Once again, I was invited to see Panasonic's newest projector at their facility right next to Universal Studio in Hollywood although to be honest its really closer to North Hollywood than Hollywood.

As for specs, the projector is rated slightly higher going from 1500 lumens in the AE-2000 to 1600 in the AE-3000. I have always been impressed on the brightness of the Panasonic projectors and this one continues with a nice bright picture. The big increase comes in the the contrast department. The projector goes from 16,000 in the AE-2000 to 60,000 in this new projector.

Most if not all of the features that came with the AE-2000 are still found in the AE-3000. The box itself is almost identical except that the ring around the lens is now silver.

The biggest new feature is the lens memory control. You now have the ability with a touch of a button, to make the lens fill up a 2.35 screen with a 2.35 movie and then with the same button move the lens so that it will display a 16x9 size image in the 2.35 screen. You also have the ability to program other aspect ratio. Now, this is what we call the poor mans 2.35 system. There is no anamorphic lens, no scaling involved and no full use of the 16x9 chip. This is the cheaper way to do 2.35 and while there are many good reason to go the lens route, going this way will still produce a bright and beautiful picture. The only limitation results from the use of the lens shift. I think the Panasonic can lens shift up to 100% of the screen, however if you intend to use the memory lens control, you are limited to 50% lens shift. Even with that limitation, it should work with most people's setup

Another feature is the frame rate control (I think i have the name wrong). You have the ability to turn on or off the 120hz feature. Unlike Smoothscreen, you have the ability to turn this on and off. Makes a big difference in the picture. They showed a picture of a map going from left to right and the image with the feature on was a lot clearer adn sharper. Works great with high motion sequences. They give you the ability to turn it off as with static images you may want the feature off

I asked about the dust blob issues and they are very well aware of the issue. They have added additional filters inside the machine to take care of this. They feel that these additional measure should take care of any dust issues.

As for the picture, I was very impressed with it. I own a Williams Phelps calibrated RS-1 and I think it has a very good picture. The AE-3000 blacks were superior to what I have. The image is very sharp. Panasonic has been criticized for having the Smooth Screen feature which gets rid of screen door. While I agree that it prevented the image from being ultra sharp in the AE-1000 and prior machines, the AE-2000 and AE-3000 both have sharp looking image. Panasonic has been able to remove any the side effects from the Smooth Screen with their processor.

I spent about three hours there talking and watching movies and you kind of forget things so you if you have any questions please ask. The one thing i did forget to ask is that game mode people are talking about. I am sorry about that. However, I should be getting a demo model to take home soon, so when i get it I would have a better opportunity to test the projector

I was very impressed with the projector and would more than happy to include it in my home theater

Sounds like a big leap in CR. I had an AE2000 and it's black level did not compare to the RS1 on a fade to black.

Do you know if the benefit of the 120hz still help reduce motion blur even when it's set to off? I hate the "soap opera" look for movies, but it works wonders for stuff like Planet Earth and animation.

wow. GOOD news in the LCD front. 446:1 ANSI contrast!

http://www.projectorcentral.com/projector_news071808.htm

Some questions, most of which will probably need to wait until you get your hands on a demo model:
I asked about the dust blob issues and they are very well aware of the issue. They have added additional filters inside the machine to take care of this. They feel that these additional measure should take care of any dust issues.Is the user replaceable filter identical to the AE2000?I think the Panasonic can lens shift up to 100% of the screen, however if you intend to use the memory lens control, you are limited to 50% lens shift. Even with that limitation, it should work with most people's setupIf you aren't too busy, I'd be happy to hear how different levels/mixes of lens shift affect memory lens control, and if you can test this out with the demo, that'd be very helpful. Also, if we're throwing our 16x9 image as close as possible, how much brightness (in fl) will we lose with 2.35:1? Is it possible to automatically use eco in 16x9 but have it jump to normal bulb mode in 2.35:1?
Another feature is the frame rate control (I think i have the name wrong). You have the ability to turn on or off the 120hz feature. Unlike Smoothscreen, you have the ability to turn this on and off. Makes a big difference in the picture. They showed a picture of a map going from left to right and the image with the feature on was a lot clearer adn sharper. Works great with high motion sequences. They give you the ability to turn it off as with static images you may want the feature offThe frame creation is what you mean, right? Even with frame creation off, the projector still uses 120 Hz for 60 fps and 96 Hz for 24 fps material, right? Or does the refresh rate actually change depending on whether you have frame creation on? (I would imagine that a higher refresh rate would possibly be helpful for lower image lag and less blurring, even with frame creation turned off)Another feature is the frame rate control (I think i have the name wrong). You have the ability to turn on or off the 120hz feature. Unlike Smoothscreen, you have the ability to turn this on and off. Makes a big difference in the picture. They showed a picture of a map going from left to right and the image with the feature on was a lot clearer adn sharper. Works great with high motion sequences. They give you the ability to turn it off as with static images you may want the feature off
...
I asked about the dust blob issues and they are very well aware of the issue. They have added additional filters inside the machine to take care of this. They feel that these additional measure should take care of any dust issues.
...
The one thing i did forget to ask is that game mode people are talking about. I am sorry about that. However, I should be getting a demo model to take home soon, so when i get it I would have a better opportunity to test the projectorIs the user cleanable/replaceable filter identical to the AE2000?The one thing i did forget to ask is that game mode people are talking about. I am sorry about that. However, I should be getting a demo model to take home soon, so when i get it I would have a better opportunity to test the projectorIf you can test out the image lag with/without "game mode", especially against other recent projectors you might be able to get your hands on, that would be extremely helpful. With "game mode", I'm much more interested in image lag and image quality.

Thanks again for the review, and sorry for the large number of questions.:)

I own a Williams Phelps calibrated RS-1
Thanks for the review!

So... what can Mr. Phelps do with an RS-1? I'd be very interested. I thought his main "thing" was working with the LUT, which the RS1 doesn't have.

The frame creation is what you mean, right? Even with frame creation off, the projector still uses 120 Hz for 60 fps and 96 Hz for 24 fps material, right? Or does the refresh rate actually change depending on whether you have frame creation on? (I would imagine that a higher refresh rate would possibly be helpful for lower image lag and less blurring, even with frame creation turned off)

120Hz panels always refresh at 120Hz, whether the frame interpolation is enabled or disabled. I believe this PJ is using Epson's panel, so the AE3000 and Epson 6500 should have a similar look, aside from the differences in effects of the Dynamic Iris from each company.

My main area of interest is if the "low" frame interpolation mode looks good on 24fps material without making it look fast forward (or high, for that matter).

120Hz panels always refresh at 120Hz, whether the frame interpolation is enabled or disabled.
I don't think so, because the panels can show PAL-sources (50 Hz / 25fps) without juddering. So they must also run on 100 Hz or another multiple of 50.

I don't think so, because the panels can show PAL-sources (50 Hz / 25fps) without juddering. So they must also run on 100 Hz or another multiple of 50.

I don't know, pretty much EVERY modern display, especially 120Hz models, can display PAL and NTSC signals and no one has brought this up yet.


Mr Flausch, you're a world shaker.

Mr Flausch, you're a world shaker.

No, I am just a mathgenius, living in PAL-land... :D

Did they give a hint as to the release date?

This unit looks sweet! Any idea on street price?

If the blacks are better than your RS1, and as it is specified a brighter projector than the RS1, then the dynamic contrast system is providing significantly higher contrast than anything currently on the market, certainly higher than the approx. 10,000:1 measurement that Cine4Home reported.

I am curious to see more user reports and professional reviews. LCD seems to have caught up to the competition most impressively. One report has measured the ANSI on this unit at over 400:1. That is getting closer to typical DLP performance.


EDIT--

After re-reading the cine4home preview, although they measured at D65 between 10,000-13,000:1 dynamic contrast, the maximum native contrast of the panel was around 6,000:1, with a dynamic contrast that exceeded 60,000:1 !!! Which led them to conclude that there is room for tweaking and improvement, so it is entirely possible that the unit can deliver much higher readings while still maintaining a good calibration. Impressive.





Once again, I was invited to see Panasonic's newest projector at their facility right next to Universal Studio in Hollywood although to be honest its really closer to North Hollywood than Hollywood.

As for specs, the projector is rated slightly higher going from 1500 lumens in the AE-2000 to 1600 in the AE-3000. I have always been impressed on the brightness of the Panasonic projectors and this one continues with a nice bright picture. The big increase comes in the the contrast department. The projector goes from 16,000 in the AE-2000 to 60,000 in this new projector.

Most if not all of the features that came with the AE-2000 are still found in the AE-3000. The box itself is almost identical except that the ring around the lens is now silver.

The biggest new feature is the lens memory control. You now have the ability with a touch of a button, to make the lens fill up a 2.35 screen with a 2.35 movie and then with the same button move the lens so that it will display a 16x9 size image in the 2.35 screen. You also have the ability to program other aspect ratio. Now, this is what we call the poor mans 2.35 system. There is no anamorphic lens, no scaling involved and no full use of the 16x9 chip. This is the cheaper way to do 2.35 and while there are many good reason to go the lens route, going this way will still produce a bright and beautiful picture. The only limitation results from the use of the lens shift. I think the Panasonic can lens shift up to 100% of the screen, however if you intend to use the memory lens control, you are limited to 50% lens shift. Even with that limitation, it should work with most people's setup

Another feature is the frame rate control (I think i have the name wrong). You have the ability to turn on or off the 120hz feature. Unlike Smoothscreen, you have the ability to turn this on and off. Makes a big difference in the picture. They showed a picture of a map going from left to right and the image with the feature on was a lot clearer adn sharper. Works great with high motion sequences. They give you the ability to turn it off as with static images you may want the feature off

I asked about the dust blob issues and they are very well aware of the issue. They have added additional filters inside the machine to take care of this. They feel that these additional measure should take care of any dust issues.

As for the picture, I was very impressed with it. I own a Williams Phelps calibrated RS-1 and I think it has a very good picture. The AE-3000 blacks were superior to what I have. The image is very sharp. Panasonic has been criticized for having the Smooth Screen feature which gets rid of screen door. While I agree that it prevented the image from being ultra sharp in the AE-1000 and prior machines, the AE-2000 and AE-3000 both have sharp looking image. Panasonic has been able to remove any the side effects from the Smooth Screen with their processor.

I spent about three hours there talking and watching movies and you kind of forget things so you if you have any questions please ask. The one thing i did forget to ask is that game mode people are talking about. I am sorry about that. However, I should be getting a demo model to take home soon, so when i get it I would have a better opportunity to test the projector

I was very impressed with the projector and would more than happy to include it in my home theater

David-
Thank you for the preliminary review.
As I currently have a Sony VPL-HW10 on order with AVS, I'm especially interested in how the Sony compares? Could you comment?
Thanks,
Andre

Do you know if the benefit of the 120hz still help reduce motion blur even when it's set to off? I hate the "soap opera" look for movies, but it works wonders for stuff like Planet Earth and animation.

