|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Author
|
Topic: Fairly Comparing Different Make/ Models Of DLP Projectors
|
|
Demetris Thoupis
Phenomenal Film Handler
![](/ubbmembers/833b.jpg)
Posts: 1240
From: Aradippou, Larnaca, Cyprus
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 08-07-2009 04:50 PM
Ok Mark so you want to put me in the corner. One request I have, please spell my name right for once! Now getting down to the basics:
I will continue the discussion of the other thread. First of all lets see the Barco Digital range. Barco has improved their products a lot over the 1st generation and todays' range. Since you want a fair comparison I will say both prons and cons of the products unlike others in here who either brag on only the plusses and never the cons against a product.
First of all, in the previous generation of DP1500-2000 Barco was using a quite complicated converge alignment, one which required extreme patience and allen keys almost 50cm long to be able to adjust. It was a very stupid design, but they did eventually improve it as now they use numbered knobs equivalent to the converge settings of the green and red chips. They make the alingment much easier and faster. In the DP3000 engine this is no problem as the engine is fully sealed (DCI spec) and the adjustments are much easier using a number 7 key to adjust the green and red dmd chip (blue is the base for the converge pattern). Adding the ability for full resolution 3D tripple flash would be a plus but in very large screens, which is why you should use the DP3000, resizing the image to be in the DMDs' ability will show no difference to a common eye. I do hope that they do add the ability for full resolution tripple flash. The lamphouse design in the Barco units, I envy for the reason that you can actually adjust the brightness to fulfill 14fl on 2D and 5.5fl on 3D thus using the lamp to its maximum for 3D and is almost half to 2D. This is not the case with the Kinoton or Cinemeccanica projectors since they use the Irem magnetic rectifiers (which are long lasting proved and reliable). Also in the Cinemeccanica the lamp adjustment is done automaticaly and no need for adjustments e.t.c which it is very easy in the installation. Also the lamp on a Cinemeccanica or a Kinoton "barco" replica as some of you like to call them is much faster to change and have no need to remove the whole lamphouse. The cooling system in the Barco range is kind of silly. Besides the liquid you need to check for proper pressure of 1bar e.t.c. It is time consuming and if fail then its a long way for a technician to go there. Cinemeccanica solution on the other hand, uses a quite simple yet efficient cooling system, no need for bar pressure e.t.c. Only fill a tank with the special liquid and everything "flows". I am not sure of the Kinoton. Now in regards to Kinoton and Cinemeccanica "Barco" replica case. Barco has their headquarters in Belgium in Europe. If Kinoton and Cinemccanica invested in actually implemented their own engine from the start, most probably they would have failed because they did not have experience in the Digital manufacturing. Barco, Nec and Christie had been producing digital projectors and knew a bit about what they were looking for. It was a wise decision for Kinoton and Cinemeccanica to use the Barco engines in their systems. Now why should one choose Kinoton or Cinemeccanica instead of Barco, well look into more than 40 years of experience in the 35mm area, a more robust construction of the whole projector, more reliable components in the lamphouse, better cooling systems, they KNOW what it means to offer support to cinemas (Barco is just starting) and more experience with integration to existing cinemas, automations e.t.c. Finally the DP3000 engine is the brightest in the market and Mark make an identican setup using the same server on a Christie using 6.5K lamp and a Barco DP3000 or rather a Cinemeccanica CMC4 and we will see again if I am right. Well this is for starters. Now the war will begin
Demetris
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 08-07-2009 07:28 PM
The first thing we should notice, is that all 3 current 2K DLP projectors use either the .98 or 1.2" TI imager block. The minor differences between them attributable to optical coatings or sealants can not really account for a large difference in performance.
Thus, pretty much only lamphouse design, light bulb used and lens fitted result in a significant difference in light output.
Barco opted for not implementing the full tripple flash 1.2" engine yet as they knew they had to change it once again to make it DCI compliant and, thus, decided to skip it until TI had ready the new circuits integrated in just one board, which debut around year's end. They do support it in the .98 chipset that hit the market tripple-flash ready already.
It's hard to compare apples-to-apples as different lamps produce different results, etc, but I don't think it's fair to say stuff like "Christie is much brighter than Barco or NEC" as different projector models have claimed the brightness crown at different times and some projectors (in their category) can take lamps much higher than Christie and beat it using brute force, i.e.
All of them have improved and will continue to do so. None is significanly behind or above the others in terms of performance.
Customer support/price etc is another matter.
Since most current models will soon-ish be replaced by the new, hopefully DCI compliant, generation of projectors, not to mention the 4K ones, I don't think it's worth it of lenghty debates on to which hold the edge today.
Most likely, most/all these models will be gone from the market a year from now
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brendan Penny
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 121
From: Bundoora, Australia
Registered: Dec 2008
|
posted 08-07-2009 09:12 PM
quote: Demetris Thoupis they did not have experience in the Digital manufacturing. Barco, Nec and Christie had been producing digital projectors and knew a bit about what they were looking for. It was a wise decision for Kinoton and Cinemeccanica to use the Barco engines in their systems.
Well they should go into making hinge rods and pots and pans then. So what happens when a customer has a really strange problem to diagnose. Kinoton and Cine most likely will have to go back to Barco to help solve it because "they don't have the experience in digital manufacturing". You said it, not me.
quote: Demetris Thoupis Now why should one choose Kinoton or Cinemeccanica instead of Barco, well look into more than 40 years of experience in the 35mm area, a more robust construction of the whole projector, more reliable components in the lamphouse, better cooling systems, they KNOW what it means to offer support to cinemas (Barco is just starting) and more experience with integration to existing cinemas, automations
You can put a cat in the oven but that don't make it a biscuit. How does having 40 years experience help when getting support on a projector with 80% of equipment that isn't theirs? Sure, if I have a problem with the lamphouse they may be of use. You have it all wrong, THEY are the ones who are just starting. Barco have been doing this for over a decade. Integration into cinemas?? They aren't the ones installing in the field. Automations? HA! this one I really like. Have you heard of a little company called Pennywise? They are an Australian company who manufacture automation systems for Kinoton, Christie, Cinemeccanica. Just another case of these guys slapping a sticker on a piece of equipment and calling it their own.
As for support, they are far from perfect. Kinoton aperture PCB's, turret locating IR boards, defective oil seals, ignition boards. Any of these items ring a bell for anyone who has used this gear?
quote: Demetris Thoupis Finally the DP3000 engine is the brightest in the market
Well you have to say that now don't you. The one thing Kinoton and Cinemeccanica use from Barco. So let me get this straight. That part of the Barco is o.k but the rest is junk??
Also, Kinoton and Cinemccanica have their lamphouse issues too. I have lost count how many revisions Kinoton have made to their igniter board. Up to rev 7 now maybe cause the transformers kept burning out.
Cinemeccanica use Irem igniters and rectifiers. So essentially they make the box? I am guessing the reflectors are made else where too?
Look, there is no huge point in getting in a nit pick. As I said earlier, Kinoton make the best film projectors in the universe. Period. Anyone that buys a Kinoton or Cinemeccanica 2k projector should be the MOST supportive of Barco. Think about it. If Barco was to disappear, you are all ROYALLY screwed. You have purchased Barco whether you like it or not. Paying them out is not going to help you.
Your evaluation on Barco is . That modular removable lamphouse is like that for a reason. Lets see what happens when a lamp explodes in a Cinemeccanica and your are cleaning up glass for the next 500 years.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
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.
|