OK, since I am the first to get my projector (see attachment for proof) I am starting this thread.

Just to be clear, I don't have the equipment or expertise of others, so I will just be giving my personal observations. I also need to spend some time with the projector, and time is very limited right now, so someone else will probably beat me to the critical observations.

Anyway, It is in the house, and I am comparing it directly to my RS20. :)

I´m looking forward to see your results

hhelmut

My initial impressions are very good. Blacks are on par with RS20, while bright scenes have tremendous depth and clarity. Very bright as is expected.

Downsides, typical cumbersome Sim2 Remote, menu's and Host implementation. Fan noise quite a bit more than I had expected, must have to do with the new cooling upgrades.

Where's Ash.. His was going in today.

My install is delayed as T3 units are not shipping yet.
Should be within next two weeks.
I will post once it is installed.
Ash

Free

Congratulations on the Lumis install!

Assume you have the T2? Surprising on the fan noise issue. Do you think it's as loud as the C3X 1080 or louder? Have you tried bulb at min and still have high output from the fan? Do you have an spl meter to measure the fan's spl output?

What hangups have you encountered with the HOST implementation?

Noticing your hushbox, what is it and are you having fireproof rated insulation inside the box?

My initial impressions are very good. Blacks are on par with RS20, while bright scenes have tremendous depth and clarity. Very bright as is expected.

Downsides, typical cumbersome Sim2 Remote, menu's and Host implementation. Fan noise quite a bit more than I had expected, must have to do with the new cooling upgrades.

Your comments on the picture quality mirror what I saw at CES. As for the fan noise, mine goes in a projector closet anyway.

Yes, spl reading from a measured distance would be fantastic. Unfortunately will be affected by the box, even with the front open.

My initial impressions are very good. Blacks are on par with RS20, while bright scenes have tremendous depth and clarity. Very bright as is expected.
.
So how do the black levels compare if you project a black field? How big is your screen? Is the Lumis not too bright or the RS20 too dark for your screen?

I too would be interested in your thoughts comparing the Lumis black levels and low APL performance to your RS20. Wolfgang's comparison favoured the Lumis in this regard, noting the black bars on cinemascope movies also... do you concur?

I too would be interested in your thoughts comparing the Lumis black levels and low APL performance to your RS20. Wolfgang's comparison favoured the Lumis in this regard, noting the black bars on cinemascope movies also... do you concur?


My experience with the two side by side.
On my Lumis I could not see any bars top/bottom but I could with the RS20. I even threw an image from the Lumis on the High Power screen expecting it to increase black level but black remained unchanged.
Phil has a production model so I do not know if his performs different then mine. Looking forward to his comments.
Both the RS20 and lumis are equal when full field black is sent to each machine side by side but where the Lumis wins is if there is anything in the image even 1 star the lamp modulation and iris go to work and clamp black further.










.

Guy's I need to spend some time getting the projector dialed in before making any definitive comments. I spent several days calibrating my RS20 before I got a satisfying image, so to be fair to the Lumis I have to do the same.

Quick impression on the fan noise, is that it is louder than the 1080, and quite a bit louder than the RS20, even when running on low bulb. I will take some SPL measurements, the sides of my box are open, so it won't affect it too much. What distance do you want the readings from??

Guy's I need to spend some time getting the projector dialed in before making any definitive comments. I spent several days calibrating my RS20 before I got a satisfying image, so to be fair to the Lumis I have to do the same.

Quick impression on the fan noise, is that it is louder than the 1080, and quite a bit louder than the RS20, even when running on low bulb. I will take some SPL measurements, the sides of my box are open, so it won't affect it too much. What distance do you want the readings from??

Thanks Phil

If you could do almost directly beneath and maybe a couple of feet forward for the spl meter would be much appreciated. For me it may mean switching to a T3 to get it further back from the rear row of seating. With T2 it's basically almost overhead on the back row seats. Would you find this intrusive, especially sans hushbox on quiet scenes?

Perhaps this is a stupid question, but why does everyone seem to be comparing the Lumis to the RS20? Isn't the Lumis something like 4x or 5x the cost of the RS20? Color me confused...

Perhaps this is a stupid question, but why does everyone seem to be comparing the Lumis to the RS20? Isn't the Lumis something like 4x or 5x the cost of the RS20? Color me confused...

The RS series has set the bench and is considered reference for black level performance from digital projectors. Cost has nothing to do with it if it did we could have been looking at crt black from digital years ago.




.

Perhaps this is a stupid question, but why does everyone seem to be comparing the Lumis to the RS20? Isn't the Lumis something like 4x or 5x the cost of the RS20? Color me confused...

No one is viewing them as competitive in any way at all.

Its purely an assessment of black level performance, and nothing else.

I see...it makes much more sense now. So the fact that the Lumis seems to be at least equivalent, if not outperforming the RS20 on black levels is viewed as pretty significant, especially considering that the Lumis is way brighter. Sorry for the dumb question!

free

congratulations on the lumis install.

when you do the compare between the 2 units please note
that your lumis is at low lamp mode i guess more than double as bright as the rs20.
depends on how bright your room is this will increase the bars a lot.

as you get this unit that soon i guess its one of the few units that are
sice some time in us but it will have the upgrade inside for sure.

it will be very interesting to hear form you about cr. and light out.

a nd filter will decrease the ansi cr. at least by 25% if not more.

about decrease of ansi cr. when use a nd filter and a isco3 lens i have new infos about it and that are very interesting.:)
but thats a other thread in the future.

I am normalizing FL between the two projectors, so I can make apples to apples observations.

A note on the fan noise: I only have a sound meter that goes down to 50db, so I have to get pretty close to the projector to get a reading. 3" away from the left or right side, I start getting a reading, so that would be 50db on low. On high bulb, I start to get a reading at about 5" away, and the pitch of the fans goes up in frequency.

I am normalizing FL between the two projectors, so I can make apples to apples observations.

A note on the fan noise: I only have a sound meter that goes down to 50db, so I have to get pretty close to the projector to get a reading. 3" away from the left or right side, I start getting a reading, so that would be 50db on low. On high bulb, I start to get a reading at about 5" away, and the pitch of the fans goes up in frequency.

C weighting?

No one is viewing them as competitive in any way at all.

Its purely an assessment of black level performance, and nothing else.

I disagree..once you have then both together (Like Free) you can compare every aspect of the projector (like fan noise). Overall picture quality preferences have leaned towards the Lumis, but we now have another opinion. The more the merrier!

And when worded in such a fashion you make it seem like it a comparison of a Ferrari to a Kia.
JC

Both the RS20 and lumis are equal when full field black is sent to each machine side by side but where the Lumis wins is if there is anything in the image even 1 star the lamp modulation and iris go to work and clamp black further.
.
Alan, the black of a full black field on the Lumis must surely be the case where the lamp is dimmed the most and the iris closed the most since nothing else than black matters in this case. When stars enter the picture it makes no sense to dim further or close the Iris further. The stars make the black look blacker by themselves and further dimming/closing reduces star brightness.
If full black fields have the same luminosity on both projectors it follows that the On-Off of the Lumis is in the 60000-150000:1 range (Lumis white is 3 times brighter than RS20, and a RS20 measures easily between 20000:1 and 50000:1). It also means for black a whopping factor of 18 to 30 is used if native On-Off is 5000:1 as reported. Is all of this the case?

C weighting?

No, A weighting.


My initial measurements of lumen output after calibrating are considerably lower than others have posted, so I may have something wrong with my projector. I will probably have to defer my observations until I figure out what is going on.

I disagree..once you have then both together (Like Free) you can compare every aspect of the projector (like fan noise). Overall picture quality preferences have leaned towards the Lumis, but we now have another opinion. The more the merrier!

JC

Joey, Myself, Alan and Wolfgang all had the 2 units together, and compared them.

No one was seriously comparing them, other than to test the black level. My statement, therefore, stands as correct at the time it was made.

I disagree..once you have then both together (Like Free) you can compare every aspect of the projector (like fan noise). Overall picture quality preferences have leaned towards the Lumis, but we now have another opinion. The more the merrier!

JC

Just for the record, no where have I stated that I prefer the picture quality of the RS20 over the Lumis, so I don't know who you are referring to in your post.

Phil, You said the PJ is "very bright, as expected", but that your lumen number is lower than ours was. Where are you on the throw? If you are near min zoom, you number will be less than max.

Mine ranged from 1500-2000 depending on lamp and manual iris, but that was only measured at max zoom. Those are with the ISCOIII out. With ISCOIII in, the light loss is 2%.

Alan's numbers included the min zoom, so he ranged from 1050 (min lamp, min zoom, iris closed) all they way to 2240 at max zoom and max lamp. His min zoom/max lamp was 1400.

I have mine and it is being hung today. I love the image so far. It works amazing in a poorly light controlled room on a firehawk. Mine is with a T2 lens.

Fallout 3 on a Lumis @ 10'6" wide screen is a revelation. Given that I both game and am a movie nut, I have to go CIW.

Just for the record, no where have I stated that I prefer the picture quality of the RS20 over the Lumis, so I don't know who you are referring to in your post.

I can see now that my wording leans that way , but it was intended to; a. Give more credibility to the Lumis, or b. Give a nod to the RS20. I appeciate all the comparisons since there are a lot of factors when considering a high end purchase.

Christy

Congratulations bud, great to hear that these are rolling out now!

Question for Christy and/or Phil

Can you report please on throw distance/ratio/screen size as well as the lumens if you have a good light meter, plz.

TIA

With the video processing taken out of the projector, how could the new Lumis fan noise be louder than the C3X?

With the video processing taken out of the projector, how could the new Lumis fan noise be louder than the C3X?