To me with its setting to on, it helped reduce motion blur and with it off it there was a difference. There was motion blur

Is the user replaceable filter identical to the AE2000?

I didnt ask, but the box itself really wasnt modified very much. Whatever you had in the AE-2000 is still in the AE-3000. Difference results from modifications or new stuff


If you aren't too busy, I'd be happy to hear how different levels/mixes of lens shift affect memory lens control, and if you can test this out with the demo, that'd be very helpful. Also, if we're throwing our 16x9 image as close as possible, how much brightness (in fl) will we lose with 2.35:1? Is it possible to automatically use eco in 16x9 but have it jump to normal bulb mode in 2.35:1?

If I am understanding you correctly, i think you can memorize 7 types of lens zooms. As for the bulb, no you cant program it so that one lens zoom is at eco and another is set a normal. As for brightness, its no so much that you lose brightness, its that you are filling up a bigger screen so you are spreading on the lumens that the projector has. However, with 1600 lumens, for any normal size screen, I dont think you will have a brightness issue. I had the AE-2000 projecting at my 120 wide 2.35 screen last year and the image was plenty bright

I believe this PJ is using Epson's panel,

you are correct sir

So... what can Mr. Phelps do with an RS-1?

the real questions is what cant he do.

Did they give a hint as to the release date?

You would think that would have been my first question. I didnt ask, but based on previous year and the time between showing it to me and shipping out, it should be relatively soon. Next couple of months, but thats my guess

I don't think so, because the panels can show PAL-sources (50 Hz / 25fps) without juddering. So they must also run on 100 Hz or another multiple of 50.

If i remember correctly, during the presentation, it state it would 120 and 100

One further thought, no 12volt trigger and for you environmentally aware folks, the bulb automatically uses less power during dark scenes and more during bright scenes resulting in a 30% saving in electrical use. Good WAF incentive, maybe:)

David-
Thank you for the preliminary review.
As I currently have a Sony VPL-HW10 on order with AVS, I'm especially interested in how the Sony compares? Could you comment?
Thanks,
Andre

The name is Daniel, but I forgive you

wow. GOOD news in the LCD front. 446:1 ANSI contrast!

http://www.projectorcentral.com/projector_news071808.htm

No joke, this should've been the biggest news out of Cedia and there wan't any mention until a month later...any reason I had with going for DLP (despite my rainbow sensitivity) is now gone...I will embrace LCD (now, I just have to find a really sharp/bright one, Epson...come through, please?)

would this projector work in a dim room with a 175"+ screen??? any solid info on bulb life....this is a huge concern of mine. My application is roughly 4+ hrs a day??

also any suggestions as to screen material. i need it to be easy viewing from 160 degrees and again "pop" in a dim room.

thanks in advance.

No joke, this should've been the biggest news out of Cedia and there wan't any mention until a month later...any reason I had with going for DLP (despite my rainbow sensitivity) is now gone...I will embrace LCD (now, I just have to find a really sharp/bright one, Epson...come through, please?)

Yeah, LCD has really closed the Gap on DLP, well, at least until the next gen LED DLP units are out, which won't be in this price range, anyway.

LCD native and ANSI contrast is in the DLP ballpark now, with only the highest end DLP units holding advantages.

would this projector work in a dim room with a 175"+ screen??? any solid info on bulb life....this is a huge concern of mine. My application is roughly 4+ hrs a day??

also any suggestions as to screen material. i need it to be easy viewing from 160 degrees and again "pop" in a dim room.

thanks in advance.

Sounds a little too big a screen size for this projector... calibrated lumens, like most projectors, will be much lower than the maximum available. Even at maximum lumen output, I think it is too big.

The name is Daniel, but I forgive you

I stand corrected.
Now as for my question?

Sounds a little too big a screen size for this projector... calibrated lumens, like most projectors, will be much lower than the maximum available. Even at maximum lumen output, I think it is too big.

I second this...a 180" screen has four times the surface area of a 90" screen and will require the same factor more lumens to hold constant brightness...you might should be looking into pjs like the Panasonic PT-5000, 5500 which have 3-5000 lumens. They are also MUCH more expensive than regular HT pjs...

I stand corrected.
Now as for my question?

HA! I can just hear my grandfather saying "Daniel, eh? Stop trying to squirm out of it and just answer the question, David!"

would this projector work in a dim room with a 175"+ screen??? any solid info on bulb life....this is a huge concern of mine. My application is roughly 4+ hrs a day??

also any suggestions as to screen material. i need it to be easy viewing from 160 degrees and again "pop" in a dim room.
Well. With a Da-Lite HiPower screen and a cine4home filter mod it might be possible to do 180" with the AE3000. Ekkehard said that he anticipates the AE3000 might do 1000 lumen when calibrated with the external cine4home filter. A Da-Lite HiPower screen might "gain that up" to about 14 fL with a new bulb. With a 2.35 setup with an external lense this would even increase to 20 fL with a new bulb. However, "easy viewing from 160 degrees" won't work with a high gain screen.

So I have to join the choir and say "no go".

As for the 175+ screen. I think that to big for this projector. I think you would need to be in the 3000 lumen ball bark in order to lite up that size screen properly especially after the bulb dims

I stand corrected.
Now as for my question

To be honest, I have not seen that Sony yet so it wouldnt be right for me to compare them. Spec alone, the Panny wins due to higher lumens and contrast, but specs arent everything. I like Lcos projectors, I am on my second one. wish i can give you a better answer

Well. With a Da-Lite HiPower screen and a cine4home filter mod it might be possible to do 180" with the AE3000. Ekkehard said that he anticipates the AE3000 might do 1000 lumen when calibrated with the external cine4home filter. A Da-Lite HiPower screen might "gain that up" to about 14 fL with a new bulb. With a 2.35 setup with an external lense this would even increase to 20 fL with a new bulb. However, "easy viewing from 160 degrees" won't work with a high gain screen.

So I have to join the choir and say "no go".

Why would using an anamorphic lens and a 2.35:1 screen offer that drastic an increase in brightness?

Why would using an anamorphic lens and a 2.35:1 screen offer that drastic an increase in brightness?

A good anamorphic lens gives about 20% more light with 2.35 material. The light from the usually dead "black bars" area of the 16:9 panels is used. But a lower quality lens can actually cost you in overall brightness because they don't pass the light as well.

EDIT: I too have to join the chorus... 180" screen with 160 deg viewing angle and any projector remotely affordable is a big "no go". You're picking all the compromise points and pushing them in the wrong direction: big size, high angle of view, low cost... you get to have any two.

Why would using an anamorphic lens and a 2.35:1 screen offer that drastic an increase in brightness?An anamorphic lens is going to stretch out a 16x9 image.

Let's say you have a 174" diagonal 1:2.35 screen. That means your screen is 68" high and 160" wide. (173.67, 68, 159.8)

If you're using a zoom function, such as the AE3000, or manually zooming in with another projector, your image has to be 160" wide in order to fill the screen. (That means you're throwing a 160"x90" image to fill the screen. That's a 183.35" diagonal in 16x9)

If you're using an anamorphic lens, the projector is stretching the image to make sure all the pixels are used. The height of the image is unchanged (68"), so you're throwing a 121"x68" 16x9 image (137.8" diagonal), which the anamophic lens is stretching to 160" wide, but still 68" high.

Both give the same dimensions, filling the whole screen with the 2.35:1 material as the end result, but the zoom method is throwing a 173.7" diagonal image, while the anamorphic lens method is throwing a 138.7" diagonal.

Obviously, the anamorphic lens method is going to give a brighter image.

Hope that helps.:)

EDIT: I too have to join the chorus... 180" screen with 160 deg viewing angle and any projector remotely affordable is a big "no go". You're picking all the compromise points and pushing them in the wrong direction: big size, high angle of view, low cost... you get to have any two.I feel the same as the last few people who chimed in with this.

An anamorphic lens is going to stretch out a 16x9 image.

Let's say you have a 174" diagonal 1:2.35 screen. That means your screen is 68" high and 160" wide. (173.67, 68, 159.8)

If you're using a zoom function, such as the AE3000, or manually zooming in with another projector, your image has to be 160" wide in order to fill the screen. (That means you're throwing a 160"x90" image to fill the screen. That's a 183.35" diagonal in 16x9)

If you're using an anamorphic lens, the projector is stretching the image to make sure all the pixels are used. The height of the image is unchanged (68"), so you're throwing a 121"x68" 16x9 image (137.8" diagonal), which the anamophic lens is stretching to 160" wide, but still 68" high.

Both give the same dimensions, filling the whole screen with the 2.35:1 material as the end result, but the zoom method is throwing a 174" diagonal image, while the anamorphic lens method is throwing a 138.7" diagonal.

Obviously, the anamorphic lens method is going to give a brighter image.

Hope that helps.:)


I understand why it can be brighter yes, it just seemed to me that going from 14 Foot Lamberts to 20 FL was a pretty drastic. I don't think that it will make quite that great a difference, thats all.

I understand why it can be brighter yes, it just seemed to me that going from 14 Foot Lamberts to 20 FL was a pretty drastic. I don't think that it will make quite that great a difference, thats all.
I agree. That is a little much. Figure maybe 17 with a good lens.

the zoom method is throwing a 173.7" diagonal image, while the anamorphic lens method is throwing a 138.7" diagonal
I understand why it can be brighter yes, it just seemed to me that going from 14 Foot Lamberts to 20 FL was a pretty drastic. I don't think that it will make quite that great a difference, thats all.I probably should have ended by stating the square inches for each. The zoom would be 14,364, while the anamorphic would be 8220, stretched to 10866. From a square ft/inch/cm stand point, it's a 1.32:1 ratio, so from that standpoint, you'd go from 20 fL to 15.13 fL. The fact that a projector is in the same place would be throwing a different size image means it won't be exactly 20 and 15.13, but you're filling up quite a lot (32% more) area with the same projector by using zoom instead of anamophric.

(That said, I am perfectly happy with my zoom for my small (by AVS standards) screen.)

Edit: Total math mistake on my part...fixed it.

I probably should have ended by stating the square inches for each. The zoom would be 14,364, while the anamorphic would be 8220. From a square ft/inch/cm stand point, it's a 1.75:1 ratio, so from that standpoint, you'd go from 20 fL to 11.45 fL.Looks like an error here to me. You have to count the light as it hits the screen. So, the 14,364 is correct because 90x160 is 14,400. But the 8220 is not correct for determining ft-lamberts. That is what it would be without the lens, but you aren't watching without the lens. With the lens the area of the screen that determines the ft-lamberts is 68x160, or 10,880 square inches.

