View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
tschaeikaei
Joined: 08 Apr 2013 Posts: 489 Location: Germany/Saarland
|
Link Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2015 7:42 pm Post subject: 1292 tubes in a Marquee? |
|
|
Hi,
does anyone know if the tubes from a Sony 1292 could fit in a Marquee?
I don't know anything about the Sony projectors, but this may be a chance for me to go 9" LC.
Is the "projector specifications" on the chart in the FAQs right at this point?
I mean 700 lumen seems a bit low for a 9", and the description says 1000 lumen.
Would it be possible to adapt those 09MFX3 tubes to work in the Marquee?
Regards, Julian
_________________ Marquee 9500U edgeblend P43 | NEC 9PG
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
cmjohnson
Joined: 03 Apr 2006 Posts: 5180 Location: Buried under G90s
|
Link Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2015 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They're way too different. They take the Sony 09MXF3 type tube which is even physically very different from the Panasonic tubes found in a Marquee. It would be a significant job to make them fit and run. NOTHING matches.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007 Posts: 16171 Location: West Seneca NY
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Curt Palme CRT Tech
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 24301 Location: Langley, BC
TV/Projector: All of them!
|
Link Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2015 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't buy it Nash. CM is right, the 1292 tubes need 5Kv on the focus wire, the Marquees have no way to supply that.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007 Posts: 16171 Location: West Seneca NY
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
km987654
Joined: 25 Jul 2007 Posts: 2857 Location: Australia
TV/Projector: Barco BG809s
|
Link Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2015 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Curt Palme wrote: | I don't buy it Nash. CM is right, the 1292 tubes need 5Kv on the focus wire, the Marquees have no way to supply that. |
Curt are you talking about the red focus wire? If so you don't need it on EM sets.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Curt Palme CRT Tech
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 24301 Location: Langley, BC
TV/Projector: All of them!
|
Link Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2015 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh you know what, that may only be on the 8" tubes, in the BG808s sets. If you take off the focus wire, the tube goes blurry My bad!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
km987654
Joined: 25 Jul 2007 Posts: 2857 Location: Australia
TV/Projector: Barco BG809s
|
Link Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2015 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Curt Palme wrote: | Oh you know what, that may only be on the 8" tubes, in the BG808s sets. If you take off the focus wire, the tube goes blurry My bad! |
I don't have any 8" tubes only 9" and on the 9" it makes no difference to focus. I have tried the set with and without those connected.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Curt Palme CRT Tech
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 24301 Location: Langley, BC
TV/Projector: All of them!
|
Link Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2015 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well then, it's official, my old age is kicking in. Crap!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
tschaeikaei
Joined: 08 Apr 2013 Posts: 489 Location: Germany/Saarland
|
Link Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2015 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
So this seems to be another thing like "you pay for work" instead of getting paid for it.
Would the 09MEX be a huge improvement over the 180DMB 22?
Are they close to the "king of the tubes" like LUGs or LCPs in performance?
If i do buy them i would need 4 colored C-elements (because the ones in the auction are all clear),
another set of 3 9" lenses and someone who helps me with the conversion.
The brightness of the 1292 is 225 ANSI lumen according to the Sony brochure here.
Should be the same like the 8500, a bit less then a 9500. I'm alright with that, if the resolution of the tubes is better.
And that might well be so.
What lenses were standard on the 1292 and is it standard that no color correction is made?
Regard, Julian
_________________ Marquee 9500U edgeblend P43 | NEC 9PG
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
km987654
Joined: 25 Jul 2007 Posts: 2857 Location: Australia
TV/Projector: Barco BG809s
|
Link Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2015 6:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
tschaeikaei wrote: | So this seems to be another thing like "you pay for work" instead of getting paid for it.
Would the 09MEX be a huge improvement over the 180DMB 22?
Are they close to the "king of the tubes" like LUGs or LCPs in performance?
If i do buy them i would need 4 colored C-elements (because the ones in the auction are all clear),
another set of 3 9" lenses and someone who helps me with the conversion.
The brightness of the 1292 is 225 ANSI lumen according to the Sony brochure here.
Should be the same like the 8500, a bit less then a 9500. I'm alright with that, if the resolution of the tubes is better.
And that might well be so.
What lenses were standard on the 1292 and is it standard that no color correction is made?
Regard, Julian |
9" tubes will be brighter simply because there is more phosphor. I can tell you that the Sony 09MEX2 and 09MFX3 are sharp but I have not compared them to LUGs.
You only need two coloured C elements one for Red and One for Green the blue is clear (Don't get a green from a G90). Since the C element is coloured the Lens elements are not. Standard Lenses for the 1292 are HD-10F. There are two versions of this lens, those made for the 1292 and those for the G90. Both will work although the ones for the G90 will likely cost more as they are reportedly a better version of the lens.