Your making an equivalence that doesn't actually apply. The Lumis is fundamentally different to the C3X1080. You, therefore, cant necessarily draw that comparison

There are a couple of possible of reasons for increased fan noise. The serial units had their cooling upgraded so that's a possible cause. It could also simply be a loud fan in that machine, and is not indicative of the model.

Phil, You said the PJ is "very bright, as expected", but that your lumen number is lower than ours was. Where are you on the throw? If you are near min zoom, you number will be less than max.

Mine ranged from 1500-2000 depending on lamp and manual iris, but that was only measured at max zoom. Those are with the ISCOIII out. With ISCOIII in, the light loss is 2%.

Alan's numbers included the min zoom, so he ranged from 1050 (min lamp, min zoom, iris closed) all they way to 2240 at max zoom and max lamp. His min zoom/max lamp was 1400.

I hope to do more measurements later this weekend, at different zooms.

CM, Hope you are right that Free just has a loud machine.

I am picturing myself in your theater Free. Ok, well actually I am picturing your Sim2 Lumis in my theater room, but you know what I mean. I hope you enjoy the show on that puppy. Nice to see that a few folks are getting their hands on them. I know this projector will rock once it is dialed in.

HI PHIL

I noticed in your supplied picture (first post on this thread),that the LUMIS lens,appears farther to the left (facing projector)than the RS 2O. Surely both of the projectors can not be aimed exactly at the center of your screen. If that is the case,is either one of them being slightly compromised, by using the horizontal lens shift on one of them (I believe the RS20 has such a capability, however I thought the LUMIS did not, so I am presuming the LUMIS is the one that is positioned so the lens is aiming at the center of your screen).

CHEERS, TC

Ash..... Did you get yours?

HI PHIL

I noticed in your supplied picture (first post on this thread),that the LUMIS lens,appears farther to the left (facing projector)than the RS 2O. Surely both of the projectors can not be aimed exactly at the center of your screen. If that is the case,is either one of them being slightly compromised, by using the horizontal lens shift on one of them (I believe the RS20 has such a capability, however I thought the LUMIS did not, so I am presuming the LUMIS is the one that is positioned so the lens is aiming at the center of your screen).

CHEERS, TC

The picture is kind of deceiving, since my theater is not exactly square, and the screen is at an angle, as is the back wall. I am also using two different screens for each projector, so the alignment is slightly different for each screen. I am not using horizontal lens shift for the Lumis, the RS20 has some, but I have not noticed, or measured a difference in PQ with the small amount I am using.

Jeff,
My projector is not here yet.... the T3 are specially delayed, I am told it will be here next week or the week after.
Will post once it is installed.
Ash.

My initial impressions are very good. Blacks are on par with RS20, while bright scenes have tremendous depth and clarity. Very bright as is expected.

Downsides, typical cumbersome Sim2 Remote, menu's and Host implementation. Fan noise quite a bit more than I had expected, must have to do with the new cooling upgrades.

Hi Phil,

I'd be interested in what you think of the contrast of the Lumis compared to the RS20.

I think that has already been covered by in earlier threads.

It has, and after spending several hours tonight comparing the two, I would have to concurr with the previous observations. It is really uncanny how the dynamic black works. Because it is a frame by frame analysis, and source dependent, the better the source, the deeper the blacks get. This is something I don't see on the RS20, as the source improves, the RS20 does not, so the blacks start looking muddy in comparison. The Sim2, can look comparable with middle of the road material, but look at a something like Underworld Evolutions, or Wanted (which I watched tonight) and the blacks get so deep it is really stunning.

Phil, I wasn't just referring to the blacks - I have no doubt they are stunning. I'm wondering how, say, medium to bright colors look, saturation levels etc in comparison - or put it this way - is there any aspect of the RS20 that the Lumis doesn't improve on?

I'm just looking for your objective observation as I've seen the RS20 but not the Lumis.

I would have to say that the answer to your question is No, there is no area where the RS20 is not improved upon by the Lumis. The colors look much more realistic to me than the JVC, but I can't say I am an expert at making the JVC have accurate colors, so it is possible that my RS20 could look better in the color department. Anyway, the Lumis colors look nicely saturated, without looking unrealistic.

Thanks, Phil.

Phil will you be posting any screenshots in the near future of the Lumis and RS20? Thanks Greg

Phil:

1. Curious to know the light output without any zoom (short end of throw - max light output) with T3 lens. Would like to verify that you are getting over 2K..

2. On high lamp mode, what are you measuring for sound at 3 ft??


Thanks for the effort!

Jeff, I have a T2, and I am holding off on talking about lumen measurements until I verify some things later this coming week.

As for sound level, my meter only goes down to 50db, so I can not measure anything at 3 feet. I am going to look for a better sound meter so that I can give accurate measurements on this.

Jeff, I have a T2, and I am holding off on talking about lumen measurements until I verify some things later this coming week.

As for sound level, my meter only goes down to 50db, so I can not measure anything at 3 feet. I am going to look for a better sound meter so that I can give accurate measurements on this.

I see.. So, it is below 50 db at 3 ft...? If so, I'd be OK.

Thanks!

I would say so. It is hard to tell with my Rat Shack meter, but the needle might start to budge at about 2 feet, C weighted Fast response.

I would say so. It is hard to tell with my Rat Shack meter, but the needle might start to budge at about 2 feet, C weighted Fast response.

Very good. That is quiet enough for me.. Thanks!

Jeff,
Would this noise level be equal to the Qualia or more?
Thanks.
Ash

Jeff,
Would this noise level be equal to the Qualia or more?
Thanks.
Ash

I don't think there is a projector lower in noise than the Qualia.. It is virtually silent. But.. if Phil is not picking up anything higher than 50 dbs, that would likely be 'quiet enough' for most any installation (short of it being overhead).

Ash, you are using a T3, right?? I'd like it if your installer could meaure max light output post calibration. (I'm sure you'd like to know as well).

Looking forward to your install.

Jeff,
Isn't there any way to isolate the projector a bit. I'd hate to see anyone give up on a projector this good because it was a little louder or the case looked my behind for that matter.What it puts on the screen is the main thing.

Art

Jeff,
When I saw the Lumis at CES I heard the noise level to be equivalent to the Qualia (Subjectively without measurement). The Lumis would very well be as quiet as the Qualia even though it has 5 fans inside.
I will be running mine at low lamp close Iris as I expect enough foot lamberts (as per my excel sheet) for my 12 foot Cinecurve fire hawk perforated.
Will get measurements on lamp low, high and iris open close.
I will be at the short end of T3 which is great.
Expect installation within 10 days barring any surprises.
Ash

Art, if you look at my picture, on the left side you see a folded piece of acoustical foam. Since I sit to the left side of the projector, the fan noise from the left is loudest, and bouncing it off this waffle foam helps quite a bit.

Phil

What mount were you able to use for the Lumis? My understanding is that the Lumis chief mounts are not ready yet, a surprising oversight.

It is a Chief Universal.

Mine hung great with a Chief Universal as well.

It has, and after spending several hours tonight comparing the two, I would have to concurr with the previous observations. It is really uncanny how the dynamic black works. Because it is a frame by frame analysis, and source dependent, the better the source, the deeper the blacks get. This is something I don't see on the RS20, as the source improves, the RS20 does not, so the blacks start looking muddy in comparison. The Sim2, can look comparable with middle of the road material, but look at a something like Underworld Evolutions, or Wanted (which I watched tonight) and the blacks get so deep it is really stunning.

Here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15652887#post15652887)is what I wrote about Wanted on my RS20. It seems that when I wrote how it wasn't anything special to look at, I should have been watching it on a Lumis.

I'd be really curious to hear how people feel the Lumis is performing compared to other projectors that it should be compared to...everyone keeps talking about the RS20...anyone got any feedback on how it performs compared to, say, its predecessor (C3X 1080)?

There is a significant improvement in black level over the 1080, while maintaining many of the benefits of the other aspects of that projector.

I will be out of the loop on this for about a week, and will have more to report then.

Wanted looks great on my C3X1080.

Anyone know when the lumis will be available without the host. That might reduce the price a few $$. Thanks Greg

Anyone know when the lumis will be available without the host. That might reduce the price a few $$. Thanks Greg

At the moment the answer would have to be Never, unfortunately

There will be PJ's that use that technology, but the extra real estate that the host provides in the head unit is certainly needed.

<not from a direct product knowledge but from a better than average understanding of general product design.>

Putting the "processor" in an external box takes more than a board or two out of the box. it also allows extra realestate to add more and more processing to control other aspects of the display. it allows greater lamp, iris, etc control. so thinking that it would be available as the Lumis np (no processor :D ) is a false hope. it would not be the same machine by any stretch. more likely to hope for is to possibly get sim to offer the processor (image processing part) as a line item for use in other applications.

but just because the processor is in another box does not mean that they could sell the lumis for less money and still have the same image.

Guess that was it for the first round of installs? Did not seem like a large number in the first shipment. Anyone have any idea when the next batch may cross the pond?

By the end of this month (February).

Jim

They only rolled out a very small number to start...of which I got the first 2 in the US. More will come end of February but quantities are unknown...hopefully many as there are many waiting!

When someone with a Lumis gets a chance could they please look at how it handles chapter 2 of Letters from Iwo Jima please

Thanks

When someone with a Lumis gets a chance could they please look at how it handles chapter 2 of Letters from Iwo Jima please

Thanks

Can't you just sit back and enjoy your relatively new Christie projector without seeking to learn about what may be better??? (HA!)

