor in 3U rather than a DA20/CP65 (plus, we have them in the field).

But the CP750 has demonstrated how short lived a unit can be and how quickly a manufacturer can drop support (parts are no longer available to them). How many people here have replaced a CP750 with a CP950 or another processor? Better hope you aren't using those multi-channel analog inputs! I still have CP200s in daily operation with no end in sight. Likewise for Panastereo CSP1200. Analog stuff is easier to make go mulit-decade.

I would NOT use a CP650 for digital cinema, however. Robosound knocked it off my list. Yeah, you can use the 6-channel input with a D-A converter but now you have knocked yourself down to 5.1, on top of really trying to force everything through an old unit that has a tempermental Ethernet port.

[Marcel Birgelen]

The CP750 is the real bad apple of sound processors and it's clear Dolby wanted to get rid of it. Unless you're doing Atmos, the CP950 isn't really an upgrade in terms of functionality, losing the multi-channel analog-in is more of a downgrade... It was also the first processor aimed at full-digital booths and it shows. The CP650 and CP750 retail for about the same price in the second hand market.

[James Gardiner]

I understand the pushback on my position. However, saying that light engines can be refurbished is not, in my view, a particularly viable argument.

The commercial reality is that, yes, you can pay to refurbish a light engine in order to address issues such as blurriness, glow, and reduced brightness. But that means putting significant money into a 12+ year-old system that could fail in an unrepairable way at any time. Alternatively, you could invest that money into a new laser-based projector with a properly filtered light engine and around 70% lower power consumption. And once you are making that investment, you are likely to spend a little more and upgrade the sound processor as well.

Statistically, if you are still running equipment this old, you are most likely running an older overall system and trying to minimise costs, rather than regularly refurbishing light engines or making major upgrades. Commercially, it simply does not make sense to keep ageing equipment in service if you are already prepared to spend meaningfully on the projection system.

There is another commercial reality as well: given current power prices and the power consumption of older xenon lamp systems, any cinema intending to operate for another 10 years should be seriously considering an immediate projector replacement. The power savings alone could pay for a new projector over five to seven years. In that context, not upgrading is actively costing you money.

I understand that many cinemas may not be in a position to make a 10-year commitment. But it is important to understand the financial loss that can come with that decision.

[Leo Enticknap]

Alternatively, you could invest that money into a new laser-based projector with a properly filtered light engine and around 70% lower power consumption. And once you are making that investment, you are likely to spend a little more and upgrade the sound processor as well.

The problem here is the "you could." A lot of theaters simply are not able to spend $50-100K up front on a new projector, whereas increased electricity and maintenance costs are just about manageable. They don't have that money, and no-one will lend it to them (AFAIK, new VPF deals are no longer on offer). The problem goes back to the 35mm to Series 1 transition, when exhibitors failed to take on board that their new projectors likely had a useful service life of 10 to 15 years, and that their business planning should write down that investment over that time period, and plan to be able to spend similar money again at the end of it. They were also told that they wouldn't need projectionists anymore and that these things were virtually maintenance free, and so reduced operating costs would make the increased cost of ownership a non-issue.

For various reasons, and especially since covid, many exhibitors have not been generating the revenue needed to be able to repeat that investment, and are therefore faced with the choice of trying to keep older equipment alive, or closing down.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Keep in mind that the electricity situation also depends a lot on what kind of business you're running. If you're running 5 shows a day with a 6kW bulb that's barely lighting up your screen, the math is somewhat different than if you're doing just a few shows a week on a 2kW bulb that's chugging away at 70%.

But if you do 5 shows a day on such a big bulb, I guess you're still selling enough tickets to make it work financially.

Meanwhile, a light-engine refurbishment will be far cheaper than an entirely new projector. If it's still worth it depends on many things and not just the remaining value in the books of the thing. It depends on how expensive a better replacement would be.

As for replacements: There have, unfortunately been quite some closures in the exhibition industry in the last couple of years, so the second hand market is still pretty filled with relatively new second hand digital projection systems. This second hand market can be a good source for both spare parts and entire replacements of existing equipment.

[Caleb Williams]

James, can you or anyone else, from the auditorium, tell a DSS200 server is running the show or some modern server? Does it look any different?