In 2.35:1 measurements both methods are throwing the same diagonal size of image. The projector in one case is throwing a smaller image, but the projector plus lens is throwing the same size in 2.35:1 space. The zoom method is throwing a 183" diagonal 16:9 image and the lens method is throwing a 174" diagonal 2.35:1 image.
The fact that a projector is in the same place would be throwing a different size image means it won't be exactly 20 and 11.45, but you're filling up quite a lot (75% more) area with the same projector by using zoom instead of anamophric.You are filling about 33% more area (or 25% less area by using the lens going the other direction). Then there is the light loss through the lens and if it is a horizontally stretching kind of lens there is usually some more light loss from the different throw ratio, like you said. So, I'm guessing you would be lucky to get 25% more ft-lamberts by using a horizontally stretching lens vs the zoom method. A vertical compression lens should give a little more ft-lamberts than a horizontal compression lens if they have the same losses in the lenses, because of keeping the same throw position for the projector lens with the vertical compression kind of anamorphic lens.

--Darin

Thanks for the review!

So... what can Mr. Phelps do with an RS-1? I'd be very interested. I thought his main "thing" was working with the LUT, which the RS1 doesn't have.

This is the first I've heard of a Phelpsed RS1. I really doubt ANYTHING can be done with it unless a processor was also added..

Looks like an error here to me. You have to count the light as it hits the screen. So, the 14,364 is correct because 90x160 is 14,400. But the 8220 is not correct for determining ft-lamberts. That is what it would be without the lens, but you aren't watching without the lens. With the lens the area of the screen that determines the ft-lamberts is 68x160, or 10,880 square inches.I'm almost ashamed to admit this, but during my lunch, instead of thinking about work or something else, this is exactly what occurred to me. Big math flub there, and I'm glad it was caught.

Thanks for keeping me from infecting anyone with my stupid.;)

This is the first I've heard of a Phelpsed RS1. I really doubt ANYTHING can be done with it unless a processor was also added..
That's why I'm asking... I'd get him to "Phelpse" my RS1 if he can really do anything with it.

Such is human psychology, that enthusiasts who've invested thousands extra into their toy to extract the last bit of performance are inclined to report being satisfied even if real gains are marginal. Regarding brightness differences with an anamorphic lens, I'd be interested in anyone who's conducted "blind" testing. Granted, there is a theoretical increase in brightness with a lens since you'd be using output from what would have been useless black bars. But when zooming, something else also happens. The aperture opens wider increasing light output. Therefore, the real difference in brightness with and without a lens isn't that much.

Some may point out that more pixels get used with the lens option. However for most viewing distances, the resolution of a 1080p chip is overkill to begin with. Using a slightly smaller portion of the chip won't noticeably degrade perceived resolution.

Keep in mind a lens could add to picture softness and aberration problems.

Even if an anamorphic lens does result in a net improvement in picture, it's unlikely the step-up is worth a couple thousand dollars or more one typically pays for a decent lens.

So the benefits of an anamorphic lens are dubious even for the hardened cost-is-no-object mind set. This is what makes the leap in ease of use of a lens memory equipped projector a particularly attractive option.

Using a slightly smaller portion of the chip won't noticeably degrade perceived resolution.

Keep in mind a lens could add to picture softness and aberration problems.

I agree. I've never really understood anamorphic lenses except for the light gain.

1. Scaling the 2.35 image over the entire panel means you no longer have the sharpest one to one pixel mapping of the image display. You've got a scaled image, albeit onto more pixels than the original image contains. But you have pixel border issues anyway.

2. With no anamorphic lens there's no degradation of PQ when compared to viewing a 16:9 image of the same width.

3. Why would you want a finer pixel pitch vertically than you have horizontally? Are your eyes more sensitive to vertical resolution than horizontal? A square pixel pitch is ideal.

Granted, there is a theoretical increase in brightness with a lens since you'd be using output from what would have been useless black bars.
Theoretical? :rolleyes:

But when zooming, something else also happens. The aperture opens wider increasing light output.
How much light output do you gain with the wider aperture? 1%? 2%? With an anamorphic lense you get up to 33% more light output. Maybe due to some losses inside the lense it's a bit smaller. But with a good lense surely more than 25%. That means going from a 800 lumen projector to a 1000 lumen projector. That's quite a noticable difference.

Even if an anamorphic lens does result in a net improvement in picture, it's unlikely the step-up is worth a couple thousand dollars or more one typically pays for a decent lens.

So the benefits of an anamorphic lens are dubious even for the hardened cost-is-no-object mind set.
With a bit of luck you can get a used ISCO II (which is a really good lense, as long as throw is long enough) for about 800$. Whether that's worth the money for a 25% brightness increase is up to everyone's own decision. You shouldn't really try to make that decision for everyone else. Even if the cost was 10000$ dollar, you should still not try to decide that for other people. E.g. there's no projector rivaling the JVC RS20 in native contrast south of 30k$, as far as I know. So if you'd want to get the RS20 because of its native contrast, but if it was not bright enough for your specific screen size, then buying an anamorphic lense to get 25% more brightness is an absolutely reasonable thing to do. It might be over your personal budget, but that doesn't really matter.

1. Scaling the 2.35 image over the entire panel means you no longer have the sharpest one to one pixel mapping of the image display. You've got a scaled image, albeit onto more pixels than the original image contains.
Would you say that for DVD playback a 480p projector throws a sharper abd more detailed image than the best 1080p projectors? Having 1:1 pixel mapping is a good thing if we're speaking about things like overscan because small amounts of scaling are not really a good idea. But scaling an image up 33% with a good scaling algorithm will not harm sharpness or detail in any way. Of course a lot depends on the scaling algorithm. But if you read around the forum with good 1080p projectors you'll sometimes read remarks as "I've seen details in the DVDs I've never seen before". That goes to show that really good upscaling doesn't hurt compared to native display.

3. Why would you want a finer pixel pitch vertically than you have horizontally? Are your eyes more sensitive to vertical resolution than horizontal? A square pixel pitch is ideal.
As long as you don't see SDE it doesn't matter at all which geometry a single pixel does or does not have. The only thing that matters is whether all details are shown without distortion or not.

IMHO the most important advantages of anamorphic lenses compared to zooming are (1) brightness increase, (2) no gray bars above/below the image area and (3) decreased SDE. Now (2) does not apply if you use proper masking. And (3) does not apply if you don't see SDE with zooming, anyway. But still (1) can be a big thing, depending on the circumstances...

But we shouldn't really discuss in this thread whether anamorphic lenses make generally sense or not. There's a separate forum for such discussions. I think almost everybody (including me) thinks that the Panasonic lense memory feature is a GREAT idea. I hope that all the other projector manufacturers will copy this idea in their next models...

Such is human psychology, that enthusiasts who've invested thousands extra into their toy to extract the last bit of performance are inclined to report being satisfied even if real gains are marginal. Regarding brightness differences with an anamorphic lens, I'd be interested in anyone who's conducted "blind" testing. Granted, there is a theoretical increase in brightness with a lens since you'd be using output from what would have been useless black bars. But when zooming, something else also happens. The aperture opens wider increasing light output. Therefore, the real difference in brightness with and without a lens isn't that much.

Some may point out that more pixels get used with the lens option. However for most viewing distances, the resolution of a 1080p chip is overkill to begin with. Using a slightly smaller portion of the chip won't noticeably degrade perceived resolution.

Keep in mind a lens could add to picture softness and aberration problems.

Even if an anamorphic lens does result in a net improvement in picture, it's unlikely the step-up is worth a couple thousand dollars or more one typically pays for a decent lens.

So the benefits of an anamorphic lens are dubious even for the hardened cost-is-no-object mind set. This is what makes the leap in ease of use of a lens memory equipped projector a particularly attractive option.

Great post Tumara.The whole anamorphic lens thing is really a waste of money.But if you place a Buffalo nickle on the back right corner of your speakers the highs will be cleaner.:D

[QUOTE=madshi;14779264]However, "easy viewing from 160 degrees" won't work with a high gain screen.
QUOTE]

A high power screen is easily viewed from 160 degrees. It just doesn't have 2.8 gain out there. I view mine from 120+ degrees regularly when I am sitting on a lounge chair working with my laptop casualy watching a football game. No problem. Image with the lights on 100% in the room is still about the same as any sports bar I have ever been in.

However, "easy viewing from 160 degrees" won't work with a high gain screen.
QUOTE]

A high power screen is easily viewed from 160 degrees. It just doesn't have 2.8 gain out there. I view mine from 120+ degrees regularly when I am sitting on a lounge chair working with my laptop casualy watching a football game. No problem. Image with the lights on 100% in the room is still about the same as any sports bar I have ever been in.
I should have quoted the full question. It was asked "i need it to be easy viewing from 160 degrees and again "pop" in a dim room". So what is wanted is a 175"+ screen with 160 degree viewing and "pop". With a screen so large you would get just enough brightness in the sweetspot of the high-gain screen. The image might still be "ok" outside of the sweetspot, but clearly too dim and certainly not "pop".

On the issue of William Phelps, you are right, he can only due to so much since the RS1 is missing CMS, but I also have a Lumagen scaler and he was able to do some nice improvements with it. The colors arent still perfect but I dont mind. I just like the way Phelps calibrates projectors in general. He has a great eye for it

wow this thread went way ot!
Thanks Daniel for the mini-review. It seems that this year we're seeing a real maturing of the market. Pretty smallish things seem to differentiate the main field now. Clever of Panny to put in the 2.35 feature - it's grabbing headlines.

do you know what the cine4home filter costs? is this the same thing as the lpe filter they are using with the new epson?

do you know what the cine4home filter costs? is this the same thing as the lpe filter they are using with the new epson?
I don't know costs, but afaik, the Epson filter is an internal filter, whereas this will be external (like some of their existing modifications on their site). Until now they've not allowed anyone to DIY these mods, so it will be interesting to hear costs, difficulty, effectiveness, etc.

Daniel,

Wow, blacks as good as the RS1.

How would you rate the 3000 in overall PQ compared to the RS1?



"Regarding brightness differences with an anamorphic lens, I'd be interested in anyone who's conducted "blind" testing."

Why not just measure the difference and get a real answer.

Yes.

"Are your eyes more sensitive to vertical resolution than horizontal?"

"How much light output do you gain with the wider aperture? 1%? 2%?"

I'd guess a lot more than that; most pj's lose around 30% of their brightness from min to max zoom.

ah, I hadn't heard that they were starting to sell dyi (or I guess, that they hadn't done so up to now.) Also didn't realize there was room to mount an internal filter - how is that even done? Still think it is damn odd that epson won't let us buy that version of the pj here. Driving me to the panny.

How would you rate the 3000 in overall PQ compared to the RS1

I am not very good a comparing two pictures without them being either side by side or at least close by. However, i didnt see the AE-3000 and think well my projector is better than the Panny. I was very impressed with the image. It bright, sharp and very nice blacks. The 2.35 feature is very cool and the only thing I could really complain about is the that it doesnt have a 12volt trigger. I did suggest they add one next year and that it it would be cool if the trigger could be controlled by the remote control instead of the screen coming down when you turn on the projector. If i remember correctly, the Dwin projectors not only had this feature but had two triggers.

