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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » 2000ZX light output (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: 2000ZX light output David Stone Film Handler Posts: 75 From: Hornsby, Sydney, Australia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 03-10-2011 04:23 AM                     Hi Guys, Can you increase the cuurent on individual channels without a technician with a laptop connected to the 2000ZX. Is there anyway of getting into the system. Also do you suggest to have Lamp LOC on auto increase so each time you select it, it maintains the same light output as the bulb ages.The technicians in OZ seem to turn this function off. Finally should the light output drop off as the projector ages. The techs here say this is normal and will drop off at least 10% each year as it degrades Cheers, David.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 03-10-2011 01:41 PM                     The ZX has a web GUI, but if you are not a certified technician giving you access to it could cause a lot of EXPENSIVE problems and failed shows. You need to get with your tech for the answer to that questions. Yes the ZX can automatically increase power to the bulb to continue to meet light levels, but this is a horrible idea. It will kill the life of your lamp by constantly pushing it harder and the Lite Lock function can actually overdrive your lamp without you realizing it and cause it to explode. Your techs are smart to disable it. Light dropoff as the lamp ages is a fact of life. However it is much more significant than 10%. This is why when equipment is being spec'd for an installation, ridiculous numbers such as "this projector is good for screens up to 105 feet" are nothing more than marketing bs. Sure with a super duper 7000 watt lamp with 0 hours on it burning at 120% power and a really high gain screen without any port glass can do it, but it is NOT realistic and will only serve to produce terrible presentations. Calculations should be made before the equipment is even purchased what the light will be at more than 50% use on the bulb to ensure spec can still easily be achieved. And this is not Christie-specific. The info above applies to all projectors.  |  IP: Logged Dave Macaulay Film God Posts: 2321 From: Toronto, Canada Registered: Apr 2001 posted 03-10-2011 06:34 PM                     Christie's lamp-loc and Barco's CLO are great if you have the right lamp. Brad's point about lamp selection is important, if your lamp is running at 90% or more when new to hit the target screen illumination then it's going to max out pretty soon. I think 75% power or so to make the 2D spec with a new lamp is ideal, running lower power will cause trouble and this should get your target illumination for most of the lamp life. Barco will not overdrive the lamp much with CLO enabled, I think Christie is the same with a max current level for whatever lamp is installed. Using these automatic systems should ensure you have the screen lit as close to the specs for 2D and 3D as you can get (realistically you're going to be too bright at minimum power on 2D where you have a lamp with headroom on 3D). As digital rolls out we'll be seeing more 2D only systems where the lamp sizing will be much simpler. If you just set manual power levels for each format your light will unavoidably drop as the lamp ages. Cinemas with light meters and the expertise to use them are rare.  |  IP: Logged David Stone Film Handler Posts: 75 From: Hornsby, Sydney, Australia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 03-10-2011 08:23 PM                     Hi Brad & Dave, Thank you for the advice. The 10% fall off in light I refered to was not the xenon, but the light engine itself. The techs downunder say you should expect this to degrade @ 10% per year as well as the natural fall off the bulb ? I use a CDXL30 bulb, REALD Z screen, 1500watts 2D W/S, 1700watts 2D C/S, 2500watts 3D W/S, and 3000watts 3D C/S. 65' throw, 32' scope picture. Do these settings sound usual, or maybe there is an alignment problem. I did use a CDXL30SD, but it would drop out regularly as 2D W/S would run only 1100 watts Cheers, David.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 03-10-2011 11:21 PM                     Hi David, You're killing your bulb turning the current up and down between flat and scope. It is bad enough you are turning it up and down between 2D and 3D, but going to such an extreme between flat and scope is asking for early failure.  |  IP: Logged Chase Pickett Expert Film Handler Posts: 142 From: Irving, Texas, USA Registered: Nov 2010 posted 03-11-2011 02:51 AM                     quote: Dave Macaulay if your lamp is running at 90% or more when new to hit the target screen illumination then it's going to max out pretty soon. I think 75% power or so to make the 2D spec with a new lamp is ideal My home office decided to use a smaller bulb (4200w) in a Sony on a screen 105' wide where we were using a 5000w bulb for 35mm. Needless to say we had to run it at 100% when the bulb was new. Then they wondered why the bulb exploded at 680 hours. (700 hours was the warranty limit) Now we have a christie in there with a 6000w bulb running at 75% when new  |  IP: Logged Marco Giustini Film God Posts: 2713 From: Reading, UK Registered: Nov 2007 posted 03-11-2011 02:55 AM                     What is the right procedure then? If your 3D system has a light efficency of 10/15%, either you drop the lamp current, or you end up with 30+ FL in 2D! Why don't manufacturers install a mechanical iris inside the projector for adjusting light? Then the lamp could be burn happily at its rated current, increasing its life.