my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Xenex II versus super lumex

Author Topic: Xenex II versus super lumex Steven J Hart Master Film Handler Posts: 282 From: WALES, ND, USA Registered: Mar 2004 posted 12-29-2004 10:36 PM                        In 1998 I put together a booth for my single screen theater restoration project in rural North Dakota. I knew nothing about film projection at the time, but my dealer steered me to the Kneisley Xenex II lamphouse over the Strong Super-Lumex. His reasoning was "bang for the buck" he said the Xenex II puts out more light per watt than the Super Lumex. In his opinion, a 1600 watt Xenex II puts out about the same light as a 2000 watt Super-Lumex because of the larger more efficient reflector. Is there any legitimacy to this statement? I've had very good service from the Xenex II, but am not conviced that the build quality - especially the douser assembly - is as good as Super-Lumex lamps I've installed and worked with over the years. In my opinion, the Xenex II appears to have a better cooling system than the Super-Lumex, but this is just a subjective observation.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-29-2004 11:26 PM                     I have alot of experience with both and the expereince has been equally both positive and negative for both. I also wouldn't say that each has their place because both really are general just general purpose lamphouses that can fit into virtually any application, although last year we sold a theatre with a tiny booth a pair of Supers because a lamphouse the size of the Xenex would have been to large for the space they went into. The Xenex mirror may be just a tad bit more efficient but if I recall both were designed by the same person. I've found the Xenex to have more of a hot spot and the Strong to have flatter light output but they are not that far apart if you measuer them with the USL light meter. While I don't know what todays cost on a Xenex-2 is about 7 to 8 years ago it was very reasonable and represented alot more bang for the buck than the Super Lum-Ex. But Kniesley has raised their prices over the years and I doubt that it could be said it is a good value today. In fact its amazing that Knielsey is even still around. Yes... the Xenex build quality is very deficient... as though your Uncle Rube may have had a hand in the design.... and the rectifiers are VERY inefficient but lamp life provided you have an adequate exhaust blower will be very good as the DC is quite clean and inrush current very low. The Super Lum-Ex is pretty well built but also has its own set of faults mainly in the exposed internal wiring that eventually turns to a crisp, and in the igniter control board. However, the rest of the Super is of very decent build quality. One thing to realize is that both really are dinosaurs by todays standards, the designs of both are well over 20 years old with the Strong going back as far 1979 or so. Today the Christie Reference Series squashes just about everything else out there but the Big Sky stuff is not running too far behind the Christie and is less expensive. Were I you I would have gotten pricing and equipment recomendation from at least three dealers before making any purchasing decisions. Some dealers like to push only certain types of equipment based on margin or end of the year sales comissions and may or may not be dealers for all of the types of stuff you were wanting pricing on..... This is why its better to shop around!! BTW: Neither has a very good internal cooling system, basically the same Dayton blower will be found in both! Either should get around 700 cfm externally for a 2kw lamp for best life of both lamp and reflector. Mark @ CLACO  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-30-2004 08:37 AM                     The current Christie lamphouses are indeed much improved over their older designs but I haven't seen them exceed a Strong lamphouse yet. Sure the Super Lume-X design is old but it took this long for others to catch up. As to Kneisley, their douser is indeed flimsy and their igniter is noisy. I'd always go with the Super Lume-X. Steve  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 12-30-2004 12:06 PM                    The Xenex II's that I worked with back in the 80's were very efficient with light. The thing I liked about it was that you could remove the reflector and wash it and improve the light output dramatically after cleaning the dirt off the back of the glass reflector. As far as the igniter goes we changed it and put in an igniter that was used in a strong lamphouse. That eliminated problems with hot bulb re-starts.  |  IP: Logged Richard Fowler Film God Posts: 2392 From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA Registered: Jun 2001 posted 12-30-2004 12:40 PM                     Xenex 1 = glass reflector / Xenex II = metal reflector. The ignitor is "dirty" but we never had any bulb strike issues.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-30-2004 02:35 PM                     The reflector in the xenex 2 is bigger than the super lumex and smaller than the super 80 As such I found its greatest efficiency was with a 3k bulb where the reflectors sized gathered the most light from the 3k lamp on either side of that the lamphouse gave good light equal to the strongs  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 12-30-2004 02:47 PM                    You are correct they were the xenex 1's. It's been so long I couldn't remember.