I also told them if they could figure out how to make a true 2.35 machine, they would clean up in sales. I told them the same thing last year and they brought out this 2.35 feature. Of course I don't believe for a moment that it was done on my influence, but I am sure they hear from many people that 2.35 is the way to go

do you know what the cine4home filter costs? is this the same thing as the lpe filter they are using with the new epson?


No, the PT-AE2000/3000 filter is especially developed. It quite big and gets screwed directly into the optic of the Panasonic. The newest version is optimized in color and has no ANSI contrast loss.


Regards,
Ekki

I also told them if they could figure out how to make a true 2.35 machine, they would clean up in sales. I told them the same thing last year and they brought out this 2.35 feature. Of course I don't believe for a moment that it was done on my influence, but I am sure they hear from many people that 2.35 is the way to go

OK, forgive me, but I'm a little confused on this new feature in the AE3000.

To take advantage of it, do you need a 2:35 screen, or can you make it work on a 16:9 screen?

OK, forgive me, but I'm a little confused on this new feature in the AE3000.

To take advantage of it, do you need a 2:35 screen, or can you make it work on a 16:9 screen?
The short answer is no.
There are quite a few explanations floating around in the different AE3000 threads, but simply.

This new feature is just memories for zoom, image position (like lens shift but digital) and focus. It saves all three to each memory so that they can be recalled by pressing a button.

To use it you'd really need a screen that is higher in aspect ratio than 16:9.
For example if you've got a 2.35:1 screen, you would show 2.35:1 material zoomed to fill the width - the black bars would still be projected, but they are off the top and bottom of the screen.

Then when you show 16:9 (if you kept it in the same mode it would now overspill the screen top and bottom), you now press a button which uses the new feature to zoom out, refocus and perhaps shift the image. The whole projected image now fits the height of your screen and now you have black borders at the sides. Masking is preferable.

Hope that helps
tt

No, the PT-AE2000/3000 filter is especially developed. It quite big and gets screwed directly into the optic of the Panasonic. The newest version is optimized in color and has no ANSI contrast loss.


Regards,
Ekki

Ah, ok, and while this is on-topic, it's somewhat thread jacking, so last question(s). Will it interfere with the lens memory feature of the ae3000? and is the intent of this new filter similar to the lpe epson (ie. to be able to use dynamic mode lumens with a well calibrated color space?)

Daniel,

Wow, blacks as good as the RS1.


Didn't he actually say he thought they were better. That would be truly impressive in an LCD with these features and price point.

Will AVS start carrying the Panasonic's? Margin challenged in previous generation's.JB

Ah, ok, and while this is on-topic, it's somewhat thread jacking, so last question(s). Will it interfere with the lens memory feature of the ae3000? and is the intent of this new filter similar to the lpe epson (ie. to be able to use dynamic mode lumens with a well calibrated color space?)


No, it will not interfere with the lens memory and yes, the principle is the same: Instead of the internal filter you use the external filter with a not so extended color gamut but more brightness.

Regards,
Ekkehart

No, it will not interfere with the lens memory and yes, the principle is the same: Instead of the internal filter you use the external filter with a not so extended color gamut but more brightness.

Regards,
Ekkehart

so what aspect of viewing is made better by the filter?

Daniel, nice review. Thanks for sharing :)

so what aspect of viewing is made better by the filter?
It allows proper Rec709/D65 calibration with high lumen output.

Will AVS start carrying the Panasonic's? Margin challenged in previous generation's.JB

They never carried the others pannies that I know of.The forum sponsors carry them.That is where I have bought my ax200.

Great post Tumara.The whole anamorphic lens thing is really a waste of money.But if you place a Buffalo nickle on the back right corner of your speakers the highs will be cleaner.:D

You noticed, too :eek:

But seriously, I finally found my future PJ. It will have to wait a little longer (budgeted was 'only' a Sony VPL VW40) but I think it will be worth the wait.

Now, the Cine4home filter sounds very interesting, especially since you can mount it yourself and don't have to send in the PJ. Is there a msrp for it already and when can we expect them to be available? Thanks.

Now, the Cine4home filter sounds very interesting, especially since you can mount it yourself and don't have to send in the PJ. Is there a msrp for it already and when can we expect them to be available? Thanks.

+1 on this. :) Also, any chance of some settings to start with when using this filter ( I know each setup is different, but it might help as a starting point)?

In 2.35:1 measurements both methods are throwing the same diagonal size of image. The projector in one case is throwing a smaller image, but the projector plus lens is throwing the same size in 2.35:1 space. The zoom method is throwing a 183" diagonal 16:9 image and the lens method is throwing a 174" diagonal 2.35:1 image.
You are filling about 33% more area (or 25% less area by using the lens going the other direction). Then there is the light loss through the lens and if it is a horizontally stretching kind of lens there is usually some more light loss from the different throw ratio, like you said. So, I'm guessing you would be lucky to get 25% more ft-lamberts by using a horizontally stretching lens vs the zoom method. A vertical compression lens should give a little more ft-lamberts than a horizontal compression lens if they have the same losses in the lenses, because of keeping the same throw position for the projector lens with the vertical compression kind of anamorphic lens.

--Darin


I looked very carefully at using an anamorphic lens a couple years ago and (even back then) decided it was not worth the ~25% improvement in brightness and decrease in size of pixels to warrant the very high relative costs of these lenses. I've been doing poor man's constant height height with a 2.35 screen for about 3 years and IMO it's THE way to go. IMO pixel size is a non-issue with smooth screen/1080P and the PJs are now bright enough (for me anyway) that the ~25 light loss has negligible impact on the PQ IMO. There was also the "cool" factor (or call it personal preference), but now that the AE3000 shifts with push of a button- I think this is now a wash. I also think that herein may be a useful upgrade we could see with with the AE4000- that is, since the PJ already is automatically adjusting back and forth from 16:9 to 2.35:1, then it may be possible to also change the focus of the light path at the same time resulting in no (or sig. less) loss of light when zooming out to fill a 2.35 screen. Very cool. I don't need to wait for this, but it would be a good idea based on all the talk her about the pros and cons of the light output issue opposite the Constant Height functionality of the unit.

+1 on this. :) Also, any chance of some settings to start with when using this filter ( I know each setup is different, but it might help as a starting point)?

+2 - I was waiting on the epson 6500 avs power buy, but this ae3000 has more features (120, the anamorphic trick) and it sounds like it will actually be cheaper/easier to turn the ae3000 into a light cannon (absolutely necessary in my new house) than the epson, due to the epson marketers playing hide-the-ball with their customers.

It allows proper Rec709/D65 calibration with high lumen output.

And in this case a potentially stratospheric dynamic contrast ratio while maintaining that D65 calibration!

The 3000 is a very, very exciting product.

I looked very carefully at using an anamorphic lens a couple years ago and (even back then) decided it was not worth the ~25% improvement in brightness and decrease in size of pixels to warrant the very high relative costs of these lenses. I've been doing poor man's constant height height with a 2.35 screen for about 3 years and IMO it's THE way to go. IMO pixel size is a non-issue with smooth screen/1080P and the PJs are now bright enough (for me anyway) that the ~25 light loss has negligible impact on the PQ IMO. There was also the "cool" factor (or call it personal preference), but now that the AE3000 shifts with push of a button- I think this is now a wash. I also think that herein may be a useful upgrade we could see with with the AE4000- that is, since the PJ already is automatically adjusting back and forth from 16:9 to 2.35:1, then it may be possible to also change the focus of the light path at the same time resulting in no (or sig. less) loss of light when zooming out to fill a 2.35 screen. Very cool. I don't need to wait for this, but it would be a good idea based on all the talk her about the pros and cons of the light output issue opposite the Constant Height functionality of the unit.

I have a suggestion for you folks.......... why use a 2.35 screen with a "smaller" window for 16x9 programming when you could just buy a 16x9 screen the same width as the 2.35 you were considering??

Then when you watch your movies you will have the exact same image as you would have had with the 2.35... but when you watch sports or play Halo.... you will have a really impressive image!

Now you will have black bars above and below the image... but so what... you still have the black bars with the zoom 2.35 method... they just happen to be off screen.

Does having a black screen above and below the movie really "bother" you so much you would sacrifice the capabilities of a really big 16x9 image just to pretend they are not there???

I have a suggestion for you folks.......... why use a 2.35 screen with a "smaller" window for 16x9 programming when you could just buy a 16x9 screen the same width as the 2.35 you were considering??



This is what I do and think it's the best compromise. But it still IS a bit of a compromise. Seating distance is dependent on image height in my experience. So the front row are the "money" seats for 2.35 and the back row are for 16:9. It's not too bad and saves the expense of true CIH or the hassle of poor-man's CIH.

Daniel (a.k.a David ),

Thanks for the review. In your post, you stated that Panny has added additional filters inside the projector to deal with the dust blob issue.

I don't see these "internal" filters noted in the PT-AE3000U's manual. Surely, they would have to be cleaned and/or replaced at some point in order to be effective. So if they are in the projector, they would be noted in the manual....right??? The only air filter that I can find in the manual is the "regular" external one listed on page 46.

Dust blobs are a complete dealbreaker for me. I've never seen one with my Panny 700, 100 or current 200.

If you can, ask your contacts at Panny for more info on these internal filters as to their cleaning and/or replacement cost. Thanks again for the info.

http://panasonic.net/avc/projector/manual/

If you can, ask your contacts at Panny for more info on these internal filters as to their cleaning and/or replacement cost. Thanks again for the info.

If there is additional inside filtering (and I'm sure there is if Danial says so) they won't need any cleaning or replacement. These filter nets would serve only as a secondary dust blocking precaution to trap the very small amount of dust that sometimes pass through the primary filter.

I have a suggestion for you folks.......... why use a 2.35 screen with a "smaller" window for 16x9 programming when you could just buy a 16x9 screen the same width as the 2.35 you were considering??

Then when you watch your movies you will have the exact same image as you would have had with the 2.35... but when you watch sports or play Halo.... you will have a really impressive image!

Now you will have black bars above and below the image... but so what... you still have the black bars with the zoom 2.35 method... they just happen to be off screen.

Does having a black screen above and below the movie really "bother" you so much you would sacrifice the capabilities of a really big 16x9 image just to pretend they are not there???

Did you ever see a cinema that had a larger 16:9 (1.85) than the 2.35 (scope) ?
Movies were never intended to look that way!
Or without black masking.

We maynot all be able to have the luxury of movable masking, but I defy anyone to say a movie theatre without black masking looks better than with masking :rolleyes:

"We maynot all be able to have the luxury of movable masking, but I defy anyone to say a movie theatre without black masking looks better than with masking "
..............................

How about no black bars for both 185 and 2:35 on a 2:35 scope screen.
Everything you watch can be scope:) (except 4x3 material). This can be done with a scaler and I find myself doing it more and more. No additional masking is needed using DVDO's sllick "Panorama" feature.

"We maynot all be able to have the luxury of movable masking, but I defy anyone to say a movie theatre without black masking looks better than with masking "
..............................