Thanks to LJG's efforts, our recession will end earlier than otherwise.:D

If you only knew Steve, The HD6K-M was seconds from being put back in the box, I had the hand truck ready

If you only knew Steve, The HD6K-M was seconds from being put back in the box, I had the hand truck ready

I already figured this out for myself!!! Cause I know you. Addicted to Video!!!
(But do you have the gals that Robert Palmer in Addicted to Love had?)

There is a significant improvement in black level over the 1080, while maintaining many of the benefits of the other aspects of that projector.

I will be out of the loop on this for about a week, and will have more to report then.Any news?

I think he returned it to Sim b/c it only measured 1300 lumens.

I'm wondering if SIM might be looking at the Lumis as a projector for one size screen and another like a new HT 5000 as the units for screen like mine and larger.

Art

Well, if that is the case, they need to change the specs in their brochure, so people are not buying one for bigger screens. My Lumis has gone back for a few reasons, I will post as soon as it returns.

Well, if that is the case, they need to change the specs in their brochure, so people are not buying one for bigger screens. My Lumis has gone back for a few reasons, I will post as soon as it returns.

yes thats right.

the brochure say "up to 35000:1 cr"
and the brochure say 1200-3000 ANSI LUMEN!!!

count about 15% less for d 65 than the unit should have still over 2500 ansi
lumen.

with the drop in the corners my unit that i send back today will have just arround ""1300 lumen as i measure always center lumen.

Has there been an unofficial or official response from Sim2 on all these production units?

Has there been an unofficial or official response from Sim2 on all these production units?


Some of us have asked, but nothing yet (on my end anyway).

Jim

I think he returned it to Sim b/c it only measured 1300 lumens.Interesting. For me, this lower # would be good.

yes thats right.

the brochure say "up to 35000:1 cr"
and the brochure say 1200-3000 ANSI LUMEN!!!

count about 15% less for d 65 than the unit should have still over 2500 ansi
lumen.

with the drop in the corners my unit that i send back today will have just arround ""1300 lumen as i measure always center lumen.

It is interesting that we measured the same Lumens, which would lead one to believe that this is not a random error, but a planned modification.

If the specs are to be modified in this way, I would certainly expect a refund, as it is not the projector I ordered.

Interesting. For me, this lower # would be good.The lumens could be, but it may have come with lower on/off CR at the same time (at least it seemed to in W. Mayer's case).

--Darin

Wow, 1200 lumens best case for me would be a disaster with the throw and size screen I'm painting. I would reckon I'd be somewhere around 800 lumens with a 30% reduction for my throw with a new bulb. That's with iris open and high bulb! With a further 30% reduction for bulb wear, we're looking at 560 lumens. Would hate to use stretch for 2.37 ratio at this light output level. Also, if we turned the iris on for best contrast, where would those numbers fall? :eek: We just measured an RS20 and it had 700 lumens, exactly what the C3X 1080 we were looking at had, so this projector loses a lot of it's advantage on the larger screens if this is what they're coming in at.

It seems to me like someone at the company should be at least letting their dealers and/or customers know what is happening, or this could turn into Mark Zuckerberg part trois.

edit: Nevermind previous Q, I found what I was looking for...Thanks

"If full black fields have the same luminosity on both projectors it follows that the On-Off of the Lumis is in the 60000-150000:1 range (Lumis white is 3 times brighter than RS20, and a RS20 measures easily between 20000:1 and 50000:1). It also means for black a whopping factor of 18 to 30 is used if native On-Off is 5000:1 as reported. Is all of this the case?"

These numbers correspond with subjective impressions being reported, but they far exceed spec's.

It's truly a mystery how this pj does what it does.

"It is really uncanny how the dynamic black works. Because it is a frame by frame analysis, and source dependent, the better the source, the deeper the blacks get."

How does it react when a very dark scene with no bright areas suddenly gets a small but very bright feature?

We just measured an RS20 and it had 700 lumens, exactly what the C3X 1080 we were looking at had, so this projector loses a lot of it's advantage on the larger screens if this is what they're coming in at.


You really measured a C3X1080 at 700 lumens? Was the unit defective or were you using it at the end of its zoom range/min bulb/iris on?

It is interesting that we measured the same Lumens, which would lead one to believe that this is not a random error, but a planned modification.

If the specs are to be modified in this way, I would certainly expect a refund, as it is not the projector I ordered.

Were you and Wolfgang in the same locale, one could figure on it being a particular geographic's shipment having issues, but it looks like that ain't the case.

I have major trouble believing that Sim would do this on purpose, I mean they would surely realize the negative effect, especially on those people who were so blown away by the performance of the first Lumis models?

Optimistically, I would say that the projectors are throttled back because of a firmware glitch, rather than a deliberate mod.

Sean

I have major trouble believing that Sim would do this on purpose, I mean they would surely realize the negative effect, especially on those people who were so blown away by the performance of the first Lumis models?

Optimistically, I would say that the projectors are throttled back because of a firmware glitch, rather than a deliberate mod.

Sean

Well, given the tendency of people to think the worst, Sim2 should make some sort of statement through any channel to ease customer's concerns and avoid a PR disaster especially when the groupthink is that perhaps they are dumbing down the unit intentionally.

You really measured a C3X1080 at 700 lumens? Was the unit defective or were you using it at the end of its zoom range/min bulb/iris on?

this last unit was 700 was not defective and had around 1k hours on it. have measured others slightly higher (750-780) that had newish bulbs in different setups.

It is interesting that we measured the same Lumens, which would lead one to believe that this is not a random error, but a planned modification.

If the specs are to be modified in this way, I would certainly expect a refund, as it is not the projector I ordered.

its may a lens issue i hear.
what lens you have inside?

My unit had a T2 lens, so that is definitely not the Lumen issue. It could be the CR issue, as I didn't notice any (visible) CR deficiencies, although I did not take measurements.

Well, given the tendency of people to think the worst, Sim2 should make some sort of statement through any channel to ease customer's concerns and avoid a PR disaster especially when the groupthink is that perhaps they are dumbing down the unit intentionally.

I think you are absolutely right, but do companies ever do this right away? I imagine it will take some time to figure out if there is a problem, what units are affected, what the problem is exactly, the cause and what they can do about it. They won't want to tell everyone their product is broken before they have something in place to sort it out. That would be very bad PR. However, as you point out, the longer they take to do this, the more harm will be done.

I know from hearing dealers and reps talk everyday that manufacturers can be quite dismissive of forums, often just passing it off as group think, even when it later turns out there is a problem with their kit.

The big factor here is that this particular group is about as well informed as they come (I do not include myself in that phrase) It will be the owners here that will get Sim's attention with units being returned, etc.

I have a good access to Sim UK, but since I don't have a Lumis I don't think I would get much creedence, especially since I just heard it on the grapevine. :)

i'm very curious about the lumis.
can any owners make more comments, get the thread going again?

I am not seeing any dumbing down (based upon two units so far). I have seen an incident of "cutting teeth" which was resolved by SIM in 24 hours.

i'm very curious about the lumis.
can any owners make more comments, get the thread going again?

I don't think there are many Lumis's in owner's hands quite yet. It will be a month or so before many of us get ours.

I hope to get my unit back soon, so I can report.

No real new info, but a nice product brochure from the Sim2 site.

http://www.sim2usa.com/home/files/downloads/C3XLUMISHOST_EN_nov08.pdf

No real new info, but a nice product brochure from the Sim2 site.

http://www.sim2usa.com/home/files/downloads/C3XLUMISHOST_EN_nov08.pdf

Anybody notice this:

"Sim2 Auto Calibration Kit" listed in the brochure? It states:

"Sim2 Auto Calibration Kit automatically calibrates the unit according to the environment in which it's installed - Available from end 1st quarter 2009"

Has anybody heard about this option/feature?

I had forgotten about that, with all the projector hubub. When it was first announced, I remember thinking I wish that the calibration kit would be available when the projector was, but now, it is end of 1st quarter, and the projectors are finally just shipping, so I wonder about the availability of this kit??

There are a few things to be worked out with the projector. Activation of RS232, the HD SDI port etc. I would expect this kit in the future. New product blues.
At this point the projector is scarce as we wait for the flood gates to open.

Alan,
My installation is almost complete....
The Rs 232 on my unit is operational.
Calibration will be later today and I will post numbers. . . . .
I have seen 'No' problems with the projector.... no quirks and looks like a reliable machine.
I am confused about the position I keep the iris, I tend to like the fully open position as colors look more vibrant. I believe the CR with DB on is so high that the CR changes due to iris open are unnoticeable.
I wonder what improvements projectors can do from here on after seeing the picture on the Lumis and this is a uncalibrated picture although I feel that Sim ships the projector already 90% calibrated.
Ash

Alan,
My installation is almost complete....
The Rs 232 on my unit is operational.
Calibration will be later today and I will post numbers. . . . .
I have seen 'No' problems with the projector.... no quirks and looks like a reliable machine.
I am confused about the position I keep the iris, I tend to like the fully open position as colors look more vibrant. I believe the CR with DB on is so high that the CR changes due to iris open are unnoticeable.
I wonder what improvements projectors can do from here on after seeing the picture on the Lumis and this is a uncalibrated picture although I feel that Sim ships the projector already 90% calibrated.
Ash

Congratulations Ash.

I genuinely love to see someone happy with, and vindicated in, their choices. Sounds like the Erskine posse are serving you well.

I hope you have the opportunity to enjoy it as fully, and frequently, as you would wish to.

Thanks CM....
I hope I did not speak too soon.... about reliability.
Dennis Erskine has built my theater from scratch two years ago and I was very very happy with the build and continues to win my trust and respect as I do this upgrade. . . . this is one professional team.
Ash

There's a bit more going on other than just installing his new projector. We've installed new drivers on his Aerial 20T's, changed the ventilation scheme for his projector cabinet and added a low AR projector port glass to further reduce noise in his room.

