Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Carbon Vs Xenon (Page 2)

 
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Author Topic: Carbon Vs Xenon
Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 02-09-2002 07:24 AM      Profile for Scott Norwood   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Norwood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I vote for carbon, with respect to the quality of the light. Assuming that the carbons and the operator are good, there is barely any visible flicker, and the improved color quality more than makes up for that. It also avoids the problem of xenon color shifts over time; I _hate_ watching film in a changeover house with xenon where the bulbs have aged differently and the color temperature changes with every reel (even for B&W films!).

I enjoy running carbons, but I wouldn't want to do it 8 hours a day for years, either.

 |  IP: Logged

John Anastasio
Master Film Handler

Posts: 325
From: Trenton, NJ, USA
Registered: Sep 2000


 - posted 02-09-2002 10:23 AM      Profile for John Anastasio   Author's Homepage   Email John Anastasio   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm with you, Scott. There's no light as beautifully white as carbon light, but I don't think I could deal with the mess and fuss of running them all the time. Xenon is the "flourescent light" of projection. It's harsher....but oh, so convenient.

 |  IP: Logged

Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000


 - posted 02-09-2002 02:24 PM      Profile for Paul Mayer   Author's Homepage   Email Paul Mayer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
For followspots (hey, they're projection, sorta ) I still miss the look of the carbon arc version of Strong's Short-Throw Super Trouper. As others have stated, carbon gave a very smooth look, spectrum-wise and field uniformity-wise. For some reason today's Xenon Super Troupers still don't have the "punch" of the old carbons. When they first came out, the Strong Xenons had horrible field uniformity--no adjustment of reflector or bulb would give you an evenly lit field. I guess it had something to do with Xenon having a much smaller gas ball than carbon, necessitating a much deeper reflector, and being much less forgiving of small manufacturing defects in the figure of said reflector. Today's Xenons are much improved in that regard.

The feel of the new lamps is very different too. The old lamps were heavier, but smoother to operate and better balanced. The present lamps are lighter, but feel cheaper IMNSHO. Oops, my motion detectors have picked up the OT Police crossing the perimeter. Later!

Paul
Underemployed mercenary film/video projectionist/engineer
"Otaku wa tsurai yo" <-- Yeah I know, bad Japanese pun. Sue me.
It's tough being a fan!

 |  IP: Logged

Gordon Bachlund
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 696
From: Monrovia, CA, USA
Registered: Aug 1999


 - posted 02-09-2002 06:19 PM      Profile for Gordon Bachlund   Author's Homepage   Email Gordon Bachlund   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Here's a thread I HAVE to jump into.

Carbon arc lamphouses require additional effort on the part of the projectionist, but if that effort is expended, the quality of the light is outstanding and consistent. The qualified projectionists who used or still use carbon arc lamphouses spend the time to tune up the feed motors and care for the lamphouses, taking justifiable pride in their work. As Frank pointed out, there is no risk of lamp explosions. As far as cost to operate, my analysis favors Xenon only slightly.

I guess it boils down to profit. Xenon filled the bill when multiple screens became the rage and unattended (or at least minimally attended) booths became the operating norm, abetted by automation systems, but all at the expense of the art of showmanship.

Gone are the days when first run houses employed two (or more)licensed union projectionists, and those of us who worked in second run establishments ached to earn such seniority and skills as would enable us to climb the ladder to such prestige venues.

Call me a curmudgeon, but I'm with Ken and Frank on this one!


 |  IP: Logged

Tom Fermanian
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 101
From: Sainte Adele, Quebec, Canada
Registered: Dec 2001


 - posted 02-09-2002 06:38 PM      Profile for Tom Fermanian   Email Tom Fermanian   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Having been trained and brought up with carbon arcs (Peerless Magnarcs) My vote goes for best light /colours/ brightness CARBONS
Alas in todays multiplex theatres Xenon wins for the practical aspect, and a close sewcond for brightness etc. BUT if I had to run run a single screen house, I would prefer carbons.

Tom Fermanian

------------------

 |  IP: Logged

Adam Fraser
Master Film Handler

Posts: 499
From: Houghton Lake, MI, USA
Registered: Dec 2001


 - posted 02-10-2002 12:39 AM      Profile for Adam Fraser   Author's Homepage   Email Adam Fraser   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Hey guys, thanks for all the info... Its kind of a weird for me to say it but I have been raised and trained on peerless magnarc's too, just witha kniesley 2000 Watt xenon conversion. I will look foreward to seeing carbons in action.....

------------------
Adam Fraser
www.pinestheatre.com

 |  IP: Logged

Robert Golding
Film Handler

Posts: 65
From: Sutter, CA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001


 - posted 02-10-2002 02:51 AM      Profile for Robert Golding   Email Robert Golding   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I had the pleasure of running carbon arc's for over 20 yrs and there is no comparison between carbon and xenon. It was a work of love to run a Carbon Arc house, they tend to be messy and you must watch them very closly to keep them aligned properly. I've run indoors and outdoors this way, and must say the bigger (13.6's) ones have to be watch as they will change from hour to hour. If you started a movie at the outdoor with clear weather and then it goes rainy, you guess it, the carbon's would feed totally different. The only thing I can say about xenon's is they sure are easier to take care of. If you keep the optic's and bulb clean and they seem to take care of themselves. Also a carbon adjusted properly will give you a light source that has truer color than a xenon ever will.

 |  IP: Logged

Bernie Anderson Jr
Master Film Handler

Posts: 435
From: Woodbridge, New Jersey
Registered: Apr 2000


 - posted 02-10-2002 10:24 PM      Profile for Bernie Anderson Jr   Author's Homepage   Email Bernie Anderson Jr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If any of you in the New York area want to see Carbon Arcs work, we're running a weekend of shows at the Loew's Jersey in Jersey City NJ at the end of Feb. Check out the website for details: www.loewsjersey.org. Ashcraft Super Corelites at a 160-170 amps are quite impressive.