How about no black bars for both 185 and 2:35 on a 2:35 scope screen.
Everything you watch can be scope:) (except 4x3 material). This can be done with a scaler and I find myself doing it more and more. No additional masking is needed using DVDO's sllick "Panorama" feature.

Yes maybe a nice idea for some, but I still would rather see a movie in its true aspect ratio the way the director intended it to be.

I have a suggestion for you folks.......... why use a 2.35 screen with a "smaller" window for 16x9 programming when you could just buy a 16x9 screen the same width as the 2.35 you were considering??

Then when you watch your movies you will have the exact same image as you would have had with the 2.35... but when you watch sports or play Halo.... you will have a really impressive image!

Now you will have black bars above and below the image... but so what... you still have the black bars with the zoom 2.35 method... they just happen to be off screen.

Does having a black screen above and below the movie really "bother" you so much you would sacrifice the capabilities of a really big 16x9 image just to pretend they are not there???I ordered a custom 2:21 screen specifically to have the width I wanted for movies and the height I wanted for 16x9. Gaming past a certain size is detrimental to my play and I don't like watching most TV overly large either, but I want my movies big.

Having black bars on the top and bottom for 16x9 material definitely helps, but even better is having black bars on the top, left and right during widescreen movies.

"We maynot all be able to have the luxury of movable masking, but I defy anyone to say a movie theatre without black masking looks better than with masking "
..............................

How about no black bars for both 185 and 2:35 on a 2:35 scope screen.
Everything you watch can be scope:) (except 4x3 material). This can be done with a scaler and I find myself doing it more and more. No additional masking is needed using DVDO's sllick "Panorama" feature.

So everything looks like a Botero (http://karaart.com/botero/works1.html) painting? :p

ted

So everything looks like a Botero (http://karaart.com/botero/works1.html) painting? :p

ted

HA !! Now where is that guy who said your slipping ? :)

I have a suggestion for you folks.......... why use a 2.35 screen with a "smaller" window for 16x9 programming when you could just buy a 16x9 screen the same width as the 2.35 you were considering??

Then when you watch your movies you will have the exact same image as you would have had with the 2.35... but when you watch sports or play Halo.... you will have a really impressive image!

Now you will have black bars above and below the image... but so what... you still have the black bars with the zoom 2.35 method... they just happen to be off screen.

Does having a black screen above and below the movie really "bother" you so much you would sacrifice the capabilities of a really big 16x9 image just to pretend they are not there???


And you just described a constant width setup. In a nutshell, yes, there are people that prefer constant height over constant width. As in a movie theater, 2.35 scope movies should be bigger (wider) than 1.85 (approx. 16x9).

Some people prefer a bigger 16x9 image. I prefer a bigger 2.35:1 image, in spite of the small resolution loss from the black bars.

On another note, I cannot stand the black bars for high quality home cinema without at least masking.

EDIT- Also, it is picture height, not width, that gives us the greatest sense of wonder. (see IMAX). With a constant height setup, I can watch both formats at the same maximum height available for my seating distance or maximum size based on visual acuity.

EDIT 2- Another thought- I don't use my theater for television, as HDTV as proccessed, compressed, re-compressed etc, that arrives finally in my home is a less than pleasant experience on the big screen. Save that for a plasma or LCD. Also, I don't play games. My primary purpose is movies, and re-creating the cinema at home. If your priorities include gaming, watching a lot of sports and TV programming in a very "multi-media setting, then it is very possible that a constant height system is not for you.

"Also, it is picture height, not width, that gives us the greatest sense of wonder."

I agree.

With a taller image hings are bigger; with a wider image you just see more of the smaller things.

With a taller image things are bigger; with a wider image you just see more of the smaller things.

With a wider picture you actually see "more" of everything..you can fit a lot more in width than in height which is why the majority of films are shot in 2.35:1 and not 1.85:1.

Widest movie ever shot I believe was 2.89:1 How The West Was Won...a great movie I may add & winner of 3 oscars...Imagine how much info would be missing if they shot it in 1.85:1?

With height alone the director is limited to what he wants us to see but unlimited with width as he has the option to go as wide as need be.

A true movie buff needs to see more on the screen & that can't be done with 1.85:1 films hence the majority of the best movies to date carry a 2.35:1 ratio or higher.

Just my professional opinion :)

With a wider picture you actually see "more" of everything..you can fit a lot more in width than in height which is why the majority of films are shot in 2.35:1 and not 1.85:1.

Widest movie ever shot I believe was 2.89:1 How The West Was Won...a great movie I may add & winner of 3 oscars...Imagine how much info would be missing if they shot it in 1.85:1?

With height alone the director is limited to what he wants us to see but unlimited with width as he has the option to go as wide as need be.

A true movie buff needs to see more on the screen & that can't be done with 1.85:1 films hence the majority of the best movies to date carry a 2.35:1 ratio or higher.

Just my professional opinion :)

Agreed that width is definitely important, too.

Shrinking the height but maintaining the same width, ala a constant width setup, for 2.xx:1 content is very anticlimatic though. The height is so important to our sense of immersion.

With a wider picture you actually see "more" of everything..you can fit a lot more in width than in height which is why the majority of films are shot in 2.35:1 and not 1.85:1.

Widest movie ever shot I believe was 2.89:1 How The West Was Won...a great movie I may add & winner of 3 oscars...Imagine how much info would be missing if they shot it in 1.85:1?

With height alone the director is limited to what he wants us to see but unlimited with width as he has the option to go as wide as need be.

A true movie buff needs to see more on the screen & that can't be done with 1.85:1 films hence the majority of the best movies to date carry a 2.35:1 ratio or higher.

Just my professional opinion :)

There are many great films that were made prior to the Hollywood 1.85 and 2.35 era. The ratio doesn't have anything to do whether a film is good or not. Hence, the statement that "the majority of the best movies to date carry a 2.35:1 ratio or higher", is rather dubious. Sure, I have a 2.35 screen and I love that ratio, but I like great films in any ratio. 1.33 (1.37) is fine with me. Take a look at Casablanca or Adventures of Robin Hood on HD DVD or BR. I also think the composition of single person close-ups is at its best in 1.37. Some of the old films from the 1930s and 1940s have fantastic lighting and composition. Many close-ups from these films are still unmatched by modern cinema.

I think you miss my point.....

If you have a 10' 2.35 screen... it is 120" x 51."

If you have a 10' 1.78 screen it is 120" x 68." If you watch the same movie on both screens... the image on the 16x9 screen will still be 120" x 51," you will be watching the exact same size image..... the movie will have just as much "impact" as it is the same size whether it is viewed on the 16x9 screen or the 2.35 screen.

The reason folks "seem" to be more wow'd by a 2.35 screen is that when you see them advertised they always have a 2.35 screen that is much wider than the 16x9 screen thereby giving it a more impressive appearance. If you use a 16x9 screen that would be the same width as the 2.35 screen you desire/have then you would be watching the exact same image.

The only drawback is now if you are bothered by black bars (personally I am not as they just blend into the wall for me), you will need to find a way to "mask" the screen when you watch a 2.35 movie.

The benefit (for those of us that watch more than movies) is that when you use your theater for TV, Sports, Games, etc then the image you view is Huge and really really impressive and immerse!

Of course each of us need to pick the screen that fits our needs/wants the best. It is just that I am constantly amazed that so many people seem to think that 2.35 is so wonderful.... when you can easily have the same image by simply buying a larger 16x9 screen.

Does anyone think we are starting to get a bit off topic regarding the 3000?:rolleyes:

The benefit (for those of us that watch more than movies) is that when you use your theater for TV, Sports, Games, etc then the image you view is Huge and really really impressive and immersePersonally, I like my 16x9 image slightly higher than my 2.35:1 image. Too big, and you can't see everything at once. In sports and games and the like, I want to feel like I'm seeing everything without darting my eyes around the screen too much.

With 2.35:1, it needs to be a bit too wide to watch all at once to have the height that makes it feel movie sized.

I've heard people suggest 2.05 or so screens for consistent image size (the 2.35:1 movies are wider and the 16x9 is taller, but the total image area size stays consistent), but I like "bigger" movies than 16x9 games, sports and TV. That's why I went with a 2.22 screen. And that kind of non-standard screen size makes the adjustability of lens memory in the AE3000 that much more useful.

(Then again, with the projector sitting next to me, I'm still somewhat leaning towards the Epson TW4000 [6500]. I can reach over and adjust things on my Z3 while sitting down, why not do the same for my next projector if the Epson is cheaper with arguably better performance?)
Does anyone think we are starting to get a bit off topic regarding the 3000?:rolleyes:At least the talk about aspect ratio is relevant...lens memory seems to be one of the key features that's got people excited about the AE3000.:)

At least the talk about aspect ratio is relevant...lens memory seems to be one of the key features that's got people excited about the AE3000.:) The AE3000 has "three only" memories for aspect ratio and that's all you can do with it. No matter how many aspect ratios there are out there, or how many you might like to save, it will never memorise them all.

The AE3000 has "three only" memories for aspect ratio and that's all you can do with it. No matter how many aspect ratios there are out there, or how many you might like to save, it will never memorise them all.Right, but they're user programmable. For me, I'd probably have 2.35:1, 2.20:1 and 16x9, and if necessary, could tweak whichever of those I needed to get the picture size/placement I want. (With the screen space under my 2.23 screen, I'd basically have a setting for maximum screen width (2.35), maximum screen height (16x9), and 2.20...I think that'd cover most everything.)

One thing I'm not so excited about with the AE3000 is that the AE2000 is kind of a pain to focus and zoom, I much prefer the quick manual focus and zoom on my Z3. If lens memory works as well as it could, and my 2.35 discs are consistant enough to just need a tiny tweak of the manual horizontal shift, it may be complete non-issue. I'm curious to see how focus and zoom work in practice with the new Epsons (specifically the TW4000).

Edit: Maybe there are only three settings so they can "double" the number of lens memory settings next year? That'd be pretty evil...I think there are only three settings because they probably (possibly incorrectly) thought that three settings will be sufficient for the AE3000 target market.

The AE3000 has "three only" memories for aspect ratio and that's all you can do with it. No matter how many aspect ratios there are out there, or how many you might like to save, it will never memorise them all.

But you wouldn't really need more:

1 for maximum width (2.40:1), 1 for maximum height (16:9;everything less wide than 16:9 will be maximum height also) plus maybe one zoomed out a little for movies with subs in the black bars (if you need them).

But you wouldn't really need more:

1 for maximum width (2.40:1), 1 for maximum height (16:9;everything less wide than 16:9 will be maximum height also) plus maybe one zoomed out a little for movies with subs in the black bars (if you need them).

I think some on here might:D

JimmyR,

In no way am I questioning Daniel's honesty. Its Panny's honesty that I have doubts about based on the fact that the filters aren't mentioned/noted in the manual. And this is from a Panny fanboy.

