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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » 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                        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                    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                     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                     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                    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                     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                        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                     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                        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                     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                        thanks all for the answer, you really helpme guys  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-02-2009 10:21 PM                     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                     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                     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                     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

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.