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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Working out Xenon size

Author Topic: Working out Xenon size Amanda Mundin Expert Film Handler Posts: 122 From: Belper, Derbyshire, UK Registered: Sep 2005 posted 02-09-2011 04:13 PM                     Is there a way to work out what size xenon will be needed for a given screen size using a digital projector?  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 02-09-2011 04:15 PM                     Yes.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 02-09-2011 04:50 PM                     Wow.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 02-09-2011 07:42 PM                     What? I answered the question!  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 02-09-2011 08:46 PM                     LOL -- OK Mr. Guttag. I'll do the favor of rephrasing the question: What method should be used in order to work out what size xenon will be needed for a given screen size using a digital projector? ...coz I'm curious too... And please elaborate if different formula applies to 3D.  |  IP: Logged Dave Macaulay Film God Posts: 2321 From: Toronto, Canada Registered: Apr 2001 posted 02-12-2011 06:19 PM                     Barco has a projector and lamp calculator online. I suppose the results could be transferred to similar Christie projectors, and Christie probably has a similar calculator available too. With Barco at least you select your screen size, throw, 2D or 3D, screen gain, and target ft-L on screen. It gives you what Barco thinks are adequate projector/lamp systems and helps you select a lens for each. As an aside the 1.2" "2K but 4K ready" or 4K DMD projectors from Barco seem to be a LOT more light efficient than their 0.9" models.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 02-12-2011 07:39 PM                     It isn't really rocket science....it is all about the screen area you are trying to light. But remember...you are going to be lighting the WHOLE imager, even if you are only using a part of it (which is the case in all formats except the elusive 1.896:1! (that is the ratio of the 2K/4K imager). The "formula", in its most basic form is: height x width x fL desired = lumens (remember, the H x W the FULL imager, not the format in question. Then, you need to factor in loses in the port and such, lamp aging and screen gain. So lets say you have a 15' x 35'-10" screen (scope) and it is a constant height screen...you know...when scope gets to be the BIG picture. For flat, your imager is putting out a 15 x 28.44 image and you want 14 fL. So 15x28.44x14 = 5972.4 Lumens. But your port glass, even if it is really good and AR coated is going to cost you 3% (more if you don't use GOOD AR glass)...so you are up to 6152 Lumens. But wait, you say you want it color balanced correctly? You are going to give up AT LEAST 5% of your light getting it to the mecca of x=.314, y=.351. So up that to 6460, if you are lucky. But just like with taxes, you haven't stopped giving. Xenon lamps typically loose 20% of their light in the first 100-hours. The Digital lamps (at least the Ushio/Christie ones) do quite a bit better...closer to just 10% of their light in the first 300-hours...but the point is...even being rosy...you should plan on at least 25% of your light being gone by 1000-hours...presuming a smallish lamp (not a 6KW). So add another 25% so you can keep it at 14fL (or there abouts throughout the lamp's life. We are up to 8075 lumens on a Flat, matte-white screen running 1.85:1. For scope, without an anamorphic, we are up to 12,817 lumens (quite a bit more). With an anamorphic, the figure drops to 9869 lumens. There are other factors at play here...like the lenses. The projector manufacturers will give a lumen spec that represents their best throughput lens. Most lenses are zooms and their throughput will vary based on where it is zoomed...typically it will be at its most efficient with the largest picture it can make. How well set up is your projector? If the notch filter isn't dead on...you'll be doing more color correction. If your port or screen affects the color too much, you'll do more color correction...etc. So what about screen gain? Yes, you can lower the lumen requirement...for the CENTER of the screen...Put in a 2.2 gain screen and you'll get that 14fL in the middle with half the light...BUT it will only be 14fL in the MIDDLE and way out of spec most everywhere else. You want to keep the screen gain as LOW as possible that lets you get the light. So on to 3Ds...at present, the "spec" is 3.5fL to 5.5 fL with the studios really wishing it was in the 5-5.5 range for the most vibrant picture. So adjust the numbers above with a target of 5-5.5 But now you have to take into account the efficiency of the 3D. the rules of thumbs: Dolby 3D: 10% efficient (so you need 50-55fL BEFORE you put the 3D stuff in). Real-D: 15% efficient Real-D XL: 28% efficient MasterImage 3D: 18% efficient XpanD : I don't have a handy number memorized...we need to check on that. It is likely in the 20s + though...it does not project the light through something...the eye-wear is the "loss" in the system. Remember on those silver screens for Real-D and Master Image that while you may have a 2.3-2.4 gain screen...measure the screen all over and you will see that if you hit 5-fL in the middle you are WAY low everywhere else. I don't know about others but I'm now compromising on those screens and measuring about 1/3 in so my average is closer to 5fL...a little bright in the middle and a little dark on the sides...as opposed to dark everywhere except the middle. Curving the screen will distribute the light better but DCinema does not have a means for dealing with curved screens in the lenses, yet...all one can do is crop off pixels that spill on the masking. -Steve PS Manny...is that more of what you were looking for?  |  IP: Logged Amanda Mundin Expert Film Handler Posts: 122 From: Belper, Derbyshire, UK Registered: Sep 2005 posted 02-14-2011 12:38 PM                     That's all really helpful, thanks a lot for the advice  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 02-14-2011 09:20 PM                     Oh, wow -- Thanks for the long answer, Steve -- as I so often hear, "I figured it was long, but I didn't plan on it being quite THAT long."  |  IP: Logged Tom Bert Expert Film Handler Posts: 134 From: Belgium Registered: Apr 2010 posted 02-15-2011 01:54 AM                     "As an aside the 1.2" "2K but 4K ready" or 4K DMD projectors from Barco seem to be a LOT more light efficient than their 0.9" models." Welcome to the magic of étendue: more chip surface enables you to transmit more light. 1.2" 2K to 1.38" 4K gives indeed ~10% more "for free"  |  IP: Logged Amanda Mundin Expert Film Handler Posts: 122 From: Belper, Derbyshire, UK Registered: Sep 2005 posted 02-15-2011 07:01 AM                     Are the 4K DLP projectors and/or 4K DLP upgrades available for purchase/installation yet? And how much more is 4K likely to cost than 2K?  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 02-15-2011 10:44 AM                     It is more than étendue...The Refectors in the "B" series are more efficient and the integrating rod also can be set more precisely. And then lets not forget the lenses are playing into all of this as well as they are also of different design. Factors such as arc size also play into étendue with a point-source being the "ideal" light source. Also, have you verified the light output on the "B" series is really that much improved? I question most of the manufacturer's claims on light output. -Steve  |  IP: Logged Pete Naples Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1565 From: Dunfermline, Scotland Registered: Feb 2001 posted 02-15-2011 02:43 PM                     Whilst I've not been able to an A - B comparison, my gut feeling is that the B series is that much improved. Of course there is always room for the odd rogue light engine, lamp, lens, reflector etc. Every B series Barco I've done has had more light than I know what to do with, usually having to come down a lamp size from calculated.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 02-15-2011 03:47 PM                     Thanks. That is good to know. I do plan to get more data as I work with the B stuff more. -Steve  |  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.