To be pedantic and technical: there absolutely is a difference in image quality between a DSS200 using Cinelink over SDI verses any IMB. Cinelink adds noise to the image. We did side-by-side testing before adopting IMS' at one of our locations and it was as if someone cleaned the porthole and lens when we played back from the IMB. I wasn't even a tech at that point, just a regular popcorn slinger and clearly noticed that the image was crisper. I used to go to a lot more movies before I started fixing projectors

That said, I think other aspects of the presentation hurt more if improperly maintained, (like cropping, lamp power, etc.). I applaud Brandon's effort in maintaining a quality experience with aged equipment. It seems every other day I read about a non-profit buying a theater, working miracles, and breathing life into poorly-maintained ancient equipment. Keep up the good work, Brandon.

It's crazy to me that so many DSS200's are still kicking. We experienced roughly a 63% failure rate across the fleet before the bosses called it and invested in the IMB's. We were losing too many shows to DSS200 problems, on top of the tech overhead to fix things. They really had/have a good run considering that the supermicro the DSS is built on has an average lifespan of 4-5 years in a normal enterprise IT environment.

[John Koutsoumis]

I am going to have to say it. If your still using a DSS200, or a CP650. I would really take a look at your business model in the coming years. I know its hard out there. But seriously... At some point respect your audiance and upgrade your equipment.

I am occationally watching session at some older independants with 14year old projectors with fuzzy and dim images on screen because the light engines are done. the air filtration in those old light engins is non existant, small particulates form a residue on the optical surfaces, dropping lights levels below 48nits (14fl) and introducing a fuzzy feel, less scrip image.

I know its a difficult time to purchase, but at some point...

Hi James,

It is disappointing to hear about your experiences at these locations, but I feel that this is a case of neglect by the exhibitors.
I manage 7 screens with legacy S2 projectors that were installed in 2011/12. All are still going well. Yes, we have had two light engine changes due stuck/dead pixels and some reflector brackets replaced, but otherwise they all look great with clean, bright and sharp images.
In addition to a yearly service for each projector by our tech service company, I also check filters, lamp housing area, reflector, lenses, run Lamp-Loc, and clean where necessary on a monthly basis. I have no official training nor the experience you and others have on here. I learnt from asking the techs that we use. Anything major gets noted and logged to be rectified by the techs.
If the image on screen was sub par in any as you describe it would be with older equipment we wouldn't have happy patrons or filmmakers that we host year round and especially during the Melbourne International Film Festival.
When our 8^th screen was installed, we got a brand new RGB Laser Projector. I'm sorry to say that I wasn't that impressed. Xenon just looks and feels different and that's what I currently prefer.
I still have the DCI test film from the original install dates that has scenes shot on 35/65mm and HD. When I see it on the Xenon screens it reminds me of film somewhat, but on the RGB Laser I feel I'm watching Video. The software on these projectors is awful as well. Not user friendly at all compared to S2.
Same again with servers. Unfortunately, one of our DCP2000s went down recently and we were told the only way forward was to replace it with an IMS3000. Sure, the transfers are faster (ingest and export), you can play off an external drive, but otherwise the DCP2000 is so much better from a user standpoint.
I also have CP650 that's on it's last legs. I had to change out the power supply from the only spare I could find earlier in the year and it stays on 24/7. Were not waiting for it to die completely though. The replacement has arrived and awaiting installation.

[Caleb Williams]

If Brandon has the Fidelio/Captiview system, I'm afraid that there is no easy way to send the VI audio to somewhere other than the headsets. The least disruptive way would likely be to use a separate DAC (something like this) with whatever adapter and bespoke cables are needed to get the signal out of the DCP server. When I've had to resort to these setups and the AES3 output from the server is 2 x RJ45s, I've tended to route HI and VI to channels 15 and 16, then make up an RJ45 to BNC or RCA cable connecting just that pair. The RJ45 connection for 1 through 8 remains untouched and goes to the audio processor; and if it is a 7.1 house, the rear surrounds routed to 7 and 8.

For what Brandon is trying to achieve, I would then take the VI analog out from the DAC straight in to the power amp channel(s) for where the VI audio is desired - side surrounds, maybe. If Brandon already has such a DAC in place to feed an emitter/transmitter with analog inputs (i.e. he is not currently using Fidelio/Captiview), then all that would be needed is this final step of rewiring that channel to the desired power amp channels.

