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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Super Lumex Amps question (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Super Lumex Amps question Mike Frese Master Film Handler Posts: 465 From: Holts Summit, MO Registered: Jun 2007 posted 07-14-2011 09:10 PM                        My concern: Harry Potter in Tech 35mm 3d getting as much light as possible. Super Lumex lamphouse says 100 amps is the max. allowed amps using a 2500 watt bulb. Where should I be in order to get the most light with Tech 35mm 3d? Putting together the movie, it looks very dark. Right now it is at 97 amps. Just right? Too high?  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 07-14-2011 10:38 PM                        The bulb is limited to 2500 watts. Multiply the volts times the amps to get watts. Yes, I would expect Harry |P. to be dark to very dark; one of the problems of converting a live action film to 3D. Harry always had a peculiar dark density with a few bright highlights. I would expect this film to be no exception.Louis  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-15-2011 07:54 AM                     Amps/current is a little bit of a moving target. There is a limit to how much current a lamp and a lamphouse can handle but you can't say that 90 amps or 100 amps is exactly correct for any given situation. Current will fluctuate within a certain range, even if you have a regulated (switching) power supply. With a switcher that range will be smaller, sometimes only an amp or two, but it can still fluctuate. As Louis says, multiply amps * volts to get watts. Set the current so that your wattage is in the range you need. Personally, I set my wattage to be around 90% of the lamp's rating but I sometimes pull that back to 85% and, if the lamp runs best at a hair bit over the rating (only by just a few watts) I'll go with that. Remember, running a lamp at 100% all the time is like driving a car with the engine at full throttle. Yes, your car can do it. It was designed to go that fast but, if you value your car, you won't run at full throttle all the time because it's not going to last as long. Same thing with a xenon lamp. Yes, it will run at full wattage but it will last longer if you take care of it and don't run it full-out all the time. If you have a dark movie like Harry Potter and you need to brighten the picture, go ahead and throttle up if you have room but don't do it all the time unless you need to. Other people do things differently but this way has served me well for 15 years and I rarely have trouble with xenon lamps or power supplies failing prematurely. I believe it's has a lot do do with the fact that I am conservative in the way I run things.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-15-2011 09:57 AM                        Everyone seems to have a different theory on this. Mine is that bulbs tend to produce less light output over time, and that this is not desirable. Therefore, I tend to start new bulbs at somewhat less than the maximum current, and then raise it gradually over the life of the bulb. For example, with an Osram XBO-2000W/H, I would generally run a brand-new bulb at 75 amps and would gradually increase that to 85 amps (the max) as the bulb ages. In theory, this should smooth out the change in light output over time. I have no proof of this, but I also believe that this approach reduces flicker. The exception to this would be in 2-machine booths, where lamp current needs to be adjusted to match the output on both projectors. I currently do not rotate bulbs. In the past, I have seen no benefit to doing so, and have found that they often start to flicker when rotated (why?). And, yes, I know that the stage lighting people tend to become apoplectic when people refer to "lamps" as "bulbs." Sorry.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-15-2011 10:23 AM                     You might want to consider a short gap 2kw instead of a 2.5kw in that lamphouse. I believe you will get close to the same result. Running 2500 watt lamps in Super Lume-X has always been marginal. There would also be a heck of a lot less heat to get rid of. The larger diameter of the 2500 watt lamp significently blocks the reflected light in that lamphouse. Your best option really is the Technilight glass reflector. You'd nearly triple your light output fomr that of a standard 2kw lamp. Mark  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-15-2011 10:24 AM                     Scott; Your practice seems to be similar to mine. We just explain it differently. Running at 75 A. with a max of 85 A. comes out to 88%... Right about 90%. Yes, raising the current to get the light you need as the lamp ages is what I do but it's not a hard and fast rule. I just do what's needed to get the right light as the situation dictates but, in practice, it usually comes out the way you describe. Yeah, I do call it a "lamp" because a "light bulb" is one of those elongated, quasi-spherical things you screw into a "socket" in your house so you can read a book or a newspaper. Calling it a "lamp" helps differentiate a "fixture" from the thing inside that actually emits the photons. I also call it a "lamp" because I used to know a guy who had a thick accent which sounded like he was saying "bubb." I just developed the habit of always calling it a "xenon lamp" just to irritate him a little bit.