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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Weight of a CP65 ?

Author Topic: Weight of a CP65 ? Paul Vollmers Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Sister Lakes, MI, USA Registered: Jul 2001 posted 09-17-2004 06:51 AM                     I may be purchasing a Dolby CP65 from a European country.....and new to know the weight of the unit to calculate shipping. Anyone have this information? Paul  |  IP: Logged Christos Mitsakis Expert Film Handler Posts: 242 From: Ag.Paraskevi, ATHENS, GREECE Registered: Sep 1999 posted 09-17-2004 07:23 AM                     It should be around 15kg. C.  |  IP: Logged Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 09-17-2004 10:31 PM                        Not that I'd know the difference, but that processor has several variations... not all of which result in a fully-loaded box... the simplest of which results in not much more than simple "A" processing. Do you know what your model contains? It would make some difference.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-17-2004 10:50 PM                     You would think that your seller would be able to tell you the weight packed..... What ever you do be sure to have them bubble wrap and pack all the plug in modules seperately so the unit arrives undamaged. Have seen several become very damaged when they are shipped assembled. Mark  |  IP: Logged Paul Vollmers Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Sister Lakes, MI, USA Registered: Jul 2001 posted 09-19-2004 07:04 AM                     These are the cards installed in the CP65... Cat240A 2xCat350 Cat222 Cat150 3xEQ-Cat64B Cat441 Cat242 Cat443 Cat249 Cat259  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-19-2004 10:59 AM                        Give me a day or two and I will borrow a scale and weigh one. Mine has the evil cat. 222 SR/A card instead of the cat. 350s and cat. 222, but it should be close enough.  |  IP: Logged Paul Vollmers Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Sister Lakes, MI, USA Registered: Jul 2001 posted 09-19-2004 05:08 PM                     Hey Scott...........rather then get a scale........how about you just send me your CP65........then I won't have to check weighing and have it shipped all the way from Europe. Ha Ha  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-19-2004 10:15 PM                     Paul, Your's is actually the better one and is worth aquiring. The 222SRA card is a piece of crap, the 350's are much prefered for SR playback while the 222 a type is acceptable. Mark  |  IP: Logged Per Hauberg Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 883 From: Malling, Denmark Registered: Jul 2000 posted 09-20-2004 06:37 PM                        Mark / Scott - If the 222 SRA is the one to use with the dual 35/70 mm version of the CP65 - with the backplane jumper to be shifted - That'll be my version - Whats that crappy/evil thing about it ? - now, the 70mm is so sadly missed, would it be a better CP65 for 35 only use, if the 222's are pulled...? My CP65 has been playing without trouble since summer 1992, just as the 35only version since 1994 in screen 2, and I've never noticed any difference in sound or stability. Per  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-20-2004 06:59 PM                        No. The cat. 222 SR/A has nothing to do with the 70mm version (which has two extra cat. 222 A-type-only cards to decode NR on all six tracks of 70mm). The cat. 222 SR/A has two channels of "real" A-type decoding and two channels of "fake" SR-type decoding. It is apparently cheaper than two cat. 350s and one cat. 222, and many CP-65s (and CP-500s) in the US are equipped in this way. Search for some of Steve Guttag's posts about its crappy SR decoding. (Still working on borrowing that scale...will probably be another day or so).  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 09-20-2004 08:13 PM                    The original 35mm-only layout (pre-222 SR/A) which later became the known as the CP-65/300 was unnecessarily costly. You had a 222 card for A and two 350's for SR. If you went to 70mm the 350's became 300's (1 channel each, A or SR). A more logical approach would have been to simply equip 35mm-only boxes with the two Cat.300's providing 2 channels of NR that can switch between A and SR. Only add the 222 card for 70mm boxes that needed 4 channels of A. (Why they didn't think 70mm would quickly move to SR is another discussion. Why blow twenty grand plus on a print and not use the best NR?) I'm told by a Dolby source that the reason was internal politics regarding the folks who made 222 cards. Of course that is only gossip. BTW, I know of a 70mm 6-track discrete SR engagement that was played with a CP500 and 3 222 SR/A cards. I didn't hear it so cannot comment. Now then, do you suppose the 65 could be carried by several African swallows with some string?  |  IP: Logged Paul Vollmers Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Sister Lakes, MI, USA Registered: Jul 2001 posted 09-21-2004 02:39 PM                     I have found the commom weight of the CP65....23 lbs. Thanks to all Paul--  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-21-2004 09:48 PM                     quote: Steve Kraus I'm told by a Dolby source that the reason was internal politics regarding the folks who made 222 cards. Of course that is only gossip. I have been told by at least several Dolbly sources in the past that there has been quite a bit of rivalery between the Brit end of Dolby and the U.S. division from time to time. Mark  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 09-22-2004 01:21 PM                    If so it probably cost every purchaser several hundred dollars extra. "Dolbly" Not a typo, folks. That's what Mark calls'em.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-22-2004 08:16 PM                     No, Thats not what I call them but its what they should be called..... Actually an aquaintance of Steve and I has a slight speech defect and thats how it comes out when he pronounces it. I just put it that way here to see if Steve would catch it.... Mark  |  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.