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-30-2004 06:33 PM                     quote: Steve Guttag The current Christie lamphouses are indeed much improved over their older designs but I haven't seen them exceed a Strong lamphouse yet. The Super Highlite will only do 60 to 70% of what the Christie Refrence will do on light level. It may be true that the latest Strongs do a bit better but probably still no where near what the Refrence will do. The refrences allowed us to step DOWN a lamp size in the latest installation and still exceed SMPTE. I think Brad will agree with these findings. Both were measured with the USL meter with the same projector, lenses and screen material but at two different locations. BTW: The Christie lamps and consoles construction quality is miles ahead of Strongs stuff as per design and quality. quote: Gordon McLeod The reflector in the xenex 2 is bigger than the super lumex and smaller than the super 80 As such I found its greatest efficiency was with a 3k bulb where the reflectors sized gathered the most light from the 3k lamp on either side of that the lamphouse gave good light equal to the strongs Gord, I found pretty much the same thing. Although the Xenex 1 mirror is shallower it still does a great job with a 3kw lamp as well. The Xenex 1 with a 3kw lamp puts out alot more light than a Futura running 125 amp trims. Mark  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-30-2004 07:58 PM                     First off...we were talking about Super Lume-X lamphouses, not Highlight consoles...different optics. 2nd, I don't use consoles whenever possible and tend to get the most out of the systems with separates with fully adjustable lamp tables. Is there a difference between the SLC and the "Reference" optics? If not then I'll stick with Strong...my findings, also using a USL-PSA meter do not give Christie any edge on light quality. I must admit though, I have not A-Bed an SLC vs Super Lume-X or Ultra-80 on the same screen, same projector. My SLC experiences have been on Century's and Christie's. The USL color meter does give Strong an edge on meeting SMPTE color specs though. Christie's reflectors tend towards the blue and give the illusion of a brighter picture without actually improving the black detail and ruining the flesh-tones. Note too that the Highlight consoles now have a choice of reflectors. I believe they have one that is optimised for the ISCO RED lenses (14" or so). Again, consoles are not my thing. Steve  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-30-2004 08:22 PM                     My big beef with christie is there colour temp is always way above SMTPE spec but then christie is the only one lobbying to change it to a higher temp  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-30-2004 10:09 PM                     As for consoles or seperates I install what the job calls for, equipment choice is not always my call and is sometimes dictated by a customers existing equipment as I am sure it is for you on occasion. But I do in reality also prefer seperates for the flexibility one gets, especially with alot of the old installations out here in the mountain states. There are many small, tight booths. My main beef with the Super Lume-X is the lack of any cooling system. There really is none at all, and the limited lamp size! Other than that I have no beefs with them and run one in my home system. I would never consider a Super 80 in any installation. I've done many of them but always was disappointed by the outcome.... again the Christie lamphouse puts out considerable more light and out here you'll find most of the large screens including those in Hollywood running them for that resaon. I find that the customers also like them alot better. Yes the Refrence optics are different than the SLC. The color temp is not really a big issue nor have I noticed any huge obvious visual shift in color although there is some measurable difference from what the standard is. This is however like comparing apples to oranges and no paying customer is going to notice a color temp difference of the slight amount. Hell, there can easily be that much color difference between two of the same lamphouses in a two machine booth! Mark  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-31-2004 09:25 AM                     Actually I notice the bluish colour tint right away in any new christie booth (the reds seem to be blackish)  |  IP: Logged Aaron Sisemore Flaming Ribs beat Reeses Peanut Butter Cups any day! Posts: 3061 From: Rockwall TX USA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 12-31-2004 01:16 PM                     In my travels I have found the Xenex I to be almost as good light-wise as the Super Lumex. I like the Kneisley rectifiers too with the exhaust vent setup. My only problem is that apparently Kneisley Electric is now practically operating out of a living room and parts may become really difficult to get in a few years. -Aaron  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.