While the main filter will block most of the dust, these additional filters would need to be cleaned/replaced at some point, IMO. I've read about the problems that owners of the 2k are having with dust blobs. I won't spend my $$$ on a product that has a history of problems. Who needs the angst ??? I had enough of that with the iris problems that I had with the Panny 100.

I need to be sure that there won't be any dust blob problems with the 3k. Otherwise, I''ll cross it off of my short list.

This is why I've asked Daniel to post some more info on the filters.

It is just that I am constantly amazed that so many people seem to think that 2.35 is so wonderful.... when you can easily have the same image by simply buying a larger 16x9 screen.

I think this is the point that you are missing - not everyone can just buy a taller screen because of their room limitations. In fact, in a room with 8' or 9' ceilings, which are very common, one cannot go taller without moving the screen lower to the floor than is recommended. In fact, at 120" wide, a 16:9 screen is a bit over 5' 7" tall. Now, putting the screen 4' off the floor means you must have greater than a 9.5' ceiling and that is if the edge of the screen were to butt up against the ceiling itself (i.e., no masking). If you factor in screen border and any sort of masking system, you are realistically looking at an 11' ceiling. This is pretty uncommon unless you have a custom designed theater created when your house is built, or you are using a converted living or family room in the primary space.

Now, going with a wider screen does not present the same issues as the majority of rooms are at least 10' wide on the screen wall, and probably more so. I'm not saying your point about the image size is wrong in your example, I'm just saying that your example has a limited number of situations in which it will work. The other point is that most of us would require a horizontal masking system in that situation as even the much vaunted, yet to be released, RS20 is still reported to have black bars that are visible. Since these bars are projecting on the screen surface, rather than masking in your scenario, they do not disappear for many of us.

^^ This is exactly why I went with CIH; so at least I can get the most out of scope movies.

I think this is the point that you are missing - not everyone can just buy a taller screen because of their room limitations. In fact, in a room with 8' or 9' ceilings, which are very common, one cannot go taller without moving the screen lower to the floor than is recommended. In fact, at 120" wide, a 16:9 screen is a bit over 5' 7" tall. Now, putting the screen 4' off the floor means you must have greater than a 9.5' ceiling and that is if the edge of the screen were to butt up against the ceiling itself (i.e., no masking). If you factor in screen border and any sort of masking system, you are realistically looking at an 11' ceiling. This is pretty uncommon unless you have a custom designed theater created when your house is built, or you are using a converted living or family room in the primary space.

Now, going with a wider screen does not present the same issues as the majority of rooms are at least 10' wide on the screen wall, and probably more so. I'm not saying your point about the image size is wrong in your example, I'm just saying that your example has a limited number of situations in which it will work. The other point is that most of us would require a horizontal masking system in that situation as even the much vaunted, yet to be released, RS20 is still reported to have black bars that are visible. Since these bars are projecting on the screen surface, rather than masking in your scenario, they do not disappear for many of us.

Yes the memory zoom feature of the 3000 is certainly one of the sales points on the Panny. Sorry I do not mean to drive this conversation off-topic (actually it was already there before I chirped in), but until there is some "real" reviews and experience with the 3000 all we can do is talk about topics related to the 3000 and its capabilities.

Nothing is "perfect" in every situation.

Personally I have a 10' ceiling and I would not want the image 4' off the floor...... I believe the recommended height is to have 1/3rd of the image below your seated eye level. Seated eye level for the average adult is ~39", so in your example of a 67" high screen you would want 22" of the screen below I level so the bottom of the screen should be 17" off the floor, not 48." This would place the top of the screen (assuming a 4" border) at 88" above the floor or 8" below the ceiling in a room with an 8' ceiling.

Now in my son's case he has a theater with 8' ceilings and is using a 150" diag. 16x9 screen (just had to be bigger than dad's you know) and it is fantastic. He has two rows of seating with the second row raised ~10" above the first. The only screens I have seen that are more impressive than his are the same size or larger and curved.

I suppose the folks that are excited about the whole 2.35 screen must just be a lot more sensitive to the black bars than I am. I am sure the bars are not perfectly black... however at least for me I do not seem to notice them when watching movies and my theater is in the basement where it can be a "bat-cave" if desired. So I my own lack of awareness may be my saving grace :-).

I suppose the folks that are excited about the whole 2.35 screen must just be a lot more sensitive to the black bars than I am.
It's not about black bars. It's about seeing the movies at the correct viewing angle. In real cinema a 2.35:1 movie is *bigger* than a 1.78:1 movie. Now if you have a 16x9 screen, in your case it's vice versa. That means that you're sitting too close for 1.78:1 movies - or too far away for 2.35:1 movies. Maybe you don't mind. But I do. I want 2.35:1 movies to appear bigger in my home theater compared to 1.78:1 movies. Because that's the way it is in cinema. Because that's the way it's supposed to be. And because only that way I have the correct viewing angle for both 1.78:1 and 2.35:1 movies. Black bars have nothing to do that with, cause for true movie enjoyment good masking should be applied, anyway...

Now, putting the screen 4' off the floor means you must have greater than a 9.5' ceiling and that is if the edge of the screen were to butt up against the ceiling itself (i.e., no masking).

Why would you place a screen so high? For the front row, a screen height of 1/3 the screen height is recommended to be *below* the eyeline for good ergonomics. In my case I've a 54 in high 2.35 screen and my eyes are at about 40 inches off the floor which means that 18 inches of the screen is below that point. In other words my screen would be 22 inches off the floor. In fact its more like 18 because I sit close and I find that this allows for a more comforatble viewing experience since I don't recline much and hate looking up.

For me height is the determinant of what is pleasing aesthetically and 54 inches is where this becomes cinematic rather than a big TV (no matter how close I sit) - for others it is likely to be different. It is why I determined that measure first and calculated the width from there. For me width is the problem thus I compromised with a variation on a Constant Area setup - maxing out the width to my tolerance for geometry errors.

Oddly enough, though I've been using 2.35 since I became involved in digitals I watch mostly 4:3 to 1.85 as my tastes lean towards foreign, "arthouse/repertory" and "classic" cinema which usually don't come in with the budgets that 2.35 requires. Anyone who limits themselves to a specific ratio cares more about the technology or the "sensation" than they do about the art in my view.

ted

If there is additional inside filtering (and I'm sure there is if Danial says so) they won't need any cleaning or replacement. These filter nets would serve only as a secondary dust blocking precaution to trap the very small amount of dust that sometimes pass through the primary filter.

Its not like they opened a projector for me to see the additional filters, but since they knew of the issue and it seems like what they added to the projector to stop the dust wasnt revolutionary , I tend to believe they made the extra effort to stop the problem. The other cool thing about the Panasonic guys at this demo is that its not only their marketing guys that show up, but they always bring 1-2 engineers that design these projectors and I would typically trust what they have to say over the marketing guys.

Did they guarantee that you couldnt get any more dust blubs, no, but they said they felt comfortable that the issue should now be resolved. That is s what I like about the Panasonic guys I deal with, they seem real and while they hype their stuff like everyone else, they dont seem to be annoying about it

^^ This is exactly why I went with CIH; so at least I can get the most out of scope movies.

yes, I agree. constant hight provides largest maximum screen area in most homes. It's a no brainer Most walls are wider than they are tall. plus you need some space for masking above and below and room for the front speaker (and subwoofer in my case) under the screen. I don't think people woudl like watching if the picture took up the entire wall floor to ceiling.

I probably will not use more than 3 settings- 2 most likely although I could see why some folks may want more. I think I'm going to love this feature.

No, I didn't miss your point. My needs and wants for my theater are different than yours, and I clearly explained why.

You prefer a constant width setup, I prefer constant height. Chocolate, Vanilla. There is no wrong answer.

I think you miss my point.....

If you have a 10' 2.35 screen... it is 120" x 51."

If you have a 10' 1.78 screen it is 120" x 68." If you watch the same movie on both screens... the image on the 16x9 screen will still be 120" x 51," you will be watching the exact same size image..... the movie will have just as much "impact" as it is the same size whether it is viewed on the 16x9 screen or the 2.35 screen.

The reason folks "seem" to be more wow'd by a 2.35 screen is that when you see them advertised they always have a 2.35 screen that is much wider than the 16x9 screen thereby giving it a more impressive appearance. If you use a 16x9 screen that would be the same width as the 2.35 screen you desire/have then you would be watching the exact same image.

The only drawback is now if you are bothered by black bars (personally I am not as they just blend into the wall for me), you will need to find a way to "mask" the screen when you watch a 2.35 movie.

The benefit (for those of us that watch more than movies) is that when you use your theater for TV, Sports, Games, etc then the image you view is Huge and really really impressive and immerse!

Of course each of us need to pick the screen that fits our needs/wants the best. It is just that I am constantly amazed that so many people seem to think that 2.35 is so wonderful.... when you can easily have the same image by simply buying a larger 16x9 screen.

I think you miss my point.....

If you have a 10' 2.35 screen... it is 120" x 51."

If you have a 10' 1.78 screen it is 120" x 68." If you watch the same movie on both screens... the image on the 16x9 screen will still be 120" x 51," you will be watching the exact same size image..... the movie will have just as much "impact" as it is the same size whether it is viewed on the 16x9 screen or the 2.35 screen.

The reason folks "seem" to be more wow'd by a 2.35 screen is that when you see them advertised they always have a 2.35 screen that is much wider than the 16x9 screen thereby giving it a more impressive appearance. If you use a 16x9 screen that would be the same width as the 2.35 screen you desire/have then you would be watching the exact same image.

The only drawback is now if you are bothered by black bars (personally I am not as they just blend into the wall for me), you will need to find a way to "mask" the screen when you watch a 2.35 movie.

The benefit (for those of us that watch more than movies) is that when you use your theater for TV, Sports, Games, etc then the image you view is Huge and really really impressive and immerse!

Of course each of us need to pick the screen that fits our needs/wants the best. It is just that I am constantly amazed that so many people seem to think that 2.35 is so wonderful.... when you can easily have the same image by simply buying a larger 16x9 screen.

There is one more drawback - 2.35 movies which are supposed to look bigger and more impressive than 1.85 movies, look less impressive on a constant width setup.

On a 1.85 movie a closeup of a persons face will be a lot bigger than the same closeup on a 2.35 movie if you are watching it on a 16x9 screen.

On a 2.35 screen that closeup will be the same size no matter if the movie is 1.85 or 2.35.

There is one more drawback - 2.35 movies which are supposed to look bigger and more impressive than 1.85 movies, look less impressive on a constant width setup.

On a 1.85 movie a closeup of a persons face will be a lot bigger than the same closeup on a 2.35 movie if you are watching it on a 16x9 screen.

On a 2.35 screen that closeup will be the same size no matter if the movie is 1.85 or 2.35.

I have to say that is the dummest statement yet on this forum.On my 110in 16.9 screen 2.35 look way more impressive than 1.78.Everyone who has come onto theather agrees.I keep my screen mask at 2.35 90% of the time so most do not even know what is behind the mask.Also most average homes to not have the room to do a constant heights screen.If I had a 2.35 as tall as my 16.9 screen it would extend pass both walls.:rolleyes:

I've read about the problems that owners of the 2k are having with dust blobs. I won't spend my $$$ on a product that has a history of problems. Who needs the angst ??? I had enough of that with the iris problems that I had with the Panny 100.