In terms of brightness the Sony tubes are just as bright as any other I believe either the documentation for the 1292 is incorrect or Sony considered the 1292 was bright enough for its intended use.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
tschaeikaei
Joined: 08 Apr 2013 Posts: 489 Location: Germany/Saarland
|
Link Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2015 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
The thing is that i have two Marquee 8500s i will use for a blend.
So I need both sets of 3 tubes and two green and two red C-Elements.
That is because i wrote about "four C-Elements".
Another set of 9" lenses will be needed, too.
The seller answered my email. He writes that the build in tubes are about 8000h, but he seems to know
nothing about masks but that they are dim and the picture went reddish from one moment to the other.
I believe that this is in fact an electronical problem and not caused by wear or tube fault.
Maybe the red has a short somewhere (so that it gets brighter), but this can be solved.
I'm actually in doubt if this whole conversion, the additional money and work is worth it.
All 6 of my 180BMD22 are in good shape, and those HD8B seem not to bad to me.
But other ways this is the cheapest chance to get 6 9" tubes i had yet.
I could buy the package, park it in some (big) corner and wait till someone else parts another 1292 out.
Do i remember right, that frankenyokes for the Marquee are made out of 1292 focus coils?
Another question (since i never had a 9 incher):
Are those HD10F useful for a slightly curved screen and a rather small (about 74 inch wide) picture?
All around quality of these lenses?
Regards, Julian
_________________ Marquee 9500U edgeblend P43 | NEC 9PG
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 5681 Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
Link Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2015 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
tschaeikaei wrote: | Would the 09MEX be a huge improvement over the 180DMB 22?
Regard, Julian |
To be honest with you the Sony tubes were a total engineering disaster. I've never mentioned this before, and hopefully I won't upset any 1292 owners by my posting on this. But back-in-the-day (around 1995) when a 1292 was sent to me to work on. It was then through one of Sony's commercial sales reps, they started pushing the smaller 8" D50 Sony CRT projector at one of their shows, and said nothing about the 1292. Well since knowing the rep Phil personally and he was not only involved in me getting the 1292, he also told me why they were not talking anymore about the 1292 and instead was pushing the newer 8" (ES) machine, that they claimed to be so much brighter than the 1292... yep, they were actually saying the smaller ES Sony was brighter.
Turns out after lunch with Phil, that the CRT used in the 1292 was a bad design. And that Sony discontinued it and went back to their 8" ES design and they also made the big mistake of boasting how bright the 8" machine was. But what they failed to realize was that the Marquee (Panasonic Tubes) was their competitor at the time, and if I could imagine what may have happened at the next Infocomm, where they had the Projector Shoot-outs. They got to see how much brighter the Marquee was in comparison. I don't recall where Barco was in all of this, but Sony seemed to be more concerned with the Marquee sometime later.
So from there, I'm guessing Sony went back to the drawing board to produce a competitor for the Marquee, and that's when the G90 was announced. And when the G90 did hit the streets, it too had Panasonic tubes in it. So I guess Sony knew that they had to get back with something to compete, and knew they had to use something other than the tubes they used in the 1292, so that may explain why they also went with the Panasonic tubes.
Panasonic also had a CRT projector out, but it was a nightmare to setup, so it didn't get much tracking in the field.
As mentioned the Sony tubes had a Focus element that require somewhere near 5K volts. So you can image how the bench techs saw that, considering it also had focus coils. And what made the design really bad, the tubes needed a special focus circuit, and with it's advanced focus circuit, the end results were not stable. But wait, it gets worse... have anybody ever seen a 1292 CRT with wear on the Phosphor?
If you have, it most like came from outside the tube (laser maybe)... It turned out later that the tubes were too dim.
Barco as well was well into Sony tubes, but soon after they all went with the Panasonic tubes.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
tschaeikaei
Joined: 08 Apr 2013 Posts: 489 Location: Germany/Saarland
|
Link Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2015 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Mike,
this is something i did not expect at all. Reading everywhere the 1292 was the king (sure overthrown by the G90 later),
i thought that those 700 lumen were a failure in Curts table.
But now i can easily understand the problem that particular seller has with his 1292.
He writes about the projector being very dim (8000h on the tubes) and the projector gives a reddish picture.
As far as i know the red tubes aren't driven as hard as greens and blues and with this background, everything makes sense.
The problem seems to be the cathode system that wears out faster than in other (esp. Panasonic ) tubes.
We don't have phosphor problems here like usually? The seller says nothing about phosphor wear.
So hands off that deal you say?
