Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » wich is better 1.2" DMD or 0.98# DMD (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Author Topic: wich is better 1.2" DMD or 0.98# DMD
Mike Moreno
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 200
From: culiacan sinaloa mexico
Registered: Jul 2008


 - posted 09-02-2009 12:56 PM      Profile for Mike Moreno   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Moreno   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
i was takin a look of 2 diferent digital proyector quote, specificly a christie cp-2000zx and a nec 1600c.
i found some diferences like the lamp size and the screen size wich is not to much (i guess) and i foun that they use a diferent size of DMD 1.2" for christe and 0.98 for nec.
wich one is better?
mike moreno
mexico

 |  IP: Logged

Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008


 - posted 09-02-2009 01:21 PM      Profile for Julio Roberto     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Quality wise, they are pretty much the same.

The larger chip, 1.2", is somewhat more expensive to manufacture and requires larger sized optics, which are usually more expensive. On the other side, it can take larger lamps, as the heat is spreaded over a larger surface.

The 0.98" has the same resolution and general specs, but can use smaller size lenses, which COULD be cheaper, but they also should be of higher quality as the smaller-the-imager-the-higher-the-quality-the-lens-needs-to-be to properly blow up the picture to the screen.

The 0.98" chip main advantage is a lower cost to manufacture, smaller sized lenses, usually smaller size/weight projector, etc. The main dissadvantage: it can't take lamps as large as a (properly done) 1.2" chip-based projector could take.

 |  IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004


 - posted 09-02-2009 01:23 PM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
We have NEC 1600's with 1.2 chips running 3k bulbs in them. Isn't the Christies the one using the .98 chip size?

 |  IP: Logged

Demetris Thoupis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1240
From: Aradippou, Larnaca, Cyprus
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 09-02-2009 01:33 PM      Profile for Demetris Thoupis   Email Demetris Thoupis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
And also the converge on the 1.2 is much easier to align. On the other hand not all manufacturers support full resooution tripple flash for 3D on the 1.2 chip.
Demetris

 |  IP: Logged

Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008


 - posted 09-02-2009 01:40 PM      Profile for Julio Roberto     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
All 3 manufacturers have models that use the 1.2" and also models that use the 0.98" chip.

But as Demetris said, some manufacturers are not using the triple-flash electronics on their 1.2" products yet. Christie is using them, so not a factor there.

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 09-02-2009 01:48 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Monte...the NEC 1600 is a .98" chip...the 1500 was a 1.2" NEC uses the .98" chip on the 1600 only.

Barco uses the .98" chip on all but the DP3000...which is NOT triple flash yet.

Christie uses 1.2" chips on all but the CP2000-M..all current Christies are TripleFlash and all previous models, for a price, can be made triple-flash 3D.

Steve

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Moreno
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 200
From: culiacan sinaloa mexico
Registered: Jul 2008


 - posted 09-02-2009 02:24 PM      Profile for Mike Moreno   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Moreno   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
both projectors will work fine with any 3D technology?

we are tinking on XPAN-D for our new digital auditorium.

 |  IP: Logged

Demetris Thoupis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1240
From: Aradippou, Larnaca, Cyprus
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 09-02-2009 02:27 PM      Profile for Demetris Thoupis   Email Demetris Thoupis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Choose 1.2 if you will go with X-Pand. You need the added light for sure. What screen size do you have and what is the gain factor?

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Moreno
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 200
From: culiacan sinaloa mexico
Registered: Jul 2008


 - posted 09-02-2009 03:10 PM      Profile for Mike Moreno   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Moreno   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
the screen size is Height:21.653 ft
width:40.85 ft.
Trow distance: 59.055 ft.
the gain factor i dont really know.

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 09-02-2009 04:27 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The 1.2" machines are not inherently more light efficient! They can handle larger lamps...that is the difference...In fact, the .98" machines are typically more light efficient one any given lamp size...providing the xenon arc is small enough..

The key here is your screen size...you can't put a big enough lamp in for that one...especially for an Expand-D or Dolby...remember, you are down to 10-27% light throughput when you are in 3D mode (Dolby at the low-end of that, Real-D XL at the upper end). I'd be thinking about 1.2" machines, triple flash and 6K plus lamps and goosing the screen gain if possible and live with the hot-spot.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Moreno
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 200
From: culiacan sinaloa mexico
Registered: Jul 2008


 - posted 09-02-2009 08:52 PM      Profile for Mike Moreno   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Moreno   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
thanks all for the answer, you really helpme guys [thumbsup]

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 09-02-2009 10:21 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Each chip size has it's place and job however I really dislike the back focus adjustment at least on the Christie M. It's near impossible to set perfectly if some one else throws it way off. Even one of the main Christie tech's couldn't get their demo M projector set properly. I think that part of the problem is the design of the lens mount in which it is posisble for someone not familiar with the touchiness of it to throw it so far out of wack that it's almost going to take special gauges to get it back to ground zero. They need to limit the amount of adjustment available there. I don't know about the DP-3000 but the NEC is far easier to align in this respect. 1.2" chips are easy in all aspects to get set up properly.

As for lenses yes, the smaller .98" lenses should cost less but with all the added motorized aspects of them they end up costing close the the price of 1.2" lensing. Remember, the motorized 1.2" lenses use externally optional mounted motors at least with Christie. Either size lens should perfom as well as the other.

Demetris,

I don't think anyone is using Expand on this side of the globe any longer. Glasses are too unreliable...

Mark

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 09-02-2009 10:41 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
CP2000-M's lens control is just plain frustrating. It is too cumbersome...like their GUI interface or the CDP.

Barco's is notably better on the motorized lens mount front.

I think the key is...I wouldn't by one projector or the other based on chip size. The the requirements of the room dictate the desired projector.

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 09-02-2009 10:45 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
To me so far the NEC-1600 wins hands down for the .98" mid sized battle ship!! It's also much less expensive.

Mark

 |  IP: Logged

Brendan Penny
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 121
From: Bundoora, Australia
Registered: Dec 2008


 - posted 09-02-2009 11:23 PM      Profile for Brendan Penny   Email Brendan Penny   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Mark,

How much cheaper are we talking with the 1600 compared to the ZX? Say 5k? 10K?

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.