I need to be sure that there won't be any dust blob problems with the 3k. Otherwise, I''ll cross it off of my short list.


What about those, like myself, who haven't had any dust blob issues?

Go into any projector specific thread in this section, and you will hear how bad that specific PJ is. I wouldn't even have a PJ if I based my purchase decisions on a few other people's problems.

Art

Daniel,

Thanks for providing the review!!

I was wondering, based on your observations, what (if any) single chip DLP based pj's projected an image equal to or greater than the panny 3000?

I prefer the "pop" that DLP delivers but I like the brightness that Panny brings to the table. I have seen the Panny 2000 and almost pulled the trigger but the fear of dust blobs held me back.

I have a suggestion for you folks.......... why use a 2.35 screen with a "smaller" window for 16x9 programming when you could just buy a 16x9 screen the same width as the 2.35 you were considering??

Then when you watch your movies you will have the exact same image as you would have had with the 2.35... but when you watch sports or play Halo.... you will have a really impressive image!

Now you will have black bars above and below the image... but so what... you still have the black bars with the zoom 2.35 method... they just happen to be off screen.

Does having a black screen above and below the movie really "bother" you so much you would sacrifice the capabilities of a really big 16x9 image just to pretend they are not there???

A lot of people think just what you wrote. However, it somewhat misses the "point" of CIH and misses some pertinent factors.

If you want to go for sheer image size all the time, then yes buying the biggest 16:9 screen you can (providing you have the height) is the way to go.

But here is what lot of people miss about the rational for a CIH set up:
The phenomenon of Relative Impact.

If someone thinks this "If I have a choice between a 115" wide 2:35:1 CIH screen or the same width 16:9 screen, I may as well get the 16:9 because the 2:35:1 films will have the same size anyway and therefore the same impact."

That would be wrong.

One of the main issues for people who desire a CIH set up is how CinemaScope movies have less relative impact compared to their 1:85:1 films, when it's supposed to be the other way around. This isn't simply an issue about sheer image size. Think about it: you have a certain screen size that seems "big" and immersive to you. You go to a friend's house who has a way bigger screen and get used to that image size. You come home fire up your set up and...guess what? Suddenly your screen which felt "big" is going to feel smaller, compared to what you just got used to at your friend's place. It is an inescapable fact of our perception that happens with contrasts.

And this is what happens when you project movies of various aspect ratios on a single size screen: in constantly switching between aspect ratios you are constantly getting the "contrast effect" of the relative impact of one aspect ratio against another. 2:35:1 "seems" small on a 16:9 screen only because you are comparing it to the BIGGER 16:9 image . So naturally the 2:35:1 image feels small compared.

The SAME thing occurs NO MATTER what image size you choose. You are going to have a difference in relative impact as you keep comparing aspect ratios on the same screen size. If you have an even more massive 16:9 screen, then 2:35:1 movies will still produce a drop in impact, perceptually, because you are switching between it and a much larger 16:9 image. You can't escape it.

What one is doing in going CIH is essentially choosing the compromise, in terms of relative impact - choosing which aspect ratio you think ought to feel more impressive and immersive. CIH folks tend to believe CinemaScope widescreen should be the aspect ratio with a larger relative impact. Switching from the narrower 16:9 to CinemaScope on a CIH set up produces a "wow" feeling of drama that would not occur in a Constant Width set up of the same width. At the same time the reverse effect will happen - 16:9 content will be reduced in relative impact. Again, it's an aesthetic choice as to which AR to want to maximise the impact for.

That...and the "black bars" issue. Removing the not-really-black bars IS a major aesthetic issue for lots of people. Sure it's something you can ignore, but it NEVER looks better. If you see an image perfectly mapped on to a screen with no black bars, or perfectly masked with black masking (so no black bars) there will be no question which looks better.

The combo of these issues, not to mention that most of us feel even a 2:35:1 screen in of itself has a cooler, more cinematic vibe, makes CIH set ups compelling for many people.

It seems most people become "believers" once they've seen a CIH set up done really well.

A lot of people think just what you wrote. However, it somewhat misses the "point" of CIH and misses some pertinent factors.

If you want to go for sheer image size all the time, then yes buying the biggest 16:9 screen you can (providing you have the height) is the way to go.

But here is what lot of people miss about the rational for a CIH set up:
The phenomenon of Relative Impact.

If someone thinks this "If I have a choice between a 115" wide 2:35:1 CIH screen or the same width 16:9 screen, I may as well get the 16:9 because the 2:35:1 films will have the same size anyway and therefore the same impact."

That would be wrong.

One of the main issues for people who desire a CIH set up is how CinemaScope movies have less relative impact compared to their 1:85:1 films, when it's supposed to be the other way around. This isn't simply an issue about sheer image size. Think about it: you have a certain screen size that seems "big" and immersive to you. You go to a friend's house who has a way bigger screen and get used to that image size. You come home fire up your set up and...guess what? Suddenly your screen which felt "big" is going to feel smaller, compared to what you just got used to at your friend's place. It is an inescapable fact of our perception that happens with contrasts.

And this is what happens when you project movies of various aspect ratios on a single size screen: in constantly switching between aspect ratios you are constantly getting the "contrast effect" of the relative impact of one aspect ratio against another. 2:35:1 "seems" small on a 16:9 screen only because you are comparing it to the BIGGER 16:9 image . So naturally the 2:35:1 image feels small compared.

The SAME thing occurs NO MATTER what image size you choose. You are going to have a difference in relative impact as you keep comparing aspect ratios on the same screen size. If you have an even more massive 16:9 screen, then 2:35:1 movies will still produce a drop in impact, perceptually, because you are switching between it and a much larger 16:9 image. You can't escape it.

What one is doing in going CIH is essentially choosing the compromise, in terms of relative impact - choosing which aspect ratio you think ought to feel more impressive and immersive. CIH folks tend to believe CinemaScope widescreen should be the aspect ratio with a larger relative impact. Switching from the narrower 16:9 to CinemaScope on a CIH set up produces a "wow" feeling of drama that would not occur in a Constant Width set up of the same width. At the same time the reverse effect will happen - 16:9 content will be reduced in relative impact. Again, it's an aesthetic choice as to which AR to want to maximise the impact for.

That...and the "black bars" issue. Removing the not-really-black bars IS a major aesthetic issue for lots of people. Sure it's something you can ignore, but it NEVER looks better. If you see an image perfectly mapped on to a screen with no black bars, or perfectly masked with black masking (so no black bars) there will be no question which looks better.

The combo of these issues, not to mention that most of us feel even a 2:35:1 screen in of itself has a cooler, more cinematic vibe, makes CIH set ups compelling for many people.

It seems most people become "believers" once they've seen a CIH set up done really well.

Rich thank you for that response...... I have never heard the argument from that direction and you do make a very plausible case for creating an environment where the 2.35 movie will have more visual impact than a Sunday Football game. So we are basically talking Psychology rather than Physics. :D

I do realize the black bars are much more of an "issue" to many folks than they are me, although even with a CIH setup you have black bars... they are just on the side's instead of top and bottom.

I will grant you though that if you are willing to spend the time and money to build "masking" into your HT that masking from the sides is easier than masking the top and bottom of the screen.

Personally I have not yet spent the money for masking, although I have always thought it added a great deal of class to the presentation.

My confusion over folks excitement with CIH however was not helped even though I have viewed a really terrific CIH demonstration.... I had the opportunity to attend the Stewart Dealer Training where I had the chance to learn more about screens than I had ever realized I did not know!! :D

If my personal checkbook would allow the purchase of one of Stewart's "Scope" screens with the side masking I too would belong to your "club!" They are truly works of art.

Thanks again Rich for helping me to understand why this has such appeal to many folks.... I was always stuck on the Physics and never considered the Psychology aspects of the presentation.

Although this is indeed a bit off-topic, the issue of CIH is interesting.

One thing that comes to mind is how ours visual system (eyes + brain) works. Although our eyes have a circular image projected onto the retina and transmitted to the brain, we are programmed to pay attention to our horizon (center, left, right, including our peripheral vision at the extremes) more than above or below. Theory is (as far as I understand) that's because threats and potential prey approach from the plains of the savanna (where we evolved), and we are sensitized in those parts of our vision. And a 2.35 movie does a better job of wrapping around our vision that 16:9 in a CIH set-up.

Director's can only film a close-up so big, since heads are roughly 1:1, so the value of the 2.35 (or wider) films is for wide-view scenes: gunfights, barren landscapes, car chases and whatnot. Casablanca doesn't really have any of those - it's a character-driven movie - so the 4:3 ratio works quite well. The Matrix probably works better in 1.78 than 2.35 because it isn't really "vista" oriented - the action is as much up/down as it is sideways.

So...I guess I'm saying that CIH works maybe because the directors really are pushing out the sides of the view, not squishing down the top and bottom, when they frame for 2.35 vs 1.78 or 1.33. Yeah, some frame for 1.78 or 1.85 and then close down the matte for a 2.35 theatrical release, but open up the matte for home video - whether one or the other is the director's "intent" is probably endlessly debatable (even if the director chimed in!).

IMHO, YMMV, AFAIK, blah blah,

shinksma

I have to say that is the dummest statement yet on this forum.On my 110in 16.9 screen 2.35 look way more impressive than 1.78.Everyone who has come onto theather agrees.I keep my screen mask at 2.35 90% of the time so most do not even know what is behind the mask.Also most average homes to not have the room to do a constant heights screen.If I had a 2.35 as tall as my 16.9 screen it would extend pass both walls.:rolleyes:


I'm sure 2.35 movies are impressive on your 16x9 screen. Especially if you keep it masked all the time. My point is if you have a movie marathon and watch "Weekend at Bernies" first and then "Lord of the Rings" - Lord of the Rings is gonna look small by comparison.

You can do a constant height setup in any room, it would just make the 16x9 portion of the screen smaller than you are used to. Maybe you would have to move your seat a little closer to the screen.

Although this is indeed a bit off-topic, the issue of CIH is interesting.

One thing that comes to mind is how ours visual system (eyes + brain) works. Although our eyes have a circular image projected onto the retina and transmitted to the brain, we are programmed to pay attention to our horizon (center, left, right, including our peripheral vision at the extremes) more than above or below. Theory is (as far as I understand) that's because threats and potential prey approach from the plains of the savanna (where we evolved), and we are sensitized in those parts of our vision. And a 2.35 movie does a better job of wrapping around our vision that 16:9 in a CIH set-up.