Thank you,
Regards, Julian
_________________ Marquee 9500U edgeblend P43 | NEC 9PG
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
cmjohnson
Joined: 03 Apr 2006 Posts: 5180 Location: Buried under G90s
|
Link Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2015 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, yes, I have seen a 1292 with phosphor wear. All three tubes had very even, perfectly rectangular raster wear, caused by the warm-up screen being left on for a LONG time. I even know the history of that projector. It was installed in Hangar H at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, reportedly in a conference room, and somebody left it on the warm-up screen for "several days" for reasons unknown. Another forum member here got that PJ from me and, as far as i know, he still has it.
The sad part is that the wear pattern was full raster, but NOT anywhere near using the full available raster area. The size of the active raster was maybe HALF the available usable phosphor area.
I never even bothered to figure out how to increase the H and V size on that unit. Why, when the result would be objectionable visible wear patterns on the screen?
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
km987654
Joined: 25 Jul 2007 Posts: 2857 Location: Australia
TV/Projector: Barco BG809s
|
Link Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
tschaeikaei wrote: | The thing is that i have two Marquee 8500s i will use for a blend.
So I need both sets of 3 tubes and two green and two red C-Elements.
That is because i wrote about "four C-Elements".
Another set of 9" lenses will be needed, too.
The seller answered my email. He writes that the build in tubes are about 8000h, but he seems to know
nothing about masks but that they are dim and the picture went reddish from one moment to the other.
I believe that this is in fact an electronical problem and not caused by wear or tube fault.
Maybe the red has a short somewhere (so that it gets brighter), but this can be solved.
I'm actually in doubt if this whole conversion, the additional money and work is worth it.
All 6 of my 180BMD22 are in good shape, and those HD8B seem not to bad to me.
But other ways this is the cheapest chance to get 6 9" tubes i had yet.
I could buy the package, park it in some (big) corner and wait till someone else parts another 1292 out.
Do i remember right, that frankenyokes for the Marquee are made out of 1292 focus coils?
Another question (since i never had a 9 incher):
Are those HD10F useful for a slightly curved screen and a rather small (about 74 inch wide) picture?
All around quality of these lenses?
Regards, Julian |
The HD-10? lenses are designed for flat screens so anything else is a risk. There are lenses specifically designed for curved screens. I haven't used any so I really can't advise you. There are others here that could.
It seems MP has information no-one else has. I can only speak from first hand experience that the Sony tubes work well are sharp. In terms of brightness I can only say that they are bright enough for an enjoyable movie experience and I have no reason to think they are less bright compared to other tubes. I would doubt that LUGs are brighter as there is a light trade off with sharpness but you would probably need someone who could do a side by side comparison.
In terms of whether you should do this thats entirely up to you. I would not sit here and say its the cheapest way to get into a 9" projector as you won't really discover all the issues until you actually do it.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009 Posts: 2251 Location: The Netherlands
|
Link Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
I once saw a 1292 in action and it was dark. The owner did manage the fan noise with blue tac. He now still has two on the ceiling,
_________________ 701s->runco933->8500ultra->hd1->hd350->vw100->cinemax+919sp+3x919+9500mp->cinemax+919sp(modded)+kuro600a
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
tschaeikaei
Joined: 08 Apr 2013 Posts: 489 Location: Germany/Saarland
|
Link Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I do hope someone did a side by side comparison and tells me.
Curt, are you still here?
Thanks for all the answers, i'm still as unsure as i was at the beginning
Maybe it was the best to actually setup the blend with the 180DMB22 and the HD8Bs
and decide afterwards if this is good enough.
My screen is just slightly curved, it only has a depth of 5,6" vs a width of 123".
Maybe a bit more (max 7"), i have to decide about the conversion yet.
Regards, Julian
_________________ Marquee 9500U edgeblend P43 | NEC 9PG
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007 Posts: 16171 Location: West Seneca NY
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 5681 Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
Link Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tschaeikaei wrote: | I do hope someone did a side by side comparison and tells me.
Curt, are you still here?
Thanks for all the answers, i'm still as unsure as i was at the beginning
Maybe it was the best to actually setup the blend with the 180DMB22 and the HD8Bs
and decide afterwards if this is good enough.
My screen is just slightly curved, it only has a depth of 5,6" vs a width of 123".
Maybe a bit more (max 7"), i have to decide about the conversion yet.
Regards, Julian | l
Why are you still entertaining this. Where are you going to get the controllable 5000 volts for the Focus element these tubes need?
And for the extra work necessary to get them to work, if the hope was for an advantage they would have over the Panasonic's, there is none.
Again, how many people have seen wear on the CRT's of a 1292?
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|