Advice on a new 0.69" laser projector

[Pietro Clarici]

A couple of my NC1600S are getting retired soon, and budget for a small independent theater like ours does not allow for 4K at current prices. Since the screens are 9 x 4 m and will have new Harkness Matt Plus surfaces, I'm looking at a 0.69" laser projector with a light output of around 11/12000lm. I have 18 years of experience with NEC machines from Series 1 onwards, they've been pretty reliable but I'm not sure that the current NEC lineup is very competitive in that range, especially when it comes to contrast (1600:1 vs. 2000:1 for Christie or even 2200:1 for Barco) and lumen per watt ratio: they have the NC1503L at around 14000lm, but there's a big gap between that and the 1402L at 9500lm. Also, I've read here that lens memory on NEC projectors seems to be quite unreliable, which I don't doubt since I've experienced this personally on 1.25" and 1.38" machines.

I'd really appreciate your first-hand experience with Christie and Barco. Christie seems to have very aggressive pricing, a 2411-RBe is almost 20% cheaper than a SP2K-11. Also, in both cases choosing the proprietary IMB over a IMS-3000 (currently I have 7 Doremi/Dolby servers) would save us around 7K€ per screen, so even if my original idea was to stick with Dolby to avoid retraining my staff (and maybe having a future backup option for my CP750s), I won't ignore the IMB-S4 or ICMP-X if they are reliable. We'll be able to move content from/to the existing servers if the FTP credentials are configured correctly, with no need for a TMS, right? Any advice will be much appreciated.

[Steve Guttag]

NEC's contrast ratio on the .69 is pretty poor and will look awful on a Matte-white screen. If you had a high gain screen, it would hide the contrast issues but have poor light uniformity. The IMB-S4 has no track record and I wouldn't advise it for its 1st year. That is my advice on all new products. That 1st year is their beta-test...no matter who it is.

The ICMP is a known quantity now, on the Barco side and there will be the ICMP-XS in the 4th quarter of this year that will have higher transfer rates, in addition to sound options. Mind you, the XS version is different enough that it too might warrant a 1-year period to see if has unforeseen issues. The Dolby IMS3000 and GDC SR1000 are known servers.

Barco and Christie both have pretty good products with very good track records and good images. It has been my experience that the .69" projectors have poorer lens repeatability. Remember, they are using higher magnification due to the smaller chips so any gear-lash in the lens mechanisms is magnified more than on the larger chip projectors.

I'd say that 11,000lm would be on the dicey side for you on a 4m tall screen with a matte-white screen (1.0 gain). Even 15,000lm is probably going to be risky 40,000+ hours out. And that's the trick. With xenon, you only had to worry about decay to 2,000-3000 hours. With laser you have to predict out 40,000-60,000 hours. When it's new, you'll be very fine with lots of head room. But you have to think years out and how fast those lasers will be decaying after you've run them. The harder you run them when new, the faster they will decay when they age. if you get a 11,000lm projector, you're going to be starting it in the 70-80% power range on day-1. That doesn't leave you much to go down the road.

[Agnius Acus]

First laser projector installations must be at least 10 years old now, so they are approaching the end of their lifespans. How are they doing?

[Pietro Clarici]

Thanks Steve, that was helpful. I thought a 25/30% overhead could work but I have no data about actual laser decay in the field. What you said about 15.000lm possibly not being enough is concerning, because I don't think I'll be able to stretch our budget in the 20.000lm range. Although I'm not a fan of gain screens, maybe 15.000lm on a Perlux 140 could be the lesser evil. This is definitely something I will consider, although my realistic target will be probably closer to 10 years/25.000 hours since I'm not optimistic about the future of our industry, and I believe that at some point we will be forced by our customers to offer something completely different - maybe LED, who knows - to stay in business anyway.

[Ryan Gallagher]

I need to find out which units my folks are considering. We were nearly under-spec'd on our 2K xenon, I'd hate to find ourselves wanting for headroom in both rooms after the inevitable 4k Laser purchase.

[Steve Guttag]

I don't know what the long-term data is and it is evolving as new materials and designs are put into use. Thus far, laser decay seems to be very slow. But, as you increase power, it is my prediction that it will increase geometrically (the decay).

Christie showed, at CinemaCon 2025, a technique they call VDR (Variable Dynamic Range) (the following are estimates as I don't have the numbers in front of me) It will have two modes...standard, which should yield a 10-15% improvement in laser power efficiency. Think of it as a variable laser control. When you are projecting black, it is turning the lasers down and only when you need full brightness does it turn them up to peak-white. In this manner, you can get more out of any given sized laser system rather than always having it set to what you need for the off chance that something at 48 nits is on screen. This is going to be a software upgrade to the Cine-Life + projectors sometime in 4Q 2025 and/or 1Q 2026. It will be a licensed feature so look for an associated fee.