No need for an extra DAC if you have a fideleo receiver, just cut up a 3.5mm headphone cord to feed signal from the receiver to the amp that you want.

If it's going to be a regular thing, I would even consider getting a cheap mixer to mix the cinema audio channel with the visual-impaired track on the amp you choose. That would be cleaner than messing with anything on the AES/digital side.

[James Gardiner]

To be pedantic and technical: there absolutely is a difference in image quality between a DSS200 using Cinelink over SDI verses any IMB. Cinelink adds noise to the image. We did side-by-side testing before adopting IMS' at one of our locations and it was as if someone cleaned the porthole and lens when we played back from the IMB. I wasn't even a tech at that point, just a regular popcorn slinger and clearly noticed that the image was crisper. I used to go to a lot more movies before I started fixing projectors

That makes no sense. The SDI signal and cinelink is a uncompressed signal. If you saw any different its in the implementation of the vendor or potentially the diffferent projectors.
There technially should not be any difference. Internal IMB/external old 24fps SDI. The DMDs are suppose to be getting exactly the same images. (based on the DCI specifications)

[Marcel Birgelen]

To be pedantic and technical: there absolutely is a difference in image quality between a DSS200 using Cinelink over SDI verses any IMB. Cinelink adds noise to the image. We did side-by-side testing before adopting IMS' at one of our locations and it was as if someone cleaned the porthole and lens when we played back from the IMB. I wasn't even a tech at that point, just a regular popcorn slinger and clearly noticed that the image was crisper. I used to go to a lot more movies before I started fixing projectors

Cinelink uses non-lossy, symmetric encryption for the payload data. The payload data itself is an uncompressed SMPTE 292M data-stream. Data-loss over the SDI-links would not materialize as noise, as the signal is encrypted, it would probably end up as massive disruptions on screen, which could barely be qualified as "noise". So, I don't understand where the noise is coming from. If there is noise in the picture, it points more towards a defect in either the mediablock or the light engine itself than an artifact of the technology.

Edit: James posted his story while I was typing this one.

When our 8^th screen was installed, we got a brand new RGB Laser Projector. I'm sorry to say that I wasn't that impressed. Xenon just looks and feels different and that's what I currently prefer.
I still have the DCI test film from the original install dates that has scenes shot on 35/65mm and HD. When I see it on the Xenon screens it reminds me of film somewhat, but on the RGB Laser I feel I'm watching Video. The software on these projectors is awful as well. Not user friendly at all compared to S2.

What make and model is your laser projector if I may ask so?

I agree with you on the fact that laser looks different. Not necessarily worse all the way, because I like the increased contrast and far better levels of black of MOST laser machines, but the color rendering certainly has unsolved issues. (There are entire topics about that on this forum.)

[Caleb Williams]

Cinelink uses non-lossy, symmetric encryption for the payload data. The payload data itself is an uncompressed SMPTE 292M data-stream. Data-loss over the SDI-links would not materialize as noise, as the signal is encrypted, it would probably end up as massive disruptions on screen, which could barely be qualified as "noise". So, I don't understand where the noise is coming from. If there is noise in the picture, it points more towards a defect in either the mediablock or the light engine itself than an artifact of the technology.

Ah, I always just assumed it was the long cables we were using.

With that info, I don't know exactly where the "noise" was coming from, but there was a clear difference between multiple DSS200's and the 2 IMS2000's we used in our tests. Also, I wouldn't qualify it as a defect, since it looked that way with all our functioning DSS200's. I would assume then it was probably a slight difference in the way the DSS200 would algorithmicly calculate exact pixel values vs the IMS. The IMS2000 was crisper, and the darks in particular were darker, with no change to the image settings on the projector. The difference was very slight, but it was there.

[Steve Guttag]

I understand the pushback on my position. However, saying that light engines can be refurbished is not, in my view, a particularly viable argument.

The commercial reality is that, yes, you can pay to refurbish a light engine in order to address issues such as blurriness, glow, and reduced brightness. But that means putting significant money into a 12+ year-old system that could fail in an unrepairable way at any time. Alternatively, you could invest that money into a new laser-based projector with a properly filtered light engine and around 70% lower power consumption. And once you are making that investment, you are likely to spend a little more and upgrade the sound processor as well.