Among the heads up/challenges have been the RS-232 control strings we thought the projector uses were different from what it does use, so if you use an AMX, Crestron or other RS232 based system, verify the command strings. We've also been unable to get the trigger to operate the anamorphic lens sled. It could be we're being stupid or the trigger isn't working properly but our work around is to let the Crestron system do the work. The more consternating issue is the moire. Those of you currently using TI DC3 or DC4 chips shouldn't have a problem. Those of you moving from SXRD/D-ILA or other LCOS technology have a bigger chance of this occuring.

Congratulations Ash.

I genuinely love to see someone happy with, and vindicated in, their choices. Sounds like the Erskine posse are serving you well.

I hope you have the opportunity to enjoy it as fully, and frequently, as you would wish to.

+1

Art

We've also been unable to get the trigger to operate the anamorphic lens sled. It could be we're being stupid or the trigger isn't working properly but our work around is to let the Crestron system do the work.

Dennis, Were you trying to use a discrete command for the trigger? I had an issue with that on a C3X1080.

I got round it by using one of the user memories. You use a user aspect ratio as required and tick the box for trigger to fire. You save that to the first user memory so that it automatically uses that user AR and trigger command. You then use your control to call the memory rather than the trigger. That worked perfectly for me.

If you've tried that, just ignore me.

We have Lumis #2 in house and will test that...thanks. I like to have a month in house to play with new "stuff" (and take it apart); but, didn't have that luxury this time.

just ignore me.
I'll make an exception this time. :)

I'll make an exception this time. :)

Wow, tough crowd.:)

My budget is max $27,000 for a projector, and I know the MSRP is like $37,000. Can anyone PM me a street price in the USA, and also.......

Does a projector like this ever drop in price over time.....like in say 1 year?

I was pretty set on the C3x 1080, but now that this has basically perfect blacks......well I am trying to wrangle a way to get the Lumis instead.

How noticeable would the PQ difference between these two projectors be with BR discs? I know the c3x 1080 is a great projector, so maybe I am nitpicking here.

http://i676.photobucket.com/albums/vv130/todo09/DSC02217.jpg

At D 65
Dynamic Black On
Lamp Lowest
IRIS Fully Open

Screen is 12 Foot Wide 2:35 AT Cinecurve Stewart Firehawk Throw is 25.6 Feet Lens is T3

Screen Center Lumens: 19.948 X=0.319 Y=0.325
Upper Right Corner: 19.455 X=0.316 Y=.326
Lower Right Corner: 19.603 X=0.319 Y=.329
Upper Left Corner: 19.765 X=0.325 Y=.321
Lower Left Corner: 19.876 X=0.316 Y=.327

Lumens As Calibrated To D6504 = 1833.8

On Off C/R= 19343:1

ANSI CR= 618:1 (My room is not a Bat Cave by Far) I also I have A Port Glass Although Angled And The ISCO Is Also Angled

Any questions, please direct to Dennis.

Ash

Great stuff Ash... Thanks.

Did Dennis measure both ANSI at the screen and just in front of the lens?

Are you using the Radiance with the Lumis/Host?

Yes I am curious how Dennis measured Ansi CR?

Some good numbers Ash.

Lumens are right up there . Am I reading that correct....thats at low lamp?:eek: If so, that's the brightest one yet.

If your getting an "in room" 618 ANSI number, in a non bat cave, I would assume you have a 1000 ANSI unit.

Some good numbers Ash.

Lumens are right up there . Am I reading that correct....thats at low lamp?:eek: If so, that's more than an HT5000.

If your getting an "in room" 618 ANSI number, in a non bat cave, I would assume you have a 1000 ANSI unit.

Coldmachine,

What would you guesstimate the lumens for a 14' 2.35 screen @ high lamp (my screen)!

Ash told me in a PM he was at 25 ft lamberts on his 12' screen @ HIGH Lamp..

Thanks!

Lumens were not "low lamp" mode. Lamp was set to a level which the client determined wasn't so bright as to hurt his eyes. :)

Please direct measurement questions to Dennis...
I am using the Lumagen XE... The Lumis is set to Pixel Perfect...
Once I get my Theta upgrade to HDMI 1.3 I can use the second HDMI output of Lumagen to get Audio to my Theta Sound Processor.
I also have a Port Glass to keep sound out of the projector.... It should affect ANSI some.
The projector is working flawlessly....
The only problem is that I am seeing things in movies which I never did before.... Feel like playing with settings for each movie...
Great Stuff.
Ash

Lumens were not "low lamp" mode. Lamp was set to a level which the client determined wasn't so bright as to hurt his eyes. :)

Thanks.

Thats still an awful lot of power for a small unit....A bit like those tiny Albanian weightlifters.:D

ANSI CR by ANSI checkerboard test pattern on screen. We did not subtract out room ambient light (that would have been cheating).

Jeff...the lumens would be the same...Ft lamberts I'd estimate out to be 21.9 to 23 depending on lamp setting. I think at that rate, you'd want a double stack. :D

Coldmachine,

What would you guesstimate the lumens for a 14' 2.35 screen @ high lamp (my screen)!

Ash told me in a PM he was at 25 ft lamberts on his 12' screen @ HIGH Lamp..

Thanks!

See above. It was actually the high lamp reading.

My bad, it was on the low lamp mode. Sorry for the cornfusion. On/Off used high and low lamp modes.

Nice numbers, but if I understand correctly, the CR is dynamic and when there's not enough black on screen, the CR will be at, or close to, the native CR.

My bad, it was on the low lamp mode. Sorry for the cornfusion.

Ive just had to delete my follow on post to your, now deleted, one.:confused:

Are you saying Ash has 1900 lumen @ low lamp, iris open?

Alan had 1739 in that condition, I had 1580.

Do you know his lumen output at max lamp...I believe that is what Bland was referring to, when asking me to extrapolate. I believe he would have to be close to 2500. Alan was 2242 and I was 2050 at max.

Ash/Dennis - did you get any numbers with the iris closed?

Ash/Dennis - did you get any numbers with the iris closed?

The Iris has roughly 10% authority, very limited. Its more of a trim that a fully fledged control.

Its the same as the 1080. Basically, subtract 10% from the open figure and you will be close enough.

Cal,
I like the iris open. . . . . for some reason colors look better. the SIM manual says the same. with CR above 19000, I do not see much help in CR with Iris closed.
CM
Please note that I am at the cusp of T3 lens due to my throw distance and screen size, I am at the brightest point, this may be the reason for the Lumens being so high..
Ash

Ive just had to delete my follow on post to your, now deleted, one.:confused:

Are you saying Ash has 1900 lumen @ low lamp, iris open?

Alan had 1739 in that condition, I had 1580.

Do you know his lumen output at max lamp...I believe that is what Bland was referring to, when asking me to extrapolate. I believe he would have to be close to 2500. Alan was 2242 and I was 2050 at max.

So, if HIGH LAMP yields 2500 lumens, where am I at in ft Lamberts of brightness? At 14' wide, that is (84 sq ft of viewing area)..

Dennis mentioned ~23 ft Lamberts... Am I correctly interpretting this for my 14' wide scope with the Lumis on calibrated on HIGH LAMP??

Thanks, guys!!!

So, if HIGH LAMP yields 2500 lumens, where am I at in ft Lamberts of brightness? At 14' wide, that is (84 sq ft of viewing area)..

Dennis mentioned ~23 ft Lamberts... Am I correctly interpretting this for my 14' wide scope with the Lumis on calibrated on HIGH LAMP??

Thanks, guys!!!

Here we go:D

It will depend on what lens and where on the zoom range you are, as well as your screen gain.

Due to Ash's configuration, its unlikely that anyone's will be as bright as his, unless they are in the same position.

It will depend on what lens and where on the zoom range you are.

Due to Ash's configuration, its unlikely that anyone's will be as bright as his, unless they are in the same position.

Actually, my set up will mirror Ash's almost exactly (T-3 wide open with no zoom). My throw is almost exactly Ash's. Only my screen size differs (14' wide vs Ash's 12' wide)... So with that, is it 23 ft lamberts in HIGH LAMP?? More? Less?

Thanks CM,

Jeff

Actually, my set up will mirror Ash's almost exactly (T-3 wide open with no zoom). My throw is almost exactly Ash's. Only my screen size differs (14' wide vs Ash's 12' wide)... So with that, is it 23 ft lamberts in HIGH LAMP?? More? Less?

Thanks CM,

Jeff

Jeff, whats your screen gain?

As an example..... 1.15 gain screen (1.3 cloth with X2perf) of 168" width with a 2.35 AR with will yield 33fL from 2400 lumen.

Unity gain=29fL. 1.3 gain=37fL

Jeff, whats your screen gain?

As an example..... 1.15 gain screen (1.3 cloth with X2perf) of 168" width with a 2.35 AR with will yield 33fL from 2400 lumen.

Unity gain=29fL. 1.3 gain=37fL

That is exactly it. 1.3 gain Ultramatte X2 perf.

That is a helluva bright picture you've calculated... This looks like this piece is the one..

Thanks for your work... I appreciate it!

Actually, my set up will mirror Ash's almost exactly (T-3 wide open with no zoom). My throw is almost exactly Ash's. Only my screen size differs (14' wide vs Ash's 12' wide)... So with that, is it 23 ft lamberts in HIGH LAMP?? More? Less?

Thanks CM,

Jeff

At Ash's stated D65 lumens of 1833.8, you would have 25.29 fL with your screen (1.15 gain), minus any loss through the anamorphic although I am not sure if Dennis measured this through an ISCO III.