There will also be a variant that will allow for something akin to a HDR projector by allowing a wider range of what the lasers can be ramped. So, if you are going for 108 Nits or 300 Nits, this is a potential "trick." to achieve it. I say trick because you are modulating the light to achieve it. If you put a checkerboard pattern up where need peak white while the darkest blacks, it can't do what, say Dolby Vision can do. But, with typical content, you likely will get an effect similar/better to TVs that do this now to achieve their contrast ratio specs.

Looking at Christie's own calculator, their numbers match mine. They are predicting, with a new Matte-White screen, you would need a CP2415-RGB. The CP2411-RBe doesn't have the headroom. If you are showing that it does, move your port efficiency to a more realistic 90% instead of 98%. Most port glass is about 92-93%, when new. This is allowing for a 30% overhead too. In fact, you'll have 43-66% headroom (depending on format). And, if you activate VDR once it becomes available, you'll push that 43% over 50% and likely get a VERY long life out of the system before needing lasers.

The equivalent Barco is the SP2K-15S and Barco's calculator, with the same size/gain/losses also picks the SP2K-15S as the smallest that they would recommend.

[Stefan Scholz]

NEC seems to have the worst efficiency of the projector lineups currently offered, and Christie using High Brightness lenses (do you really want these contrast killers?) in comparison the highest.
The 0.69" NECs are not known for contrast, but I have to admit, the one I sold to a multipurpose venue in a former medivial times church, chosen for very low noise, is actually ok looking on the matt white screen they have. Still, energy consumption is higher, than compared to Christie 0.69" in the same power range.
I installed the NEC, as the Christie S3 RGB lasers were still relying on Xenon based cooling fans, and the noise was excessive. New Gen 4 ones, as quiet as the NEC.

You are aiming for a 9 meter / 27 ft wide screen and Harkness matt white surface. It is about the size we I have in my room. Which will be a Christie 4435 with Ultra High contrast Premium lens, to achieve the desired image quality, and to enable the proposed variable dynamic range feature at 100 to 150 nits. Without this, we would have ended with a 4420 projector, to assure it's not driven in high laser output position to ensure semiconductor lifespan.
I never aim for 50 nits (14fl), as this is border to night vision. Aim for the old film standard, of 55 + 20 nits, and you're in the daytime vision for most humans, with a vastly improved image perception. The contrast of modern projectors is good enough to do it. Remember, the 14 fl were standardized at a time, when DLP chips barely reached 1500 to 2000:1 on/ off contrast in laboratory testing, real life production models even falling way behind these figures. At that time, any overly bright image looked awfully washed out, for lack of blacks. 14 fl ensured some kind of color image reception for most patrons.
Today's production, even at 0.69" or 0.47" chipsets, looks ok in blacks.
For that screen size, and High Brightness lens (no go for image quality) eventually a X415 might do in ok drive position. But the extra for the next step isn't much.

Media block choice, either GDC SR 1k or Dolby IMS 3k, or ICMP-X for Barco. All have proven reliability records in quantities. All have the rare ones, which have problems, all have very good manufacturer support behind. I wouldn't go for something "new" to the market, unless it has been around for a year. You certainly don't want to be the Beta tester site, even with "the greatest manufacturer support imaginable". The choice between established media blocks is yours. I have customers that prefer GDC and their GUI, other like, the Dolby one, as it is somewhat similar to their old Doremi, at least in command structures.
I have been doing more GDCs than Dolby, we do just what the customers wants.

[Pietro Clarici]

Thanks everyone. Looks like I should try to accommodate for 50% light loss and stay in the 15.000/20.000lm range.

(...) Christie 4435 with Ultra High contrast Premium lens, to achieve the desired image quality, and to enable the proposed variable dynamic range feature at 100 to 150 nits.(...)

I'd love to, but we're in a small town with elderly patrons and families as our primary target, there's no budget for one of those or for the SP4K-27HC. Tickets are 7,5€ at most and there's little to no margin to increase it considering the local economy, so our goal is to remove the liabiliy Series 1 have become, save a bit on power but mostly choose a reliable machine allowing us a solid DCI-spec projection for the next 10 years without cutting any corners. In short, to offer what we are expected to but not more, like having a correctly specced 5.1 setup instead of Atmos. That was my reasoning behind the 0.69" range.

[Harold Hallikainen]

I never aim for 50 nits (14fl), as this is border to night vision. Aim for the old film standard, of 55 + 20 nits, and you're in the daytime vision for most humans, with a vastly improved image perception.