Just a note: our horizontal, peripheral, stereoscopic visions is often adduced as a reason by CIH devotees as to why the wider aspect ratio works better, or feels more comfortable than a taller image. Aesthetically, CinemaScope is my favorite AR. However, I've done lots of experiments on my own and find that it isn't the specific AR that makes the difference in a natural, immersive, comfortable feel. It's more the screen area. I can be very comfortable with an extremely tall 4:3 or 16:9 image. But a 2:35:1 image of the same height can feel much too big. The taller 16:9 image matching a similar square footage of screen area of the wider/shorter 2:35:1 image.

As for our field of vision, it's actually fairly circular...but due to our horizontally placed two eyes, a bit wider than tall in terms of total vision including peripheral vision. However, the area of strongest visual acuity and immediate strongest visual perception is a narrower circle within that larger circle, and it's actually a bit taller than it is wider. Imagine a sort of almost egg shape, placed sideways, representing our entire field of vision. Then take another (sort of) egg shape and place it vertically, upright, within the centre of our field of vision. THAT vertical egg shape represents the field of (non-peripheral) acuity. So it could be argued a taller, narrower image is more natural, or pertinent to our vision than a very wide one. (Think some IMAX screens).

this thread needs moderation.

... mobile eye?
does anyone have anything to say that's pertinent to the ae 3000?

this thread needs moderation.

... mobile eye?
does anyone have anything to say that's pertinent to the ae 3000?
done

this thread needs moderation.

... mobile eye?
does anyone have anything to say that's pertinent to the ae 3000?

At this point No One actually knows anything pertinent to the AE3000.

But we are certainly all ears if you have some you would like to share! :D:D

i have the marantz 11s2 for now, but the ae 3000 has caught my eye. i keep looking at all the threads for info. info seems like a needle in a hay stack.
previous years before and after the meetings there would be all types of information and viewings, why is this year so different?

i have the marantz 11s2 for now, but the ae 3000 has caught my eye. i keep looking at all the threads for info. info seems like a needle in a hay stack.
previous years before and after the meetings there would be all types of information and viewings, why is this year so different?

No one seems to own one yet thats why:rolleyes:

Daniel,

Thanks for providing the review!!

I was wondering, based on your observations, what (if any) single chip DLP based pj's projected an image equal to or greater than the panny 3000?

I prefer the "pop" that DLP delivers but I like the brightness that Panny brings to the table. I have seen the Panny 2000 and almost pulled the trigger but the fear of dust blobs held me back.

I have always found DLP to be the sharpest of all the technologies. Thats my opinion I have no idea if thats true or not. Some may say that they can be too sharp.

The Panny does a very nice job however. I have seen the Panny and have a JVC and they arent to far off each other

I have always found DLP to be the sharpest of all the technologies. Thats my opinion I have no idea if thats true or not. Some may say that they can be too sharp.

The Panny does a very nice job however. I have seen the Panny and have a JVC and they aren't to far off each other

Daniel remind us all again of the list of projectors you have owned previously or have spent considerable time with.

I think that might help give folks a little more perspective.

I owed the JVC G11 and the RS1. I owned the Dwin TV1. I have had at my house courtesy of Panasonic, the AE2000, AE-900 and AE-700. I spent a considerable amount of time with JVC first 1080p projector (i cant think of the name right now)

I have spend many hours with the Ruby and the Pearl at a friends house, I go to most of the shows every year and spend time with all of the DLPs out there. Spent considerable time with the Marantz projectors. Spend alot of time with the Mits 5000

So if Daniel says this is a "Darn Good Looking" projector it means something.... at least to me!

Forgive the brief diversion but:

I have had at my house courtesy of Panasonic, the AE2000, AE-900 and AE-700.

Daniel I'm curious about something. My friend has the Panasonic AE700 which I borrowed a while back to test projector screen sizes in my home. Afterward I picked up a used AE900 on ebay to play with and continue figuring out how to do my eventual set up (in all likelihood with the JVC RS20).

I'm curious what kind of difference you saw between the AE700 and the AE900. From what I could find online about the AE900 some thought it put out a soft picture, even softer than the AE700. That's what I seem to see: I could swear the image seems less sharp than when I had my friend's AE700. As far as contrast differences, I don't seem to be noticing anything really much different (although I sometimes think the blacks probably look a bit better on the AE900).

?

Daniel,How much better do think the image of the AE-3000 is than the AE-900? Especially image depth and color uniformity.thank's JB

Where can I buy this in Europe?

I have to say that is the dummest statement yet on this forum.On my 110in 16.9 screen 2.35 look way more impressive than 1.78.Everyone who has come onto theather agrees.I keep my screen mask at 2.35 90% of the time so most do not even know what is behind the mask.Also most average homes to not have the room to do a constant heights screen.If I had a 2.35 as tall as my 16.9 screen it would extend pass both walls.:rolleyes:

I am certainly glad you don't set the standard. You also realize that thousands of people enjoy constant height for the reasons that you just called dumb.

I am certainly glad you don't set the standard. You also realize that thousands of people enjoy constant height for the reasons that you just called dumb.
I understand your point, but I do the same as buddahead. Some people are vertically challenged... they go with CIH. Some people like Buddahead and me are horizontally challenged... we go with 16:9. If I have room for a 10' wide screen and enough height for a 16:9 AR, why would I cut my screen down to 2.35? I just view 16:9 from the back row, 2.35 from the front and don't have to mess with a $4k anamorphic lens or fiddling with the "zoom" method. There's always a compromise between viewing from different rows. The "money" seat just changes. That's all. Oh, and the non-"money" seat changes from being "too far" to "too close".

In fact, though, I wasn't horizontally challenged with a 16' wide theater. It was more a placement of seating in a 22' deep theater. Anything wider than a 10' 2.35 image and the front row would have been too close.

EDIT: The whole seating distance calculus also included having the rear surrounds far enough behind the back row. The point is: it's all about what works in a given situation.

A 16x9 front projector screen equals a big television.
Seeing and having a 2.35 screen is "theater".

I have spoken :).

Darryl,

I believe you need to act upon this quickly to maintain your sanity and put the 11S2 up for sale!

Regards,

Larry

i have the marantz 11s2 for now, but the ae 3000 has caught my eye. i keep looking at all the threads for info. info seems like a needle in a hay stack.
previous years before and after the meetings there would be all types of information and viewings, why is this year so different?

Daniel,How much better do think the image of the AE-3000 is than the AE-900? Especially image depth and color uniformity.thank's JB

Well its the same difference between any other 1080p vs 720p projector. I think the AE-3000 is a much better projector and if you look at specs they are day and night. In real terms, there is a large improvement in picture and unlike differences between a lets say for example a 2008 and 2009 model where most of the differences are in improvements, I think the difference between the 900 and the 3000 is more of a giant step. However, that is true for all of the other manufacturers that went from 720p to 1080p

Daniel I'm curious about something. My friend has the Panasonic AE700 which I borrowed a while back to test projector screen sizes in my home. Afterward I picked up a used AE900 on ebay to play with and continue figuring out how to do my eventual set up (in all likelihood with the JVC RS20).

I'm curious what kind of difference you saw between the AE700 and the AE900. From what I could find online about the AE900 some thought it put out a soft picture, even softer than the AE700. That's what I seem to see: I could swear the image seems less sharp than when I had my friend's AE700. As far as contrast differences, I don't seem to be noticing anything really much different (although I sometimes think the blacks probably look a bit better on the AE900).

The year I got the Ae-900 to take home, I had a demo show for the Avs members and one of them brought along his AE-700. Both were connected to a JVC D-VHS machine and we went back and forth between them. If I remember correctly, because its been several years, some people in the group did think that the 900 was a look softer than the 700. We looked at all aspects of the picture and while the 900 may have been a little softer, the overall picture was still better in the 900. This whole issue of Smoothscreen softening the picture kind started with the 900

That's what I thought. Thanks Daniel.

Daniel

How do u think the panny 3000 would compare to a sharp z12000 720p dlp pj? I currently have the sharp and want to know if the jump would be noticable from that to the new panny. I am projecting it on a 118in diag. carada screen.

projectorcentral.com just posted their review. It seems like they REALLY like it.

Now if they'd just release the damn thing...

projectorcentral.com just posted their review. It seems like they REALLY like it.

Now if they'd just release the damn thing...

Yes, they think this will earn the editor's choice award for 1080p projectors. However, have they evaluated the Epson 6500 yet? I wonder which will be better.

projectorcentral.com just posted their review. It seems like they REALLY like it.

Now if they'd just release the damn thing...

I see a review of the Mitsubishi HC-7000, not the Panasonic AE-3000. Is that what you meant?

I see a review of the Mitsubishi HC-7000, not the Panasonic AE-3000. Is that what you meant?

check the projector reviews link/page

Here's the link:

http://www.projectorcentral.com/panasonic_ae3000_projector_review.htm

www.projectorcentral.com/panasonic_ae3000_projector_review.htm

Thanks jamis, bsntn99, Elkhunter! Jeez... why wouldn't they put something like that on their front page? At least an announcement.

It's on the front page now. :)

The Mistu 7000 review was on the projector reviews page for the better part of a day before i saw it on the front page.

It's on the front page now. :)

The Mistu 7000 review was on the projector reviews page for the better part of a day before i saw it on the front page.

Ha! Thanks! Mr. Impatient here... :)

I just have to say this. I've owned the Panasonic PT AE 3000 for less that a month and I have three dust blobs now. We do not, by any means, live in a very dusty environment, northern California, new condo very well climate controlled. I am very impressed with the projector over all but the dust blob issues are serious and real. In dark scenes they are very visible. I am so completely pissed off right now for spending this much money on a projector and having this sort of issue so soon. I have owned three projectors before this one and only one, very low end projector, had dust issues.

^^^

You might want to post this in the "Official AE3000 Owners Thread":

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1079806

The concern over dust blobs is real, and does make me hesitate between DLP and LCD, since DLPs use sealed optics. However, it might have been just bad luck for you, and maybe only affects 1 in 1000 people.

The problem with dust is that you can live in what appears to be a low-dust environment, but one or two bits of dust just need to get into the "right" spot and all of a sudden you have dust blobs.

shinksma

^^^

You might want to post this in the "Official AE3000 Owners Thread":

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1079806

The concern over dust blobs is real, and does make me hesitate between DLP and LCD, since DLPs use sealed optics. However, it might have been just bad luck for you, and maybe only affects 1 in 1000 people.

The problem with dust is that you can live in what appears to be a low-dust environment, but one or two bits of dust just need to get into the "right" spot and all of a sudden you have dust blobs.

shinksma

LCOS is pretty dust resistant too. Don't hear many issues (if at all) with JVC or Sony.

I admit, we could have just had a bad unit, although a dust issue would seem to be indicative of an over all design issue rather than a single bad unit with a manufacturing flaw, but I'll concede that it may just be a bad unit.

Mind you we used our previous projector, (a Panasonic PT-AE900U), extensively in the same location and same place where we installed this new projector for over 2 years with absolutely no issues what so ever.

So bad unit or not it would seem to be a gamble then. If the odds are 1 in a 1000 that you'll have this issue, well that's not too bad, unless you happen to be that 1 in the 1000.