Incredible performance !

Art

At Ash's stated D65 lumens of 1833.8, you would have 25.29 fL with your screen (1.15 gain), minus any loss through the anamorphic although I am not sure if Dennis measured this through an ISCO III.

Loss through an ISCOIII is around 2%.

Loss through an ISCOIII is around 2%.I concur. ~2% loss or a little less is typical. Very good glass.

I believe he would have to be close to 2500.
2381 pre cal. (6790K) I think it would certainly do 2500; but, you'd have to crank the primaries up into "measurement for marketing" territory.

We ran a luminance tracking test from 10 IRE to 100 IRE, from the curve it appears their "black magic" kicks in around 30 IRE and below.

Not to mention, the Cinecurve screen if works as advertised by Stewart might be improving foot lamberts.
Dunno what ANSI contrast loss is due to port glass.
Spiderman 3 on Lumis.... Incredible Picture.
Ash

With that glass, it would take a Minolta to measure it.
What are you doing posting anyway? You have a new projector. I need 100 hours on that lamp...get busy!

Drinking 2003 Amarone Della Valpolicella classico Tommasi (Italian for the occasion) and watching Spiderman 3.
Got to check mails, that's how I pay for this stuff.
Ash.

ANSI CR by ANSI checkerboard test pattern on screen. We did not subtract out room ambient light (that would have been cheating).

Ash makes it sound like the ISCO was in place for the ANSI reading. Is that true? Dennis -- Rob Hahn (my brother) said to say hi.

Ash makes it sound like the ISCO was in place for the ANSI reading. Is that true? Dennis -- Rob Hahn (my brother) said to say hi.

I have ANSI numbers for ISCO in and out. Numbers, and testing, were actually verified by ISCO themselves. This will be part of an upcoming report.

Certainly not even close to the 30% drop that some Scheissemeisters (:D) claim. Ive been saying this for a couple of years, nice to have the testing validated.

Obviously the unit needs to be correctly installed and tested

I had a chance to see the lens slide in front of the LUMIS and I would guetimate the reduction closer to 15-18% max. With the Lighting Reference the difference was in the 25-30%. I have a theory Xenon displays are more suceptible, but not a clue why. Just the observational data.

http://www.miamibadc.com/Images/ehx-054.jpg

I for one believe that the Lumis BENEFITS from the ISCO lens. Anyone wanting to discuss the why's needs to get a copy of SIM2's demo material at EHX: ELTON JOHN'S 60 and Wild Hogs. The later was a far more homogenous picture, as something a little weird was going one with Elton which looked like a photoshop montage cutout, like when 3d movies look like the objects are flat but still has overall excellent depth. In any event a slight reduction odf this effect that was caused by intense ANSI coupled with some kind of noise filtering and contour enhancement video processing. That Elton John reminded me of the Meridian demo a bit, could the video processor be a Marvel? Probably not but the effect on Elton was distracting. Then the lens slid in, the programme changed and the image was very nice and cinematic.

http://www.miamibadc.com/Images/ehx-062.jpg

I do admonish that although these numbers are outstanding somehow the overall picture does not come close to the contrast enhanced DCI machines, the filtered two dimensional cutout effect IS NOT THE WAY IT WAS MASTERED so the device is injecting it's own patina into the equation. Also having seen true REC 709 on a 6k unit, the colors are not as over saturated and the blacks do not appear crushed,here you are forced to look hard to discern low level detail (I saw this at the SIM2 and the Avielo booths). Seems to me for this to work will require transfers done at the same Cr.

I forgot to add that the ISCOIII numbers were tested across a number of units, all with similar results.

theory Xenon displays are more suceptible,
An interesting observation, Pieter; however, I cannot offhand think of any physical explanation which would support that conclusion. We can wait for CM's published reports.

Ash makes it sound like the ISCO was in place for the ANSI reading. Is that true? Dennis -- Rob Hahn (my brother) said to say hi.

Tom, please tell Rob , I said hi. :)

Art

Peter, Im so glad my house has large windows.:)

How does the video processing of the Host/Lumis compare to the C3X 1080 and the Lumagen Radiance....

Does anyone use the HD-SDI interface on the Host? What is the difference between connecting a Blu Ray player to the Host via HD-SDI and via HDMI?

That new OPPO BD player looks awesome. Will also be curious about the new Denon BD player... Maybe we can get HD-SDI mods on those players...

http://www.oppodigital.com/blu-ray-bdp-83/

Could someone please comment on any differences between the PQ on the Lumis and a C3x 1080......black levels, shadow details, motion, depth & dimensionality, etc.

I will only be getting a 92 inch screen (complete light control) due to viewing distance restrictions (10 feet away feet away), so any thoughts on how PQ may compare in that environment is appreciated as well (T1 lens....about middle of the throw range, iris closed down pretty far due to the high lumen output at this distance, low lamp, etc.)

Could someone please comment on any differences between the PQ on the Lumis and a C3x 1080......black levels, shadow details, motion, depth & dimensionality, etc.

I will only be getting a 92 inch screen (complete light control) due to viewing distance restrictions (10 feet away feet away), so any thoughts on how PQ may compare in that environment is appreciated as well (T1 lens....about middle of the throw range, iris closed down pretty far due to the high lumen output at this distance, low lamp, etc.)Someone check my math, but a 92" (1.78:1) screen might yeild 54+ ftL (1800+lumens/33ft^2). Too bright, maybe. May need a ND filter. But the short throw lens you'd need may lower the lumen output some. Too bright is a new problem for some of us. I like it though :cool:

Someone check my math, but a 92" (1.78:1) screen might yeild 54+ ftL (1800+lumens/33ft^2). Too bright, maybe. May need a ND filter. But the short throw lens you'd need may lower the lumen output some. Too bright is a new problem for some of us. I like it though

I am actually thinking of going 100 inch diagnol since the Lumis T1 offers a short throw of 1.3. That may allow me to deal with room contstraints and still throw a 100 inch diagnol image.

I don't know the furmula you are using but if I assume that the numerator is the light output and the denominator being the square footage of the screen......then....

At 92 inch : 1800\25= 72 lumens

At 100 inch: 1800\29.5 = 61 lumens


Can't I close the iris, or adjust something to get less light output? I don't want to watch the sun!

I am actually thinking of going 100 inch diagnol since the Lumis T1 offers a short throw of 1.3. That may allow me to deal with room contstraints and still throw a 100 inch diagnol image.

I don't know the furmula you are using but if I assume that the numerator is the light output and the denominator being the square footage of the screen......then....

At 92 inch : 1800\25= 72 lumens

At 100 inch: 1800\29.5 = 61 lumens


Can't I close the iris, or adjust something to get less light output? I don't want to watch the sun!

The iris will only reduce your output by around 10%.

If you go down the NDF route, make sure you get a high quality one or you will wreck your ANSI cr

Dont forget, you can get screens with less than unity gain as well.

Could someone please comment on any differences between the PQ on the Lumis and a C3x 1080......black levels, shadow details, motion, depth & dimensionality, etc.

I will only be getting a 92 inch screen (complete light control) due to viewing distance restrictions (10 feet away feet away), so any thoughts on how PQ may compare in that environment is appreciated as well (T1 lens....about middle of the throw range, iris closed down pretty far due to the high lumen output at this distance, low lamp, etc.)

In my opinion, the differences aren't huge: Lumis is better in low lit scenes (because of the dynamic iris) and it's also much brighter, which it sounds like you don't need for a screen that size. Also, with that size screen there are other projectors that are valid alternatives.

In my opinion, the differences aren't huge: Lumis is better in low lit scenes (because of the dynamic iris) and it's also much brighter, which it sounds like you don't need for a screen that size. Also, with that size screen there are other projectors that are valid alternatives.

I would agree that with that size screen the C3X, not even to speak of the Lumis, is way overkill. The Marantz 11S2 should be plenty bright on a screen of that size, and most all agree it gives an outstanding pic (now with >/= 1000 ANSI CR.)

In my opinion, the differences aren't huge: Lumis is better in low lit scenes (because of the dynamic iris) and it's also much brighter

Have you actually own, or have you spent any significant time with, a Lumis? The low light performance is NOT simply due to the DI....Its due to the whole combination of relevant techniques. The lamp modulation is a major factor here too. The Lumis is also significantly better in brighter scenes too.

Having spent some time with a Lumis and a C3X1080 on the same screen, I would have to say the difference is significant. Those who have done the same agree.

1.The brightness difference is major.

2.The CR difference is huge.

3.The black level difference is night and day.

4.The ANSI CR is certainly noticeable.

5.The connectivity is massively better (if you need it).

6.The install flexibility is superior.

Mine was sharper, but that may simply be luck of the draw.

The C3X1080 produces a fine image indeed. The Lumis I used was simply the best image I have ever seen.

Hope this helps.

I am actually thinking of going 100 inch diagnol since the Lumis T1 offers a short throw of 1.3. That may allow me to deal with room contstraints and still throw a 100 inch diagnol image.

I don't know the furmula you are using but if I assume that the numerator is the light output and the denominator being the square footage of the screen......then....

At 92 inch : 1800\25= 72 lumens

At 100 inch: 1800\29.5 = 61 lumens


Can't I close the iris, or adjust something to get less light output? I don't want to watch the sun!Sorry, I gave you the shorthand version...

The formula is (Lumens / Screen Area ft^2) * Screen Gain = FtL

You can find FtL recommendations in a fairly wide range. I thing SMTPE is 16FtL but that might be without film. A lot of people looking at these PJ's, myself included like a much brighter image. Once I had bright I could never go back to dim(mer). Personally I like about 25FtL, maybe more.

