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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Christies releases CP2208 projector

Author Topic: Christies releases CP2208 projector Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 09-04-2015 11:47 PM                     It would appear that one can now have a Solaria 1+ without the IMB S2. Christie has unveiled the CP2208, which appears to be a Solaria 1+ but with the traditional Card cage for putting in your preferred IMB. Unlike other S2K models, this one seems to retain the DVI/HDMI input capability so one need not depend on the IMB for inputting the BluRay or other "consumer" sources. Topping out at 9000 lumens, it is on par with the Barco DP2K-10S and double the NEC900C. I suspect that this model will put a REAL hurting on the Solaria 1/1+ models that are saddled with an unreliable IMB. Some may question the release of a Xenon based economy projector but I think it is the right move. Lasers remain non-cost-effective (do the math, it is never cheaper on current pricing, to run lasers over xenon lamps until you are in the 4.5KW range and higher (and 4.5KW is still probably cheaper than Laser too). Lasers could also negate the need for dual projector 3D systems. But at the low end, the Blue Phosphorous lasers are going to have to continue to get cheaper before they are going to be cost effective. Perhaps the A/V and consumer world will let that happen. I'm also not happy with the UHP solution with its questionable reliability history but also its absurdly slow 1-minute warm up time. The only problem I see is that this little guy may be too late. I wonder how many cinemas there are left to convert in the world and if the deals for those remaining are not already done.  |  IP: Logged Marco Giustini Film God Posts: 2713 From: Reading, UK Registered: Nov 2007 posted 09-05-2015 03:19 PM                     Are Christie going to allow Solaria machines to be converted to 2208?  |  IP: Logged Jarod Reddig Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 513 From: Hays, Ks Registered: Jun 2011 posted 09-05-2015 04:15 PM                     Sounds like a nice solution for the last small theaters to convert.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 09-06-2015 01:58 PM                     It is also a solution for new-builds where the screen size does not warrant the larger projectors. I don't have pricing and that would definitely play a factor as the S2K projectors definitely cater to the smaller screens. They are notably less efficient on light than either the .98 or 1.2" versions.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 09-06-2015 08:02 PM                     I wrote about this here: http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/f16/t002395.html And by the way - Christie actually also announced a CP2208-LP with a phosphor-laser light source for early 2016. Also laser-phosphor retrofit kits for earlier models, same as Barco. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 09-07-2015 06:34 AM                     The prices are really going to have to drop to make the LP versions to make sense. Thus far, if one plots the cost of running xenon in anything under 4.5KW, the lasers NEVER are cheaper. Most are talking about the Blue Phosphorus lasers dropping 20-50% of their light by 20,000 hours. A typical lamp in these smaller projectors is 1600 watts (or less) and with that you get a 3000 lamp...So is the cost of 7 lamps cheaper than the additional cost of the laser? And note, a 50% drop is pretty substantial. At least with the xenon solution, one is back to a much higher level. Where they would make a bit more sense is in the boothless theatre where getting up to the projector can be difficult/expensive. But I still wonder who is changing the filters. Even the laser projectors need cooling (more so actually, for the laser)...thus one has air movement and with air movement you have dust/dirt.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 09-07-2015 11:37 AM                     Yes, I can't see the economics there as well. Also, the NEC 1100L actually consumes more power than it's twin-350W UHP counterpart. And with that one, lamp swapping is so easy, there is a redundancy built-in, etc. The upcharge for the laser is much more you could ever save against the UHP lamps. Plus, NEC only warrants the 20.000hrs laser source for 10.000 hours. - Carsten  |  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.