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 02-10-2002 10:34 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
bernie, we need to et up a fund to get Joe an airline ticket so he can come see the Corelites in action. He'd be blown away and any xenon he looks at in the future would only make him disgusted!
Mark @ GTS

 |  IP: Logged

Rick Long
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 759
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Nov 1999


 - posted 02-10-2002 11:19 PM      Profile for Rick Long   Email Rick Long   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
There is no doubt that carbon arc gave only what can be described as a "more exciting" light to the projected picture, despite what the specs claim.

My favourite of all time was the Peerless Magnarc type G (great styling) (although the F had much heftier DC connection blocks). The Model J was nice, but without those yellow "marlbled" plastic knobs, it somehow just wasn't a Peerless.

Am I the only one here who actually preferred the Strong 135 (or Mighty 90's) to the Ashcraft? (11MM X 3/8" trim). These used a bi-metal tube upon which the positive crater was focused, via mirrors, to keep the arc where it should be. My experience with these was such that once you lit and stabilized the arc, you could forget it and go make up film without having to worry about it.

It is interesting to wonder with the enviromental legislation of today, whether carbon arcs would ever be allowed to be used anymore.

The carbon arc was indeed, part of the lost magic of being a projectionist.


 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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


 - posted 02-10-2002 11:37 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I ran a set of Futura IIs for the longest time (11mm pos 9mm neg). I always had great success with them. Most operators though complained of flame-outs. They were tempermental about their draft.

As to the debate on Carbon vs Xenon...in terms of light, there is really no debate, carbon has a much better spectrum and is truer to "daylight".

In fact, the industry is now looking to change the standard from the tried and true 5400K to something much higher (as much as 6500K since with Xenon it is really impossible to obtain a true 5400K (looking at all three colors, in order to obtain a 5400K you end up shifting the color spectrum outa whack, something has to give when you try and make a light source perform out of it's native range...kinda like a red reader on an infrared solar cell...but that is another story!).

I would tend to put the Peerless Magnarc at the top of the Carbon heap as the tried and true Carbon Arc lamphouse...sure it wasn't the biggest but it sure did a nice job for it's decades of service.

While it may be true that dropping a box of carbons won't cause an explosion, the damage may just as well be. It can often lead to sputtering.

My favorite carbon arc oddity was running the aforementioned Futuras with 11mm UCARS....I had one of the positives that was slightly under 11mm for most of it's length. All of the sudden, it turned about once for every 10 revolutions of the postive drive! I spent the rest of the reel hand spinning that one!

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000


 - posted 02-10-2002 11:59 PM      Profile for Steve Kraus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
My arc lamp story also involves Futura's (can't remember if I or II).
Perhaps I've already told this story.

Some non-film folks re-opened a single screen 1960's theatre and had not a clue about booth work. Someone suggested they call me. I explained to them the realities of xenon, platter, and automation and took them to a house so equipped and they agreed that that was the way to go. However they were opening within a week and I put them in touch with Mark G. to round up some gear, some new, some used. In the meantime, while holding down a full time job at a post production center I ran this booth, every show for about 6 weeks until the equipment change was made. We had XL's and hour reels.

One weekend a phenolic gear on the negative feed of one lamp broke. As we were running hour reels anyone else in their right mind would have simply added an intermission strip and stuck with the good machine for the few days it took to get a gear sent out. As I am not in my right mind I had a better way. Negative feed is hardly as critical as positive so the bad lamp would run satisfactorily for 5 minutes or so. So I peeled several hundred feet off the 2nd big reel, added leaders and cue marks and made a little mini reel. I'd run the 1st hour, change to the mini reel, then in just a few minutes, rethread the balance of the 2nd hour, retrim the good lamp and change back over. There was just enough time to accomplish this and I knew every word of dialog in that segment and where I needed to be in my proceedings to be on time. I never missed the change though. A couple days later I had my new gear and it was back to normal. A few weeks later the platter and xenon were put in (on the other machine) and the Futura's were retired (although the one in question stuck around as a backup for years).

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 02-11-2002 09:49 AM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Some links:
http://www.misty.com/people/don/shortarc.html
http://www.uvlamp.com/TechArt/shortarc.htm
http://www.osram.com/service_corner/download_center/photo.html#XBO

Also, check out the "National Projector Carbon Bulletins" in the Film-Tech "Manuals" section.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 585-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 585-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

 |  IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 02-11-2002 10:19 AM      Profile for Gordon McLeod   Email Gordon McLeod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
My favorite of the big lamps was the futuraII burning 1.6 joinable carbons
The only problem I ever had was once forgetting to trim it
In the smaller lamps I always like the ashcraft C70 better than the peerless

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000


 - posted 02-11-2002 11:44 AM      Profile for Steve Kraus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Perhaps I am forgeting but IIRC I was able to get two hours on both positives and negatives but the only problem was that while the positives were fed by knurled rollers the negative feed was via screw whose range was good for little more than an hour. So with the feed cranked all the way down a new rod would need to be clamped about half way up. Next re-trim you'd crank it all the way back and clamp it at the end. It would have been a cool retrofit to create a longer feed screw and have a two hour lamp. Any carbon arc and platter (or giant reel) setups out there?

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
   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.