Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Fairly Comparing Different Make/ Models Of DLP Projectors

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Fairly Comparing Different Make/ Models Of DLP Projectors (Page 1)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: Fairly Comparing Different Make/ Models Of DLP Projectors

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-07-2009 03:39 PM

Ok Demetrus... take it away...

| IP: Logged

Demetris Thoupis
Phenomenal Film Handler

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
[evil]

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 [bs]

. 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

Demetris Thoupis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1240
From: Aradippou, Larnaca, Cyprus
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 08-08-2009 12:56 AM

Brendan it is clear you have no idea what I am saying. First of all I am refering from the start of the D-Cine era to todays outcome. If Kinoton or Cinemeccanica employed from the very first day of D-Cine their own engine they would be screwed. Kinoton and Cinemeccanica has more experience on the Barco stuff than the Barco guys. Well if your installations are capable of allowing a xenon bulb to blow then God you suck in installation because the way you say it is like it happened to you many times now. Have you heard of the term proper airflow and exhaust? So it is much cheaper changing a whole lamphouse than just a mirror.. Hmm.. I'll write that down in my noteboook. Also Barco is unlikely to dissapear seeing the deals they closed lately for European and even US chains. And again you are being biased and not fairly giving credit to the manufacturers.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-08-2009 06:39 AM

quote: Demetris Thoupis
If Kinoton or Cinemeccanica employed from the very first day of D-Cine their own engine they would be screwed.

Why? All D-Cinema DLP components have to be either built to T.I. specs or they have to be approved by T.I. before inclusion into any projector. So in reality their light engine would be as good as anyone elses. As for coatings yes, the Christie coating does give an advantage as far as light gain. It also bumps up the contrast ratio on the Christies to about 2500 to 1.

quote: Demetris Thoupis
Well if your installations are capable of allowing a xenon bulb to blow then God you suck in installation because the way you say it is like it happened to you many times now.

A lamp blowing has nothing to do with the technician assuming the installation was done correctly. I've heard of one 4kw lamp blowing because the exhaust stack got hit by lightning, took out light engine among other things too! Another 6kw Christie blew at 642 hours... even though Christie claims average life of 900 hours right on their web site! Zion Canyon is running their Christie 6kw lamps up to 1000 hours and 1200 hours and having very good luck at it. The fact is that when you run any lamp past it's warranty hours you loose the 100% warranty coverage and then you are on your own as far as mirror replacement goes if the lamp does blow. Mirror for Christie is about 7K and with BARCO the whole lamp module is cheaper then just buying the mirror but is around the same price. Rule of thumb is that I tell my customers if they go beyond rated hours they better have good equipment insurance...

Mark

| IP: Logged

Demetris Thoupis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1240
From: Aradippou, Larnaca, Cyprus
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 08-08-2009 06:48 AM

Mark then why did Strong not make their own engines and they are selling the Nec range? In any case Kinoton or Cinemeccanica most probably would spend a lot of time in research and development of their own light engines if this was done at the intro of Digital Cinema. Today might be a different story. I found these companies' decisions wise not to mess from the beginning with their own engines. And besides there is nothing wrong using an engine built to TI specs and aproved by TI isn't? I stand on my opinion that Kinoton and Cinemeccanica did wise on using the Barco engine to create their own D-Cine projectors. They don't hide it. Even on their chasis there is label of "Powered By BARCO" for both companies and as I mentioned in another thread, I doubt either Kinoton or Cinemeccanica would risk their reputation by using components from a non reliable company. Barco is one of the leading edge in Digital projectors for fixed and professional installations as well as high end home theaters. It is strange that Sanyo has not yet implemented a DCI spec projector because they also have a good reputation. Christie has the majority of the US market but Barco/Cinemeccanica/Kinoton rule in the European market.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-08-2009 06:58 AM

quote: Demetris Thoupis
Mark then why did Strong not make their own engines and they are selling the Nec range?

Two reasons...1. Because Strong can't afford a D-Cinema DLP license. Strong is in very poor shape financially compared to what they were during the 1980/90s theater building era. They have shut down much of the plant and barely even build any film projection equipment any longer. I don't know about your part of the world but new film equipment sales in the US is about zip. Strong on occasion even sells used Strong Equipment! Christie is still running theor film equipment plant although they have discontinued some pieces of gear... probably done so in theor own (D-Cinema) favor more than for lack of orders.

