|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: D-Cinema...post your pros and cons of the different equipment
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 04-03-2008 03:34 PM
This is for anyone working with the various equipment out there...Dolby, Christie, Barco, Doremi, etc. If you do not have first hand knowledge of the equipment being discussed, make sure your questions/comments are NOT stated "as fact".
This is simple. Please post your pros and cons of each of the various pieces of equipment. For example, various features, anamorphic lens vs. zooming, bulb life, reliability, serviceability, etc.
If you have comments to be made and wish to remain anonymous, send me a private email properly identifying yourself and I will pass along the comments to the thread. (I have a feeling this is much of how the true negative aspects will end up making it to publication.)
Manufacturer feedback is very much encouraged. If you are representing any of the equipment here and do not have a forum account, please register and drop me an email asking me to push your registration through quickly.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tristan Lane
Master Film Handler
Posts: 444
From: Nampa, Idaho
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 04-03-2008 06:13 PM
Projectors:
Christie CP2000h / s
Pros:
*Easy access to all components. Easily serviceable. Great support by the manufacturer. Simple design with less points for failure. Great history within the industry. High Light output. HEPA filtration for engine compartment. Cross-compatible lamps, IREM ignitors.
Cons:
Thyristor Ballast (older models). Non-motorized lens mount requires the use of an anamorphic or manual zoom adjustments for format changes. All connections located on the bottom of projector.
Barco DP100 / DP200
Pros:
DP200 30,000 lumens(currently), Motorized lens focus and zoom with memory. Easy access to connections.
Cons:
Costly parts, difficult to access all components for service, over-engineered lamphouse, sealed light engine, pressurized cooling system
NEC:
It's Japanese, It's purple-blue, and it has tailights. (I don't have much experience with the projector) all of the aluminum parts have a glossy finish.
Players / Servers:
Doremi DCP2000:
Generic parts, proprietary video decoder, unrefined GUI. Previously unreliable, but has improved greatly, and is currently the server of choice for AccessIT. Debian Linux OS. Can support dual projector 3D.
Dolby Show Player / Show Store:
Separate content storage and media block make for less expensive repairs if a component fails. Very well designed GUI and Show Manager. Ability to play Dolby3D features. Show Store operates on a Linux OS. NA-10 add on allows for total control of all auditorium components.
DCA-21 - Christie/Pennywise automation
Excellent product but TOTALLY unneeded in Dcinema. GPIO output on current servers allows for control of relays for auditorium functions. Most servers also allow for projector control via ethernet. Utilizing a Pennywise requires an operator to physically change the program settings on the automation to change formats. This defeats one of the key points of D-cinema s being a system that "Runs itself". The pennywise setup emulates a single cue film automation system to provide a 35mm automation experience to the operator.
NA-10 - Good product, but much more functionality than what is needed now for auditorium control. Unfortunately, must be used if any dry contacts are needed for auditorium control.
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Zylstra
Master Film Handler
Posts: 432
From: Novi, MI, USA
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 04-03-2008 07:13 PM
OK, my staff has over 2 years with an AccessIt solution - all Christie CP2000H and DoReMi servers. We also have 2 RealD screens
CP2000H
After a flurry of initial post-install repairs the projector itself has proven itself close to a 35mm projector in reliability. So far the only recurring issue we have is with the H ballast - out of 36 at our 2 18 screen locations I'd say Christie has replaced 13 in the past year and a half; there is a modification kit coming with beefier thyristers and better airflow for cooling - this should help the issue. The claim is that the S ballast has no where near the failure rate of the H, but I have no experience to back it up. Another weak point is the lamp cooling fan, for us maybe only a 10% yearly failure rate. The DVI inputs are NOT HDCP compliant, and I'm told there are no plans to come up with any modifications that will make it HDCP compliant. Power usage during a show is similar to a 35mm system, but between shows the digital draws the same as a 35mm system with the projector motor running. DVI connectors are hard to reach.
DoReMi
I would say after 2 years 75% of our units have been replaced, even in year 2 we saw a 15-20% failure rate. I am not sure if the issue is related to the core DoReMi or the AIX TCC software that runs on top of the core system. USB 2.0 ingest is really slow, but using the TMS (Access calls it LMS) network transfers take significantly less time - a small movie file can transfer in 45 mins or less. I am told that all our DoReMis will be changed out eventually to the DCI compliant version (the version that passed FIPS).