There is so much nonsense in this collection..

You claim it is not viable...yet I have put in cleaned light engines and they keep going, years and years...clearly viable. The money, while in the thousands (the amount will vary based on which one, and who does the work and if you want a repair/exchange or a repair/return), the cost differential compared to new is, typically, 1/10th the cost of a new projector. Generally, unless an oily contaminant made it to the light engine, the primary thing that is being removed is dust. I've only seen one prism assembly get hit with a liquid and it was an NEC NC1200C where the filter strained the popcorn soot and the prism cooling fan force-fed the resulting brownish liquid into the prism. That is the exception, not the rule. However, getting 30%ish of your light back (plus uniformity) is significant (and will also lower your electric bill by lowering your lamp to hit the same luminance)

Statistically, if you are still running equipment this old, you are most likely running an older overall system and trying to minimise costs, rather than regularly refurbishing light engines or making major upgrades. Commercially, it simply does not make sense to keep ageing equipment in service if you are already prepared to spend meaningfully on the projection system.

So, you've done an exhaustive study on THIS equipment to know its life-cycle, particularly the projectors? How long will a projector keep going with a cleaned light engine? That is, what is the cost/yr of the investment? Will a new projector (of the same resolution) look appreciably better? Will the business sell more tickets/popcorn? What is the ROI of the cleaning versus outright replacement? You make it sound like a business that minimizes i(frugal) ts costs is a bad thing in and of itself. You imply that it is providing, somehow, an inferior product but you have not established the quality. in fact, I postulate that an exhibitor that has their light engine cleaned is the kind that does care about presentation enough to not let or continue to have a dingy picture and is doing something about it.

Do you similarly begrudge business for having their carpets cleaned instead of outright ripup and replace them when they get soiled?

Yes, there does come a time to replace equipment but mere wear and tear items, like cleaning, should not be the impetus for it. It should be when it becomes unreliable or is perpetually needing something such that one is "chasing good money after bad."

There is another commercial reality as well: given current power prices and the power consumption of older xenon lamp systems, any cinema intending to operate for another 10 years should be seriously considering an immediate projector replacement. The power savings alone could pay for a new projector over five to seven years. In that context, not upgrading is actively costing you money.

I understand that many cinemas may not be in a position to make a 10-year commitment. But it is important to understand the financial loss that can come with that decision.

I'm sure power prices vary around the globe so the validity of your statement will vary with that. In the US, I can say, definitely, switching to a new projector, if you are using under a 3KW lamp will never get you an ROI based on electric prices alone. 3KW lamps are on the bubble. Anything above, there is an opportunity for savings on the cost of a new projector, presuming a typical cinema with a 12-hour day. For cinemas with a lesser schedule, that swings away from an ROI. We have a Drive-In that we support that has a relatively short-season (they are open from June - September, give or take a few weeks). They run a 6.5KW lamp and I couldn't make the argument to them about Laser based on cost. They don't consume a lamp a year, even with the short-hours the 6.5K lasts. Again, the ROI is never. But, if you are a commercial cinema running 12-hour days, the ROI on a site running 6.5KW (about 35,000 lm) is next week, just about).

I think you are technology driven to the point you think businesses should always be on the latest, even if it makes no business sense (no increase in profit for the investment). There are also the financial realities that it is easier to make a monthly electric bill payment than to get a loan to buy an expensive projector to pay less to the electric company, more to the bank and carry the debt until paid off (and hope an RTU doesn't crap out in the meantime).

I believe one should get as much use of out a thing as it has in it (be that a year, 10 or 20). I think there will be Christie CP2000S/SBs running after we're all retired...they're that solid. But that isn't every projector. Some projectors degrade faster than others. Some are supported better than others. Some are more serviceable than others.

With respect to servers, I've seen enough Dolby DSS, GDC SA/SX-whatever, Doremi DCP/SV have issues now (the "box servers" as I call them) have issues, particularly mediablock issues to say, one is on borrowed time to run them. I have advised my clients to seek replacement before failure. The same goes for the CP750 sound processor (and even the JSD80...where we've exhausted our parts for them). As I said, it depends on the thing as to if one is holding on to an unreliable piece and if putting money into it is a good investment or not.