So as others mentioned, depending on your preferences, you may find the Lumis too bright. As CM pointed out, you can get a lower gain screen which will help some as the formula shows. I'm leery of the ND filter, too.

HTH, Scott

Anyone tried a high end ND filter on one of these yet? Would *really* love to see soem measurments on it's effects.

Anyone tried a high end ND filter on one of these yet? Would *really* love to see soem measurments on it's effects.

I think it was Odyssey who mentioned that Schneider do a top notch one.

I would also be interested to see some results.

I would imagine that if putting an excellent piece of port glass in front of the lens can be done without detriment to the image (e.g. Ash's setup), then using a high quality ND filter (B+W, Hoya, etc) could achieve similar results.

I recall that Alan was using an ND 0.9 with his-- maybe he could chime in with some measurements...

I don't have measurements, but I think that it would be about a 10% loss of ANSI CR with a very high quality ND filter.

The best solution is to use the excess light output to improve the image. Using a 0.5 gain screen instead of a 1.0 gain can increase the ANSI CR from the screen by 50%.

Have you actually own, or have you spent any significant time with, a Lumis? The low light performance is NOT simply due to the DI....Its due to the whole combination of relevant techniques. The lamp modulation is a major factor here too. The Lumis is also significantly better in brighter scenes too.

Having spent some time with a Lumis and a C3X1080 on the same screen, I would have to say the difference is significant. Those who have done the same agree.

1.The brightness difference is major.

2.The CR difference is huge.

3.The black level difference is night and day.

4.The ANSI CR is certainly noticeable.

5.The connectivity is massively better (if you need it).

6.The install flexibility is superior.

Mine was sharper, but that may simply be luck of the draw.

The C3X1080 produces a fine image indeed. The Lumis I used was simply the best image I have ever seen.

Hope this helps.


I don't own a Lumis, but I spent some time with one recently.

1. Agreed.

2. Disagree. I was disapointed to find the CR wasn't much improved over the C3X1080. In fact, isn't the native CR pretty similar? Everyone is touting the high CR when you measure a checkerboard screen, but that's with DB engaged. When it's not engaged - and remember, it's 'dynamic' the CR looks to be the same as my C3X1080. High contrast isn't just desired when black is on screen. I used a lot of professional test videos that required high contrast to give the picture any sense of depth but did not necessarily involve a lot of black (e.g. close ups of fruit or wine glasses etc) and to my eyes, I was simply seeing native contrast. I've seen these same images many times on both my projector and a higher contrast projector and know the difference.

Now, if resolving the image requires a lot of black (for edges, bumpy textures etc) and there's enough black on screen for DB to be engaged, the Lumis looks smashing. So what I'm trying to point out here is that the Lumis doesn't seem to perform like a projector with high native CR.

3. From what I saw it was definitely improved and I want one myself for that reason.

4. Agreed - at least with DB engaged.

5. Agreed.

6. You got me on this one, but I'll take your word for it.


Hey, I'm not trying to say the Lumis isn't a good projector - I think it's the best you can probably get for a *huge* image; my earlier post was directed at a screen size of 92"; in my humble opinion you can do better at this size.

Hey, I'm not trying to say the Lumis isn't a good projector - I think it's the best you can probably get for a *huge* image; my earlier post was directed at a screen size of 92"; in my humble opinion you can do better at this size.

In what ways ?

Art

I don't have measurements, but I think that it would be about a 10% loss of ANSI CR with a very high quality ND filter.

The best solution is to use the excess light output to improve the image. Using a 0.5 gain screen instead of a 1.0 gain can increase the ANSI CR from the screen by 50%.

Like gamelover360 I will be limited to a similarly small screen in my room. I too would prefer the excess lumens of the Lumis. I had been recommended a GrayHawk RS G3 material and while I'm far from an expert; I'm sure the image would look satisfactory. :)

Sean

I think it was Odyssey who mentioned that Schneider do a top notch one.

I would also be interested to see some results.Well, Schneider, per se dosen't, I don't think. But, Schenider bought B+W who makes high end filters. I've used them in the past in photography work and they are nice. But I don't think there is anything particularly different from them and other high end filters (i.e. Tiffen ultra, etc.). Edmunds Optics has some high end ND filters, but none of these are designed for this task I don't think.

Anyway, would be good to know how much effect these would have.

Sorry, I gave you the shorthand version...

The formula is (Lumens / Screen Area ft^2) * Screen Gain = FtL

You can find FtL recommendations in a fairly wide range. I thing SMTPE is 16FtL but that might be without film. A lot of people looking at these PJ's, myself included like a much brighter image. Once I had bright I could never go back to dim(mer). Personally I like about 25FtL, maybe more.

So as others mentioned, depending on your preferences, you may find the Lumis too bright. As CM pointed out, you can get a lower gain screen which will help some as the formula shows. I'm leery of the ND filter, too.

HTH, Scott

PFL = (Projector Lumens / Screen Area in Sq.Ft.) X Screen Gain

That is what I found online....so I would be at anywhere from 30-35 ftl with a 0.5 gain screen. Is that way too high to be comfortably viewable? I do not feel like the filter route would be something I would want to do.

I don't own a Lumis, but I spent some time with one recently.

1. Agreed.

2. Disagree. I was disapointed to find the CR wasn't much improved over the C3X1080. In fact, isn't the native CR pretty similar? Everyone is touting the high CR when you measure a checkerboard screen, but that's with DB engaged. When it's not engaged - and remember, it's 'dynamic' the CR looks to be the same as my C3X1080. High contrast isn't just desired when black is on screen. I used a lot of professional test videos that required high contrast to give the picture any sense of depth but did not necessarily involve a lot of black (e.g. close ups of fruit or wine glasses etc) and to my eyes, I was simply seeing native contrast. I've seen these same images many times on both my projector and a higher contrast projector and know the difference.

Now, if resolving the image requires a lot of black (for edges, bumpy textures etc) and there's enough black on screen for DB to be engaged, the Lumis looks smashing. So what I'm trying to point out here is that the Lumis doesn't seem to perform like a projector with high native CR.

3. From what I saw it was definitely improved and I want one myself for that reason.

4. Agreed - at least with DB engaged.

5. Agreed.

6. You got me on this one, but I'll take your word for it.


Hey, I'm not trying to say the Lumis isn't a good projector - I think it's the best you can probably get for a *huge* image; my earlier post was directed at a screen size of 92"; in my humble opinion you can do better at this size.

Any alternatives you would recommend I research more using a 92-100 inch diagonal screen.

I want
1) no rainbows
2) great motion
3) great blacks and shadow detail
4) accurate color
5) good ability to teak picture without a gimped CMS f---ing things up

Possible....? BTW.....I am looking at a 6-8 month from now time frame to buy.

This is literally the first time since I've been in this hobby and have seen too much light as a topic. Pretty cool really.

Art

This is literally the first time since I've been in this hobby and have seen too much light as a topic. Pretty cool really.

Art

...and considering the relatively low cost of the unit in question it is even cooler! :)

Sean

PFL = (Projector Lumens / Screen Area in Sq.Ft.) X Screen Gain

That is what I found online....so I would be at anywhere from 30-35 ftl with a 0.5 gain screen. Is that way too high to be comfortably viewable? I do not feel like the filter route would be something I would want to do.

I don't know how the Lumis behaves in this regard, but it's common for pj's to loose half their brightness within ~500 Hrs on the lamp. So keep this in mind, as it would bring your 30 ftL down to 15.

Well, Schneider, per se dosen't, I don't think. But, Schenider bought B+W who makes high end filters. I've used them in the past in photography work and they are nice. But I don't think there is anything particularly different from them and other high end filters (i.e. Tiffen ultra, etc.). Edmunds Optics has some high end ND filters, but none of these are designed for this task I don't think.

Anyway, would be good to know how much effect these would have.

It's actually Century Optics, acquired by Schneider. This is a product line for the movie and video industries.

2. Disagree. I was disapointed to find the CR wasn't much improved over the C3X1080. In fact, isn't the native CR pretty similar? Everyone is touting the high CR when you measure a checkerboard screen, but that's with DB engaged. When it's not engaged - and remember, it's 'dynamic' the CR looks to be the same as my C3X1080.

Ian, its not a case of disagree or not. The on/off CR is far higher, that's not open to dispute.

You also seem rather confused regarding said CR and its measurement.

Checkerboard tests are for ANSI CR, that has nothing to do with native CR or DB. The engagement of DB is not relevant to that test. ANSI cr is around 1000 on the Lumis.

The high CR numbers you seem to be referring to (20K etc) is measured with full field black and full field white, not a checkerboard. Also,there is absolutely no reason to disengage DB at all, it is artifact free. That fact is already well reported.

I used a lot of professional test videos that required high contrast to give the picture any sense of depth but did not necessarily involve a lot of black (e.g. close ups of fruit or wine glasses etc) and to my eyes, I was simply seeing native contrast. I've seen these same images many times on both my projector and a higher contrast projector and know the difference.

The types of image you refer to, that don't involve a lot of black would not be the sort of image that a high on/off machine would excel at per se, simply based on that metric. If the image is of that type it would benefit a machine with high intra scene contrast.

I don't know how the Lumis behaves in this regard, but it's common for pj's to loose half their brightness within ~500 Hrs on the lamp. So keep this in mind, as it would bring your 30 ftL down to 15.

Bill,

The Lumis shouldnt drop anywhere near half if it behaves like the others.... touch wood.

SIMs drop around 25-30%. Some are actually under 20%.

The power management is a bit more sophisticated than other domestic units, hence the lamp lives normally being double.