Scaling for common height pictures
This puts the light output exactly the same between formats - i.e. 14FL for flat results in 14FL for scope. The studios and DCI do not like this option since the flat picture is scaled down resulting in lost resolution (and someone somewhere claimed there is a color gamut shift involved) - Christie is currently retrofitting all the AIX installs with their WAC (Wide Angle Converstion) lens that magnifies the scope image to fit the flat image height.
Anamorphics
This solution puts only a 14% difference in light output between formats - i.e. flat at 14FL results in scope at 12FL using the same power level. If all my screens had anamorphics I could significantly save on yearly lamp costs due to being able to drop a lamp size over scaling. I understand some studios do not like this option.
WAC lens
This results in more like a 35% difference in light output between flat and scope (i.e. 14FL flat results in 9FL scope using the same power level); but this option displays each format in it's native resolution. Downside is you have to size your lamp for the scope picture and reduce power when running flat.
CDXL lamps from Christie
So far the CDXL-60 has proven to consistently last warranty +25% with no issues and enough light output for our large screens. 2 CDXL-30s I tested saw almost a 50% drop in lumen output after only 1,000 hours. I am currently conducting a lamp survey with all the CDXL lamps (and some CXL) to prove "lumens over time" so we can properly size lamps for each screen (i.e. size for the worst output and not assume the manufacturer's spec is consistent over the lamp life).
RealD
Licensing costs aside there have been no issues with the hardware. A non-RealD and non-Dolby person claims that RealD has better light output than Dolby 3D, especially with their latest Z-screen that puts through more light (I have no data to back up this claim)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tristan Lane
Master Film Handler
Posts: 444
From: Nampa, Idaho
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 04-04-2008 03:07 AM
In response to David's input:
quote: David Zylstra
The claim is that the S ballast has no where near the failure rate of the H, but I have no experience to back it up.
I'm not sure there's been enough field time for anyone to claim that the "S" power supply better than the SanRex thyristor ballast from H pedestals. As Mark likes to say, if the power going to the switcher is dirty....it won't last long. I tend to agree. There are a few facts about the S pedestal's switcher: It weighs 1/3 less than the thyristor unit, makes less noise, and is a switching type rather than a high reactance / thyristor type. I tend to dislike the term "Ballast" since in a way it is a misnomer. Why didn't Christie just refer to in in familiar terms and call it a "Rectifier" does nomenclature really have to change with D-cinema, even though the technology for lamps hasn't?
quote: David Zylstra
I am not sure if the issue is related to the core DoReMi or the AIX TCC software that runs on top of the core system.
From my experience, I would say that it was a 50-50 split between TCC software related issues, and native Doremi hardware / software related failures. With playback issues I would usually bump the unit out of TCC and play content within Cinelister and if the problem persisted, I would chalk it up to a Doremi problem. Many times the Dolphin board would fail, or the RAID would go bad. But many times, the failure would occur after a remote TCC upgrade and the unit would be replaced so that the old one could be sent back for evaluation.
quote: David Zylstra
This puts the light output exactly the same between formats - i.e. 14FL for flat results in 14FL for scope.
This of course, wasn't the reason that Christie/AIX opted scale the picture on side-masked houses. The cost of the anamorphic lens and mount were very high and it made economical sense. There was a gray area within the DCI spec that didn't specify whether or not an anamorphic was required, and so they ran with it. Some sites demanded anamorphics and got them, some didn't. The WCL is just a fixed zoom lens that provides a more economical solution, but achieves much the same result as an anamorphic, with slightly less light. Resolution is not compromised with the WCL.
quote: David Zylstra
This solution puts only a 14% difference in light output between formats - i.e. flat at 14FL results in scope at 12FL using the same power level.
I haven't done any real testing to back this up, but I tend to doubt that the light loss is that bad. The anamorphic lens eats up light, but if the entire chip is being used for picture, more light is being output.
quote: David Zylstra
A non-RealD and non-Dolby person claims that RealD has better light output than Dolby 3D
I'd have to see results using the same projector in the same theater before believing this. There's far too many variables to make a broad statement like this. RealD relies on a silver screen, and thus would have heavy drop-off near the edges when compared to Dolby3D (even on a high-gain screen). To truely tell a difference you would have to use the same projector, lamp, screen size, throw length, lens, etc....