2. Because T.I. isn't giving any D-Cinema licenses out at least right now. They seem to be protecting the players intrests they do have and thats probably a good thing as the present players have multi-multi millions invested. I can't remember the exact license cost but it is astronomical! In fact NEC's DLP D-Cinema license was bought from DLP Projection Inc. because they too didn't have the wherewithall to proceed with it!

quote: Demetris Thoupis
They don't hide it. Even on their chasis there is label of "Powered By BARCO"

Obviously a licensing agreement factor...

quote: Demetris Thoupis
Barco is one of the leading edge in Digital projectors for fixed and professional installations as well as high end home theaters.

No argument! BARCO is a huge conglomerate that has the menas to play with DLP.

quote: Demetris Thoupis
It is strange that Sanyo has not yet implemented a DCI spec projector because they also have a good reputation.

Again, it's probably the lack of wanting to spend unbelievable amounts of money for a D-Cinema DLP license... I would suspect Panasonic would do this way before Sanyo to be honest since they already produce high end DLP projectors in the 50K range... wasn't Sanyo just bought out by some one?

One would expect that. Build em at home sell em at home sort of thing. However Christie also has the majority of the Asian market for both digital AND film projectors. You would think NEC would be going after the Asian market big time... I think NEC is the least serious about the whole D-Cinema thing in general.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Demetris Thoupis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1240
From: Aradippou, Larnaca, Cyprus
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 08-08-2009 07:06 AM

quote:
2. Because T.I. isn't giving any D-Cinema licenses out at least right now. They seem to be protecting the players intrests they do have and thats probably a good thing as the present players have multi-multi millions invested. I can't remember the exact license cost but it is astronomical! In fact NEC's DLP D-Cinema license was bought from DLP Projection Inc. because they too didn't have the wherewithall to proceed with it!

So even if Kinoton or Cinemeccanica wanted to do their own engines, they could not now. Is that what you are saying Mark?

As we are though fairly comparing products, why won't someone discuss the issues of the Christie or the Nec projectors both prons and cons though.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-08-2009 07:12 AM

quote: Demetris Thoupis
So even if Kinoton or Cinemeccanica wanted to do their own engines, they could not now. Is that what you are saying Mark?

Only T.I. could really answer that question but they'd probably better have train loads of $$$ to approach T.I. with when they ask. The amount expended by Kinoton or Cinemecanicca would also never be recouped because D-Cinema has such a limited market, especially for these two players... even if you look at the entire world market. Once all the theaters have installed D-Cinema the sales for projectors will drop off dramatically because theater owners can't afford to replace them every so often. Only huge companies can afford a DLP operation. Christie is owned by USHIO which is a huge worldwide lighting company, BARCO is a huge conglomerate into all sorts of things and NEC is larger then both of those combined! Only new builds would be buying projectors for quite a few years and these two small film projector companies can't support that sort of operation off just new builds, the large conglomerates can ride it out though... This is why Christie and NEC have so many models of projectors available in the regular DLP line... I never looked to see if BARCO is selling smaller DLP over here because I have zero interest in using their products at the present time.

I can only discuss Christie and BARCO and I have alredy discussed BARCO numerous times... I have little experience with NEC. NEC would still be my second choice because over here Strong can provide much better support than BARCO presently seems to want to provide. I would never reccomend BARCO to any of my customers and if you do a search through these pages you will find other comments by several other posters that are similar. I know however that in Europe they provide very good support. And also I don't hate theor projectors at all. They are very good... it's just the support issue or lack there of. One very large local chain stopped using BARCO all together and is sticking with NEC because they were not happy with them either.

So as far as the present line of equipment from Christie goes, I really have no issues other then the tech support hot line is very lacking. They do have other very good support people that I di have direct access to in a dire emergency... which by the way hasn't happened to me yet. Christie's just seem to keep getting better and better... more refined if you will, although it happens quite slowly.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Demetris Thoupis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1240
From: Aradippou, Larnaca, Cyprus
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 08-08-2009 07:24 AM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
would never reccomend BARCO to any of my customers

And why is that Mark? Is it just of the US support or is it something else? Do they break down so much?