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-11-2011 07:11 AM                     You can also change lamps between 2D and 3D. If you have side masking...USE AN ANAMORPHIC...yes they cost money but you only have to buy them once. The increase in light is significant (about 23%). -Steve  |  IP: Logged Tim Asten Film Handler Posts: 98 From: Brighton, United Kingdom Registered: Nov 2006 posted 03-11-2011 08:24 AM                     Nobody seems to have answered Davids question regarding light loss from an ageing D-projector. Is this true? 10% per year seems rather a lot.  |  IP: Logged Marco Giustini Film God Posts: 2713 From: Reading, UK Registered: Nov 2007 posted 03-11-2011 05:13 PM                     Steve Not arguing the anamorphic subject, but why not install an iris in every digital projector? Anamorphic or not, wouldn't it be a better way to control light? And, as far as I know, using an Iris would increase contrast ratio as well!  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-11-2011 05:31 PM                     The Iris you speak of would likely be back in the lamphouse area, not in the lens...in the lens would jack the price of each lens way up. With an IRIS you are driving the lamp okay at all times but you are always driving it high. With an anamorphic, you lower the lamp demands for ALL formats...in that Scope's light requirements are much closer to Flat's. With an iris, you are lamping for your worst format (scope) and throwing that light, electricity, lamp costs, away. With an anamorphic, you just use a smaller lamp or use less electricity at all times. And for 2D/3D...change the lamp. If you have a Barco, then you have lamphouses...the lamphouse has a board on it that stores the lamp info...as such, as one swaps between the 2D and 3D lamp, the hours and operating range...etc are kept up. Since it is pin registered it need not be aligned one a simple 2D/3D swap...only when a new physical lamp is replaced. As for lumen output decay within the projector over time...I don't think anyone has really published what that is. One would also have to attribute the source of the decay. That is, is it the reflector of the lamphouse, section, the light pipe, folding mirrors, imagers, prism...etc. Then compare those loses to those of the port glass or the screen itself (and color correcting for its aging). It will be real hard to pinpoint that the projector is losing say 10% of its light just due to aging...there are too many factors...including the environment that the projector is running in. -Steve  |  IP: Logged Paul Mayer Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under! Posts: 3836 From: Albuquerque, NM Registered: Feb 2000 posted 03-11-2011 06:45 PM                        I thought anamorphics were not allowed under the new DCIP specs. Nothing that modifies the shape of the pixels, or something to that effect. Or am I thinking of something else?  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 03-11-2011 07:08 PM                     I am not a fan of the whole "change the lamp" theory. Anytime a lamp is touched, you are killing some of the life. This is why I have found over many years that even rotating the bulb shortens the lifespan of a bulb. 3D makes this whole issue of getting great bulb life a huge mess.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-11-2011 08:12 PM                     Anamorphics are NOT excluded from DCI spec. Source content has to be square pixels. And the "scaling" is not to have visible artifacts...which is subject to interpretation. What IS in the DCI spec is that an Anamorphic (or other aux lens) is used, it has to be accomplished automatically without human intervention. As for changing the lamp...this is a case where Barco's lamphouse system prevails over the others...one does not "touch" the lamp on a lamp change...just pull the whole lamphouse and put in the other one. I have mixed views on rotating lamps. If the projection angle is steep, rotating the lamp will do wonders for helping its life. I've also found that some of the high-brightness lamps with VERY large anodes benefit from rotation. In general, however, I agree with not rotating lamps. Without changing lamps, however, it is impossible to get a good light balance between 2D and 3D...there is just too big a difference in the light requirements. One thing I forgot to mention previously regarding the iris theory...if the iris is not in the lens, then you don't benefit in contrast or focus...you just piss away the light. -Steve  |  IP: Logged David Stone Film Handler Posts: 75 From: Hornsby, Sydney, Australia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 03-12-2011 01:13 AM                     Hi Brad, That you for your help. I will pass your comments onto the Techs and have them service the system again asap. They only did a complte annual service on Jan 31. Cheers, David.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

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.