Good info David. Please don't think I'm tearing apart your post (I'm not). I just wanted to respond with my thoughts.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Zylstra
Master Film Handler
Posts: 432
From: Novi, MI, USA
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 04-04-2008 08:09 AM
quote: Tristan Lane
I haven't done any real testing to back this up, but I tend to doubt that the light loss is that bad. The anamorphic lens eats up light, but if the entire chip is being used for picture, more light is being output.
I've proven with the math as well as field measurements that 14FL onscreen with flat results in 11-12FL with the anamorphic lens - it's not a matter of light loss with the lens, it's a matter of screen area being filled (scope screen is 27% larger than flat and uses only 3% more of the chip over flat). They have not installed our WAC lenses yet so I don't have field measurements yet, but the math does show the 35% difference between formats - I'll update this when I get field measurements.
Tristan - no problem, I didn't take it as criticism - we are all looking at this from different directions with different slices of experience and manufacturer "inside information" so we each have insight that will complement others information. I too don't like the term ballast, I kept calling it a rectifier and our local Christie CSEs had no idea what I meant so for communication reasons I started referred to it as a ballast.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I just installed some of these on ZX's and they don't loose near that amount of light... I saw more like 6 to 8% difference.
To be clear my original post talked about the difference between formats due to taking 80% of the flat image area and magnifying it to 27% more screen area using the same lamp power level and not the light loss from the lens - this difference does requires the use of "lamp per channel" - I wanted to put it in the perspective of needing to size lamps for the scope picture and not assume that 100% of the rated lumen output will hit the screen. Please let me know if real life measurements proves the math wrong (i.e. take a FL reading from both flat and scope/WAC with no power change)
-edited to clarify my thoughts-
[ 04-04-2008, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: David Zylstra ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ed Mauger
Film Handler
Posts: 11
From: London, London, UK
Registered: May 2008
|
posted 08-26-2008 10:03 AM
Projectors:
Control: The Barco DP100 wins hands down on this. The Communicator software is easy to use, and straightforward to understand. The GPI inputs can be used for turning on and off the lamp and closing/opening the dowser. The RS232 control can easily be used for selecting a macro from a control unit such as a Crestron. If the touchscreen fails, there are buttons on the side, or it's still controllable from the software. So, there is built-in back up.
The Christie CP1000 does not have these features above, and if the touchscreen fails, you don't have a show! Having said this, I've only had a screen fail once in 3 years, but this was on an important show. I have recently installed a Christie ZX and found the web interface to be slow and cumbersome. I think they are dealing with this in the next software update. One improvement is the SCCI (simple contact closure interface), which allows easy control of the lamp and shutter.
Mechanical: Not sure why people are having so much trouble with the Barco cooling loop; I admit I only look after 1 Barco, but no problems in 2 years with this. The convergence is 100 times easier to perform on the Barco!
Light output: Yes, the Christie wins on this.
The perfect projector: A Christie with Barco control system.
Servers:
Why does no one seem positive about the Doremi? Only 1 problem in 2 years (out of 4 servers) - one RAID collapsed.
Doremi advantages over Dolby: a) you can switch the noisy thing off when not in use! b) You can fast forward (to an extent). I don't think this is possible with Dolby (certainly not with the Qube), but they may have corrected this. c) Doremi is smaller and actually fits into a 19 inch rack without needing a crowbar.
Scalar/routers:
Cine-IPM wins by a long way here over the Folsom (or the latest ACSAR, which I believe is a Folsom in disguise). Much easier for the projectionist to use; up to 99 channels easily saved (or only 50 if you believe the manual). Biggest advantage comes when you need to change from 50Hz to 59.94 Hz: the Cine-IPM will do this automatically and output the same frequency as the input. Folsom is quite awkward to change, if for example you have a clip show with different frequencies.
The advantage of the Folsom is the possibility of making small changes without a menu on the screen, and the logo saving feature can be useful.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 10 pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 8 9 10
|
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.
|
Home
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
.
![[dlp]](graemlins/dlp.gif)
on every screen; I've noticed the ballasts in their Christie CP-2000Hs make a very pronounced high-pitched whine.
Printer-friendly view of this topic