It's actually Century Optics, acquired by Schneider. This is a product line for the movie and video industries.


Do you have any sort of rough idea of the performance of these filters?

Bill,

The Lumis wont drop anywhere near half if it behaves like the others.

SIMs drop around 25-30%. Some are actually under 20%.

The power management is a bit more sophisticated than other domestic units, hence the lamp lives normally being double.

Tx, CM; didn't know that (as well as many other things).

Like gamelover360 I will be limited to a similarly small screen in my room. I too would prefer the excess lumens of the Lumis. I had been recommended a GrayHawk RS G3 material and while I'm far from an expert; I'm sure the image would look satisfactory. :)

Sean

Seems like we would want a pretty low gain screen. I would think 0.5 would be great if they have it. I just saw that Stewart has some 0.7 gain screens. that would probably "do".

Do you have any sort of rough idea of the performance of these filters?

I have one but I have not used it. They are supposed to be very good, but I looked at the one I have recently and I am concerned about the visual reflection when looking at it. You should contact them for more information about the AR coating.

I recall that Alan was using an ND 0.9 with his-- maybe he could chime in with some measurements...

I went to a larger screen size (1 foot wider) and using a negative Grey screen from Carada. I have over 100 hours and I am showing no light loss as of yet.
Ive never encountered this before. Ash or anyone else Id be curious what you find after you put some hours on your Lumis. I am sure I will see a drop sooner or later.

Tx, CM; didn't know that (as well as many other things).

Bill, you wear your modesty like a beautifully tailored suit.:)

I own a C3X1080p for almost a year and a half and never had any problems so far.

I believe they use the same logics as the C3X1080P and the way I did it was by activating the aspect ratio Letterbox (setting the screen control to ON) and every time I change from Anamorphic to Letterbox will send the 12v to the sled.

I went to a larger screen size (1 foot wider) and using a negative Grey screen from Carada. I have over 100 hours and I am showing no light loss as of yet.
Ive never encountered this before. Ash or anyone else Id be curious what you find after you put some hours on your Lumis. I am sure I will see a drop sooner or later.

I would like to avoid a filter as well. I will be at about 70 ftl....(1800/25*1) with a unity gain screen (in a completely light controlled room). Is there no way to tone down the lumen output to something below 1800 by adjusting a setting on the projector?


If I use a negative (do you mean a gain of <1) grey screen like you, I can reduce reflected light , but how negative should I go. A 0.7 gain screen would put at about 47 ftl, and then as the bulb dims I would still have plenty of ftl to play with. Flawed thinking?

Lastly, do grey screens hurt shadow detail at all....or cause color innacuracies? Thanks.

Is there no way to tone down the lumen output to something below 1800 by adjusting a setting on the projector?

Yes.

There is service procedure for this, via the supplied remote. Its normally only carried out by the engineers back in Italy. The order in which the steps are carried it is totally critical.

After the PJ is installed normally, select lamp power to minimum and close the iris fully. Ensure that the color temp is set to D65. Disengage Dynamic Black. Then select HDMI 1 as the source.

Approach your screen and carry out a focus adjustment to get the sharpest possible image. You then turn round and heave the remote straight through the primary lens with as much force as you can possibly muster, taking out the entire optical cluster, including the lamp. Now turn back to your screen and you should see a noticeable reduction in your lumen output.

This procedure is not recommended for anyone without the requisite hand/eye coordination, as some minor scratching of the remote may result.

Hope this helps:D

Ha, you had me there CM for a moment:eek::D

I would like to avoid a filter as well. I will be at about 70 ftl....(1800/25*1) with a unity gain screen (in a completely light controlled room). Is there no way to tone down the lumen output to something below 1800 by adjusting a setting on the projector?

A few things to consider. You are planning on using the T1 lens and I think it has been reported that the T1 version is not getting 1,800 lumens on the Lumis.

Secondly, you mentioned you were also considering the C3X1080 as an option. This machine will have far less than 1,800 lumens. So, that would be a viable option to get the light output down.

Lastly, if you have the room you can mount the projector as the far end (close end?) of the zoom range which will also cut down on light output.

In what ways ?

Art

Contrast.

So if my screen 128.5" diagonal and 1.78:1, I'm dealing with:
[ ( 1800 / 50.22 ft^2 ) * screen gain ]


So I would have 46.6 ftl with a Studiotek, 32.3 ftl with a GreyHawk, and 25.1 ftl with a GrayMatte?

What would be the best one to go with if I get a Lumis?

I watch 2.35:1 movies with the projector wasting pixels (black bars on the bottom and top of screen). Would this affect what screen material would be the best option as well?

Contrast.Only native sequential. The Lumis has much much higher ANSI contrast and at least as much as the comparisons Wolfgang Mayer did the apparent contrast in some pretty impressive stuff the Lumis looks better than the RS20 for example. It looks like the DB works impressively well.

Art

It's actually Century Optics, acquired by Schneider. This is a product line for the movie and video industries.
Thanks for the clarification. I'll get them to look up the part numbers for me.

Best,
Scott

Ha, you had me there CM for a moment:eek::DSnicker :p, me too. Was getting ready to PM a contact for the details...

So what I'm trying to point out here is that the Lumis doesn't seem to perform like a projector with high native CR.I'm not sure what the other projector is you were referring to (maybe a CRT) and this may or may not apply here, but one thing a higher on/off CR could reasonably allow is a higher gamma (more like a CRT's natural gamma). This could then end up affecting images that don't seem like the type that would benefit from high on/off CR, where they are really benefiting more from the higher gamma that is leaving more CR between say 20%stim and 80%stim.

I'm not sure if that made sense, but coming at it from another direction, a lower on/off CR could mean that a display tops out at about 2.2 gamma to look good just because where the images are all dark there isn't enough CR between say 0%stim and 10%stim or 20%stim, if the same gamma is used for all images. In the case of a 2.2 gamma the CR between 80%stim and 20%stim would be about 21:1. Now if the display is modified with much higher on/off CR then these very dark images may be less of a problem and now a person may be able to reasonably go to a 2.4 gamma. With a 2.4 gamma the CR between 80%stim and 20%stim would be closer to 28:1. A somewhat small difference at about 30% more there, but still a difference.

With the dynamic iris of the Lumis I'm not sure how much the above applies, but it could and to really see if it is better than the previous generation I think it makes some sense to make sure that the gamma has been optimized (including for the environment) for it. After that it is done it is possible that some images that don't seem like they would be helped by the higher dynamic CR of the DI system actually would be.

BTW: I'm not sure how much control there is over the gamma with the Lumis. I recall that on Art's HT5000 there were some high choices for gamma and we used some higher ones after playing around a little bit. He was coming from those 2 G90s and I don't know if the choices actually mapped to those gammas (I don't think it was final software at that point).

--Darin

Only native sequential. The Lumis has much much higher ANSI contrast and at least as much as the comparisons Wolfgang Mayer did the apparent contrast in some pretty impressive stuff the Lumis looks better than the RS20 for example. It looks like the DB works impressively well.

Art

As you know, I tested both back to back, and did notice a rather strange phenomenon.

I was watching Deliverance and was alternating between both machines to check the Lumis black levels compared to the RS20. I paused the movie to go get some more beer. As I was returning I could hear the immortal line "squeal like a pig". I thought one of my guests had pressed play before I got back with the beer. I was frikkin furious.

Imagine my surprise when I got back in the room and was met by a horrific scene. The Lumis had mounted the RS20 and was delivering a serious " big daddy butt-slam" . All I could hear was the RS20 going "weeeeeeeeeeeeee, weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee". There's only so much a poor little PJ can take, and 12 rounds being pulverized by Ron Jeremy is beyond a joke.

As you know, I tested both back to back, and did notice a rather strange phenomenon.

I was watching Deliverance and was alternating between both machines to check the check the Lumis black levels compared to the RS20. I paused the movie to go get some more beer. As I was returning I could hear the immortal line "squeal like a pig". I thought one of my guests had pressed play before I got back with the beer. I was frikkin furious.

Imagine my surprise when I got back in the room and was met by a horrific scene. The Lumis had mounted the RS20 and was delivering a serious " big daddy butt-slam" . All I could hear was the RS20 going "weeeeeeeeeeeeee, weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee". There's only so much a poor little PJ can take, and 12 rounds being pulverized by Ron Jeremy is beyond a joke.

Nice story,I thought for a minute there that a couple of buddies got so excited about the Lumis performance that they couldn't contain themselves.:D

Glad to hear that it was only simple electromechanical sodomy.I hope you didn't take out the Lumis with your bow and arrow.

Art

So if my screen 128.5" diagonal and 1.78:1, I'm dealing with:
[ ( 1800 / 50.22 ft^2 ) * screen gain ]


So I would have 46.6 ftl with a Studiotek, 32.3 ftl with a GreyHawk, and 25.1 ftl with a GrayMatte?

What would be the best one to go with if I get a Lumis?

I watch 2.35:1 movies with the projector wasting pixels (black bars on the bottom and top of screen). Would this affect what screen material would be the best option as well?


You could opt for a Stewart StudioTek Microperf X2 as your screen. The material is endorsed by Joe Kane like the ST130 G3 as well and the results are really good IMO. Since you have Revel Ultima Salon2's as your LCR which are reasonably high, you can place the screen in front (of the centre speaker if not the Left and Right) rather than above the speaker(s). A motorized drop-down is an option to remove the screen for 2 ch or multi-channel audio listening. Get the screen samples so you can evaluate them.

