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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Strong Lumex /super lumex

Author Topic: Strong Lumex /super lumex Tom Fermanian Expert Film Handler Posts: 101 From: Sainte Adele, Quebec, Canada Registered: Dec 2001 posted 02-12-2003 10:31 AM                     Guys & gals! I am being offered a few Strong Lumex lamphouses to replace some older kneisley conversions & pups (glass reflectors) in few smaller theatres that we operate. I am familiar with the Super Lumex which are excelent, but regular LumeX , I don't know,?? is light as adequate between both models?? we operate mostley 2000W or 1600W, but would standardise with 2000W, all our rectifiers (irems) are capable for 2000w operation. what are your toughts? (ps we cannont spring for new equipement, then I would put more modern lamphouses) thanks all! Tom  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-12-2003 10:45 AM                     The lumes is great for 16mm but for 35mm the pup will even give you better light and anything is more reliable ignitions  |  IP: Logged Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 02-12-2003 04:46 PM                        Gordon, maybe you can verify this (or shoot it down)... I asked about a lumex recently, was told that it had been designed for the Super Trouper and that because of the reflector type & close proximity to the front of the lamp, it wouldn't be a great choice for film. The cabinet not having doors might be a pain, too??  |  IP: Logged Ken Layton Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1452 From: Olympia, Wash. USA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 02-12-2003 05:51 PM                     If you get a Lume-x, it works best with a Strong power supply. The igniter circuit likes to have at least 100 volts "No load" in order to work properly. IREM power supplies generally only develop around 75 volts "no load". The Lume-x does NOT have an emergency ignite switch like the Super Lume-x does. Other brands of lamphouses like ORC also require you to lift off the top half of the lamphouse to change/inspect the bulb.  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 02-12-2003 09:32 PM                     Jack, I don't know for sure, but if they are talking about the 65000 "Yellow Dog," I had two of those in operation at Cinema 5 in Mount Vernon. The lamps did give a very nice light on the screen, and the lamps were virtually trouble free until someone put a under-rated blower in them to save a couple of bucks. The lamps then went through bulbs like crap through a goose. When we got Cinema 5 back from Plitt, I discovered that error and installed the correct blowers in them, and the lamps again performed virtually trouble free until the theatre finally closed. However, for them to operate properly, the concave heat filter/condenser lens has to be installed. Without it, forget about getting the bulb to focus properly. I had them behind some PRO-35's. (your favorite machine) Ken, there are still two of those laying in Shelton - without the condenser lens. When they were in service, they would not light up an ape's butt without the aid of a flashlight. They are the "Blue Dogs" up there, mine were the "Yellow Dogs."  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-12-2003 09:33 PM                     They were originally designed for use on 16mm projectors (that is why the negative lens in the front They are fussy about ignition even with high nolad voltage rectifiers often repetedly fireing the lamp even light but not a lot of it  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 02-12-2003 09:35 PM                     Gordon, wasn't the ORC M1000 integrated lamp also orginally designed for 16mm?  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-16-2003 11:41 AM                     The use of the Lum-Ex on the Super Trouper came along after the Lum-Ex was marketed. The carbon arc Super Trouper was sold up till fire departments started to have problems with them being used. The present Super Trouper is a vauge resemblemnce of the original version and is by comparison a piece of crap! Mark  |  IP: Logged Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 02-16-2003 01:56 PM                        quote: The present Super Trouper is a vauge resemblemnce of the original version and is by comparison a piece of crap! Mark Yet another exemple why carbon was best!  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-16-2003 06:41 PM                        What's so horrible about the current generation of Super Troupers? I'm only familiar with the arc models. How good are the xenon conversions for Super Troupers? (Yes I know that the conversion kits are almost impossible to obtain now.)  |  IP: Logged Paul Mayer Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under! Posts: 3836 From: Albuquerque, NM Registered: Feb 2000 posted 02-17-2003 04:29 AM                        For some reason xenon supers just don't seem to put out the quality of light that the carbon arc ones did. It's hard to get the field even across the aperture and the light just doesn't have the "punch" of the old lamps, to put it in imprecise terms. Changing to xenon required a reworking of the barrel optics (specifically the rear lens which is now a more complex affair than the carbon arc's simple double convex lens). Don't know if this contributes to the attributes I see in the xenon lamp's output or not. From an operator standpoint, the new lamps don't feel or work as smooth as the old ones. The new ones are quite a bit lighter and don't have the bearing surfaces that the old ones had--they feel cheap to me. Plus, the newer cradle design places the center-of-gravity of the instrument well above the pivot point, leading to over-center changes in the instrument's balance, especially with the long-throw barrels. With the new lamps you have to balance them for one rather narrow range of tilt angles and live with either a nose-heavy or tail heavy lamp at any other angle, or run with more tilt friction than you might otherwise use (I used to use almost no friction). The old lamps' center-of-gravity was much closer to the pivot point and therefore they could be balanced over a correspondingly greater range of tilt angles. Also, the xenon long-throw barrels place the color boom at the front, making the lamp rather awkward to operate if you don't have long arms, though I have to admit the front-mounted boom allows one to make simultaneous moves that were difficult with the old center-mounted boom. Nothing here that couldn't be accomodated by an experienced operator--it's just that I didn't appreciate the changes in feel that came with the newer lamps. Personal opinion and obviously now a moot point, but I very much prefer the older lamps' heft and feel for doing finesse work (which we did a lot of, in the 'Vegas shows of old).  |  IP: Logged Robert Throop Master Film Handler Posts: 412 From: Vernon, NY USA Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-17-2003 08:28 AM                     Can someone tell me why the bulb in a Super Trouper is mounted backwards with the anode closest to the reflector?  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-17-2003 09:37 PM                     The reason it is mounted backwards is typically most followspots are angled downwards so stepply that the horizontal lamp is beyond is angular position of stability and the flame will bow over the top of the anode Since it is closer to verticle operation the anode is then in effect on top This produces a less of a flicker when the unit is panned back and forth as well  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-18-2003 07:16 PM                     "Yet another exemple why carbon was best!" _________________________________________________________________ Jack, Being carbon or not has nothing to do with the overall quality of the Super Trouper at all. The light is not as good, but still is not really bad with a 2kw in it. The main thing I was making refrence to was the overall design/build quality of the new Super Trouper as compared to the old one...... The older followspots had a construction quality to them that was amazing. UNfortunately, everything relating to quality has been left out of the new versions. They are also unreliable as all get out and do not have nearly enough lamp cooling either.....ya can't cool a 2kw with just the small seal blower in the Lum-Ex. Mark [ 02-18-2003, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gulbrandsen ]  |  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.