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-08-2009 07:32 AM

Yes, just a support/parts/warranty issue here in the states. I think the main BARCO in Belgium needs to do a serious overhaul of the US office. I have watched what transpired over several years with the large local chain I mentioned plus my own poor experiences with theor tech support. I will give them a little credit though... once I was installing a Master Image unit on a DP-100 and it needed the updated backplane in order to have the sync signal at the GPIO port. Well, for what ever reason BARCO gave the theater the new back plane at N/C... I have to wonder if that employes is still working there today as a result of that. Really, I don't dislike BARCO projectors at all, they are very good.

Christie did an internal overhaul about 6 or 7 years ago and has since become the best company over here to do buisness with in the field. Strong comes in second in support/parts/warranty for me and I've been working with their gear for over 30 years now. Strong used to have really poor parts service... you'd be missing parts or get some one elses... thats how they earned the nickname Wrong Internationsl. They have cleaned up the parts act though and are now quite good.

You may not have heard the story but back in the 80's a theater received a Flavor Crisp chicken fryer and the Fried Chicken place received the Ballantyne film projector... that may have been one of Gords theaters in fact...

| IP: Logged

Demetris Thoupis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1240
From: Aradippou, Larnaca, Cyprus
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 08-08-2009 12:08 PM

Coming back to the Kinoton/Cinemeccanica Barco solutions, if one sees the construction and the way the projector of a Cinemeccanica or Kinoton is assempled in compared to the Barco DP units, an installer will surely see how these companies took their experience in constructing 35mm equipment and implementing the electronics of the Barco in a much simpler form, easier changeability of boards/light engine and more improved lamphouse design, better illumination and experience in cinema exhibition add to one choosing Cinemeccanica or Kinoton digital solutions over direct Barco solution.
Demetris

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-08-2009 03:14 PM

I wish I could agree. I only see these companies as wanting to hang on... I can't blame em a bit either... both have been around a very long time. What controls access to the light engine and projector interface boards ultimately are DCI specifications. Already BARCO has an expensive modification kit for early DP-100's to make the card cage DCI compliant. The lower backplane card is 2500 USD alone! If Kinoton and Cinemecanicca also want to be DCI compliant they also have to meet the same DCI specs for this. Personally, I prefer they make the cards be somewhat difficult to get at. Keeps the "know it all" theater manager/projectionist out of the danger zone [thumbsup]

.

On to comparing projectors:

As far as comparing each equivelent model between different brands goes each projector has to be set in the same spot using the same exact lens and the same exact lamp all on the same exact screen from the same exact angle and so on. IN other words identical testing situation!! All should be set up by their respective factory engineering personel only. They should be given as much time as necessary to get the best performance out of each projector tested.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Brendan Penny
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 121
From: Bundoora, Australia
Registered: Dec 2008

posted 08-10-2009 02:04 AM

Hey Demetrus,

First of all, I do give credit to manufacturers who deserve it. I am the first to say the Kinoton make the best film projection gear in the universe. Hands down. On the record. Write it in your notebook if you want.

Now, I am not questioning that Kinoton could make a pretty good light source and cooling system. They are a talented group and would do a pretty darn good job. I am however questioning whether the business case is sufficient for them to bother.

I doubt you will see many Kinoton DCP outside of Europe so answer this. Is the sale of a few projectors in EUROPE enough to sustain Kinoton or Cinemeccanica as a company now and in the future. (Keep in mind, they may be selling their DCP's with very little profit in order to compete with the direct TI OEM's) If not, what happens to your customers who have purchased gear and now can't get any spare parts? I relate this question to Kodak. MASSIVE company BUT if they don't get a SUBSTANTIAL piece of the D cinema pie do you really think they are going to hang around to support a few hundred screens here and there? That revenue is chicken feed compared to what they are used to and I doubt the answer will be yes.

Now, while you have that notebook of yours out please write in the following quote.

quote: Demetris Thoupis
Kinoton and Cinemeccanica has more experience on the Barco stuff than the Barco guys

That has to be the most retarded statement I have ever heard and I want you to be able to look back on it fondly in a few years. You may have to explain it to your grand kids though because they will be wondering what the hell a Cinemeccanica or Kinoton is cause they most likely won't exist [Big Grin]

But I do agree with Mark. They have to try. They are a business and should not just lie down. Good on them for trying. Its not going to stop me from exploring the validity from an exhibitors point of view though.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.