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-15-2011 12:16 PM                        Regarding the bulb/lamp thing: most people think of the "bulb" (glass thing with metal base that actually produces light) as being the thing that gets screwed into the "lamp" (the fixture, which includes the socket). "Lamp shades," of course, attach to the "lamp." The correct nomenclature (bulb=glass part, lamp=glass part plus base) mostly serves to confuse people, it seems.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 07-15-2011 02:30 PM                     True...drop a Technilight reflector in that Lume-X with that short gap bulb ... major difference in light output. (glass part, I call the "envelope" . "Lamp" to me is what stands in the corner next to the recliner to help you read the newspaper and a lamp contains light bulbs for light ... or a "lamphouse" that contains a reflector, carbon rods, or a xenon "bulb" for illumination. ..oh well ... it all works and gets cleaned in the wash )  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-15-2011 04:07 PM                     The superlumex performs well with the 2500hs lamp it is physically not much different than than the 2000whs as for technolight it is in my opinion snake oil  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 07-15-2011 05:05 PM                        But if they were bulbs, they would live in BULBhouses; lamps live in lamphouses. And hey, you want brighter 3D? It's no secret -- IMAX does it the way it should be done. You never hear anyone complaining about an IMAX 3D presentation being to dim and lifeless (just that it's too expensive). Bright 3D? -- they need to stop whining and just get a second projector. DUAL projection 3D where both images stay on the screen at the same time eliminating that temporal offset that drives some people to epilipsy AND not only doubles the light output to the screen, but quadruples the perceptive brightness because of the added length of time each eye gets to see an image, is the ONLY way to do 3D right....either that or stick with that one projector but shove 15kw bulb in the bulbhouse. That ought to make Mr. Bey happy.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-15-2011 05:12 PM                     LOL! Gord is just jealous he didn't come up with the idea . The Technilight stuff works great. Just ask ayone that has one. Many have been installed for Tech. 3-D and have provided incredible results. I did one in a Strong Highlite console and the result was literally three times the light output of the stock reflector. The Technilight was also a bit LESS EXPENSIVE than a new stock reflector would have cost. There is a 6 screen drive in in SLC that converted all six Christie lamphouses to Technilite many years ago and their outdoor image is brighter than many indoor theaters image. In fact that entire Drive in chain which is based in Calif. converted all their screens over. Mark  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 07-15-2011 05:21 PM                        So Mark, how is it done? There has to be some actual technology that can be demonstrated, no? And if it is an improved design, why don't the manufactures just pay the royalties and make the improvement standard in their lamphouses from the get-go?  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 07-15-2011 05:39 PM                     I understand the Technilight isn't just a reflector, but they change out port glass, lenses and essentially everything in the light chain, which is cheating. How much difference does JUST the reflector make?  |  IP: Logged Victor Liorentas Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: london ontario canada Registered: May 2009 posted 07-15-2011 07:17 PM                     Brad,It is huge,just the reflector and what seemed to be a beem splitter or heat shield were added at this Drive-in I worked at. I was there for the installation and the same OLD lenses and port glass was used. The difference was incredible as Mark described! The focus seemed vastly improved as well. It was not just brighter but middle,side to side was very even,I dare say perfectly uniform across the screen! I spoke with the inventor himself and his enthusiasm for making film the best it can be was massive! James Cameron had him set up or tweak his home screening room!  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-15-2011 08:06 PM                     All I changed out was the reflector. The Drive in only changed out their reflectors. You would probably find that most theaters interested in spending the money on the kits have high quality port glass and lenses to begin with and they care enough to want the light at the best level possible. The kits include the reflector and new mount and heat shields as necessary. Interestingly another screen at this site also has a glass reflector kit as sold by a Cinema Equipment And Supply in Florida. That kit can barely muster out the same light level that the standard Highlite reflector can. So it is pretty obvious that Robert did his home work on these reflector systems... Personally... If I owned a multiplex cinema all screens running film would be equipped with them. The improvement in focus that Victor saw was probably a result of the fact that these are dichroic glass reflectors and there is now far less heat hitting the film. Essentially this is Kinoton light performance or better without having to spend rediculous sums of money.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

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.