To prove it to yourself, use the DRAS10 program (DOS version) and hook it up to a cat 700 and press "H" for the quick histogram function...look at the right hump...it will flatten off at the top. The right hump is the distribution of what the decoder thinks are "1s" or clear bits...

Now do the same experiment with a red light system, the right hump never peaks and the ability of the system to decern a 1 from a 0 is diminished.

Then compare error numbers from a Cat 700 to a Cat. 701...the Cat 700 should (or can be made) to out perform the Cat. 701 everytime in the categories of focus and error rating.

Next comes service...the Cat. 700 uses a lamp that can be had for under $20 and is user changable. The Cat 701 uses an LED that can be had for a little under $100 and is only changeable by a service technican with the appropriate test equipment.

Steve

Josh

 |  IP: Logged

quote:

---

look at the right hump...it will flatten off at the top.

---

Please re-read...the Cat. 700 will have it's hump flatten off (if the intensity of the lamp is properly set) whereas the Cat. 701 can not have it's hump flatten off (increasing the red light intensity will cause the CCD to saturate).

WinDras is not as good to look at this display. The Quick Histogram function is not enabled, at this time. The histogram does come up and is updated periodically, but not like if it is given full time and attention. Believe it or not, if you know what you are looking for, you can optimise the light intensity (red or white) looking at the quick histogram without an O'scope.

Steve

 |  IP: Logged

The Cat 700 has a built-in power supply.

The 699's power supply is in a rack-mounted unit.

The 699 also has a little fan in it to cool the bulb (which the 700 should have kept using IMO)

The 699 uses a different bulb than the 700.

Otherwise they function the same.

Like Greg, i have to pay the bills myself, and therefore sterted DD on one projector only in 1995. -When letting projector 2 run along in 1998, the message was, that the 700 was no more made, but the 701 was just as good. -What should i think/know/do ??

Thats why i've got one of each, running now for 3½ years, no hearable difference, but with more drop-outs on 700 than on 701, when running repertoire prints with tape and bad splices and so on...

Besides, -my 701 has rollers for 35 mm only, allowing no real film bypass. -Is that standard ? The "old" 700 has 70mm rollers.

 |  IP: Logged

Your Cat. 700 can be made to run and track better than the Cat. 701 without doubt.

There is a new reader in the penthouse fold by Bay Area Cinema Products and distributed by USL. It is the lowest cost of new penthouses and competes with basement readers in cost. It also doesn't use any power supply but rather uses the power already supplied to the CCD to drive it's LED.

The Cat. 699 was a machined penthouse rather than the current cast varieties. Aside from having the aforementioned 35/70 bypass rollers. It also had a spring loaded guide roller. My chief complaint with it was that the flywheel was not as massive as it should have been (corrected in the Cat. 700 and later).

If you have a Cat. 701, you might want to solder the connection that feed the EPT lamp's power wires to the power supply. The Molex connector has been known to overheat and fail.

Steve

 |  IP: Logged