I always thought the digital and film luminance specifications were equivalent. I note that SMPTE ST 196-2003 says "Measurement of screen luminance shall be made with the projector in normal operation (with shutter running), with its lens set at focus position, but with no film in the aperture." The decrease of 55 nits for film to 50 nits for ditial compensates for the attenuation and reflection of light by the film.

A random Google search says photopic vision is possible with 3 CD/m^2 and higher, so 50 seems well within that range.

As luminance goes higher, the flicker fusion frequency decreases making projector flicker more visible.

So, I think the peak luminance of film and digital SHOULD be about the same (but not for high dynamic range digital).

Harold

[Steve Guttag]

Harold, you are correct and this is a personal thing with Stefan. It was still the P3 committee when this was being developed and the criteria was not just figuring the open-gate luminance of film, which was used because it was repeatable on any projector, without test film, it was to recreate the lowest density of processed film (what is the whitest-white level of film going through the entire processing chain and to effectively match the luminance of film to digital as there was a significant crossover period where both existed.

Now, there can be debate at how humans integrate a pulsating light versus a meter measuring it. I am not convinced that 50% is correct and it may vary from person to person. To my eyes, a film projector set to 16fL looks brighter (with film) than a digital projector set to 14fL on the same screen. For cinemas, the standard is relaxed some. So, technically, 17fL (58 cd/m^2) which means he is still towards the top of range

Where I strongly disagree with Stefan's position is that since the movie is calibrated, color saturation, white and black levels are all judged at 14fL (48cd/m^2), that is the only correct level. It is the only point where what you see in the theatre and what they saw in post match. This presumes that both have the same distribution on screen (none of that 1.8 gain screen garbage).

Personally, I wish I had the time to do more measurements to evaluate how people see light based on size too. It is my belief that people will perceive larger screens as brighter than smaller ones at the same light level, as measured by the meter. That is, if you have a screen that completely fills your vision, it will appear brighter than a screen that only partially fills you vision.

[Marin Zorica]

Personally, I wish I had the time to do more measurements to evaluate how people see light based on size too. It is my belief that people will perceive larger screens as brighter than smaller ones at the same light level, as measured by the meter. That is, if you have a screen that completely fills your vision, it will appear brighter than a screen that only partially fills you vision.

This is interesting and i would also agree. Also it is mather of thing how far away you are from screen.

As for this situation, I would recomend SP2K-20, if you have budget for that. SP2K-15 would do the job for sure, only on a bit higher margin. Maybe, if you have some rooms that screen less shows, you could take combination of SP2K-15 in some and Sp2k-20 in other. This is tricky thing and bit stupid, but at end financing would made decision after all.
Also, before you make decision, check also which dealer/instaler would provide you with better afterservice. Which at end, it will be more important to have backup and keep you running, than 10% headroom of laser power.
I don't know if you compare for example christie cp-2415 with ims3k and sp2k-15 with icmp-x, which is cheaper?

[Marco Giustini]

Personally, I wish I had the time to do more measurements to evaluate how people see light based on size too. It is my belief that people will perceive larger screens as brighter than smaller ones at the same light level, as measured by the meter. That is, if you have a screen that completely fills your vision, it will appear brighter than a screen that only partially fills you vision.

I've always had a similar feeling - but I thought it was down to our iris?
I remember watching one of my first HDR demo on a small-ish TV in a black and darkened room and it was making me squishing my eyelids. With most of the vision occupied by BLACK, my iris were pretty open and the small super-bright TV in the middle was like having a flashlight pointing at you in darkness.

Contrarily, a larger TV watched by a closer distance filling your FOV - at the same brightness - wouldn't give me the same effect.

So yes, I'd agree there is some psychological effect here but I feel that the relative dimension should also be put in the equation. This is all very subjective of course.

[Pietro Clarici]

I don't know if you compare for example christie cp-2415 with ims3k and sp2k-15 with icmp-x, which is cheaper?

I'm waiting for a couple more quotes, the main issue is that Barco and NEC offer 15000lm on a 0.69" RB platform, while with Christie you are forced to move to 0.98" and RGB: we would get better performing lenses and a potential future upgrade to VDR technology (maybe more longevity due to the larger chassis?) but we need to evaluate the cost/performance ratio.

[Steve Guttag]

Barco offers High-Contrast lenses in their .69 (S) projectors but, oddly, not on their .98" © projectors. NEC seems to avoid contrast. That said, it is never better to magnify things more so there are advantages to the larger DMDs, image wise.

[Marin Zorica]

Barco offers High-Contrast lenses in their .69 (S) projectors but, oddly, not on their .98" © projectors. NEC seems to avoid contrast. That said, it is never better to magnify things more so there are advantages to the larger DMDs, image wise.

Yes, and recently I did install some sp2k - 11s on small screen with HC lens, it is improvent over standard and worth it!