You could opt for a Stewart StudioTek Microperf X2 as your screen. The material is endorsed by Joe Kane like the ST130 G3 as well and the results are really good IMO. Since you have Revel Ultima Salon2's as your LCR which are reasonably high, you can place the screen in front (of the centre speaker if not the Left and Right) rather than above the speaker(s). A motorized drop-down is an option to remove the screen for 2 ch or multi-channel audio listening. Get the screen samples so you can evaluate them.

So the Studiotek with an ND filter is likely my best choice?

What you mentioned above is my exact setup already! Stewart sent me the wrong hole punch angle though and I have some intense moire with the C3X1080. Assuming the moire doesn't disappear with a switch to the Lumis, I will have to measure the best hole punch angle and get the screen replaced with the Lumis as well. If that is the case, I'm wondering if switching to another material would be a better option than using the Studiotek 130 X2 (G3) with an ND filter?

One of the things that bothers me about all of the G3 screens is that optical coating material; I tend to notice it during movies. I was thinking of using the GrayMatte, but was told that it reflects a lot of light into the room.

I guess if I take off 10% light output for microperf screen and consider bulb usage, then my numbers would make GreyMatte too low?

With microperf I would have 41.9 ftl with a Studiotek, 29.07 ftl with a GreyHawk, and 22.59 ftl with a GrayMatte?

With the GreyHawk I would get a range of 20.349 to 29.07 assuming 30% loss in light output from bulb usage.

With the StudioTek I would get a range of 29.33 to 41.9 assuming a 30% loss in light.

So, it seems like an ND filter would be the best option in my situation?

Queuecumber, if the texture of the Studiotek bothers you with the C3X 1080 then it will be far more apparent with the much brighter Lumis. Does Stewart not make non coated screen material? I've seen a 1080 on Firehawk and the texture is very obvious whereas on my 1080/Studiotek was negligible. On the Lumis the Studiotek looks like the Firehawk/C3X and grain is molto apparent. Gain here in not needed for sure if a good non coated screen can be sourced. Also IMO all this talk of excessive lumens is poppycock as in practice more lumens is actually quite pleasant. Saying one has too much light is a little like saying one's love muscle is too large. When pro's are calibrated to D65, much of that extra light goes byebye anyway unfortunately.

QC,
If you inform Stewart of your PJ they will make the perforations accordingly. They actually ask for the PJ name and model specifically for the perforations. I personally think that the coating has been modified so that you can virtually see no sparklies. It has improved a lot from the previous versions IMO. With the Microperf X2, The gain would be around 1.1 or so. If you have the space, then you should surely go for a larger screen.

There was a discussion on high grade filters recently. Try searching for it. Alan and/or CM can guide you in the right direction for that as well. Initially, you may require a filter but as the lamp wears on you can enjoy the picture in low lamp mode with the highest contrast settings for a superb picture.

In your particular case, I think a motorized drop-down would be the best option as you don't have/prefer a screenwall. Your PJ having the horse power to be too bright is not a concern IMO. The opposite is usually the case! :D Good luck!

I am with Owen, currently I am getting 19 foot lamberts at lamp set to 220 w (Lowest setting) at D 65.
If I increase to highest setting (I have not measured ft L at this setting) the perceived increase in brightness is not much. I suspect as my bulb decay now at 66 hours I could very well be in high lamp territory and enjoying the picture.
very intresting observation.... watching Palladia Crossroads TIVO recording kelly Clarkson and Reba Duo at 220 watts I could see excellent details and picture but at highest setting although the picture did not seem to be overly bright I would see facial hair on Reba's jawline, tiny tiny fizzy hair....
I will be going with the Ultramatte X2 1/3 Gain to replace my Firehawk which is giving Moire.
Ash

Just read the thread. No mention of gamut measurements? Can this projector hit Rec.709? How accurate is greyscale/colour/gamma curves?

Cheers,

Mark

I will be going with the Ultramatte X2 1/3 Gain to replace my Firehawk which is giving Moire.
Ash

Ash,

I know that I already told you this in PM, but I want to post it in case others want to comment. Although I strongly prefer the Stewart 1.3 gain materials compared to the Firehawk overall, you will have a large drop in ANSI CR measured from the screen. I would not be surprised if the ANSI CR drops to 300:1. It would be even lower without the curve, probably no more than 250:1.

I am with Owen, currently I am getting 19 foot lamberts at lamp set to 220 w (Lowest setting) at D 65.
If I increase to highest setting (I have not measured ft L at this setting) the perceived increase in brightness is not much. I suspect as my bulb decay now at 66 hours I could very well be in high lamp territory and enjoying the picture.
very intresting observation.... watching Palladia Crossroads TIVO recording kelly Clarkson and Reba Duo at 220 watts I could see excellent details and picture but at highest setting although the picture did not seem to be overly bright I would see facial hair on Reba's jawline, tiny tiny fizzy hair....
I will be going with the Ultramatte X2 1/3 Gain to replace my Firehawk which is giving Moire.
Ash

LOL, with this projector you do see and notice things on very familiar material that have never seen before and even sometimes things that perhaps we shouldn't :D With Chicago, which looked utterly fantastic BTW (thanks Ash), the bad skin of Renee Zellwegger came right through her makeup couldn't hide from the powers of the Lumis!

Mark Color Gamut is very interesting subject with Lumis indeed. I'm curious what settings you've ended up with Ash, perhaps you can post them here. I notice when this comes through from Sim2, they have Native and Medium color as default which to me looks oversaturated with reds somewhat and very bright but nice. Going to SMPTE-C and D65 really dims things down. I was getting 1162 lumens at D65 and going to factory color settings and 2083 lumens with Native/Medium. I much preferred the additional pop of the Native settings and was getting subjectively better blacks for some reason as well.

As you know, I tested both back to back, and did notice a rather strange phenomenon.

I was watching Deliverance and was alternating between both machines to check the Lumis black levels compared to the RS20. I paused the movie to go get some more beer. As I was returning I could hear the immortal line "squeal like a pig". I thought one of my guests had pressed play before I got back with the beer. I was frikkin furious.

Imagine my surprise when I got back in the room and was met by a horrific scene. The Lumis had mounted the RS20 and was delivering a serious " big daddy butt-slam" . All I could hear was the RS20 going "weeeeeeeeeeeeee, weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee". There's only so much a poor little PJ can take, and 12 rounds being pulverized by Ron Jeremy is beyond a joke.


you are one twisted SOB... :D

Ash,

I know that I already told you this in PM, but I want to post it in case others want to comment. Although I strongly prefer the Stewart 1.3 gain materials compared to the Firehawk overall, you will have a large drop in ANSI CR measured from the screen. I would not be surprised if the ANSI CR drops to 300:1. It would be even lower without the curve, probably no more than 250:1.

Very interesting Ivan, is that a drop in Ansi only due to 1.3 gain Stewrt or the combo of 1.3 gain and AT material?

Very interesting Ivan, is that a drop in Ansi only due to 1.3 gain Stewrt or the combo of 1.3 gain and AT material?

The drop is due to the much lower directionality of the Studiotek and Ultramatte 130 compared to the Firehawk. The lower directionality is a very good thing, especially in a theater with a lot of off axis seating, but sacrifices ANSI CR, especially in more reflective rooms. The perfs decrease ANSI CR because of back reflection, but this is a minor effect with a very flat black finish behind the screen.

What affect would say a Snowmatte 100 gain screen have on Ansi CR?

odyssey

Wouldn't this effect be diminished in performance theater with blackout material on walls/ceilings? What it primarily is affecting ANSI is in light dispersion back into the room and if you have the ability to control this in room you can then choose other materials like Studiotek based on relevance/preference for attributes like color accuracy, lower screen material texture effects etc., no?

What affect would say a Snowmatte 100 gain screen have on Ansi CR?

It would be worse with Snowmatte, but less than you think because the lower gain helps. Stewart has a spec for all of these screens that indicates the ANSI CR effect. It's called something like front reflection.

odyssey

Wouldn't this effect be diminished in performance theater with blackout material on walls/ceilings? What it primarily is affecting ANSI is in light dispersion back into the room and if you have the ability to control this in room you can then choose other materials like Studiotek based on relevance/preference for attributes like color accuracy, lower screen material texture effects etc., no?

The better the room, the less the effect.

guys, just received my lumis and doing quick setup.
Pls pm me how to get the service menu in order to fix convergence. Mine have red full pixel up.
Will report soon.

Sure would like to see one on a DNP Epic. Its 0.8 gain IIRC. If anyone comes across a Lumis setup with DNP, let me know, I'll go see it.

The drop is due to the much lower directionality of the Studiotek and Ultramatte 130 compared to the Firehawk.That and the gray layer of the Firehawk helps it retain ANSI CR in the face of room reflections also.

--Darin

k, pm received.
V Quick overview:
1)Very good ansi. bit better then other good DLPs such us the marants 11s2
2)On/off is really good. Perceptual similar to an 11s2 and an RS2. (for me anything >10K contrast is really good and more is just icing on the cake...)
3)Motion resolution. Best of all digitals I have seen so far. Tomorrow will run FPD patterns on it
4)Noise: its above average noise. I can also hear the iris working, especially when I zap or display OSD.
5)Convergence: Perfect B/G. Red is 1 pixel up on the top, 1 pixel down on the bottom, and .3pixel away at center. Nothing to improve on this.

More to come....After I calibrate the unit.

Sam.

Sure would like to see one on a DNP Epic. Its 0.8 gain IIRC. If anyone comes across a Lumis setup with DNP, let me know, I'll go see it.

Scott I do not think this would be a good combo. People reported disappointed to see this has sparkles. Its a shame we were hoping it would not be the case.

Is the new Lumis noiser than a C3X?

Is the new Lumis noiser than a C3X?


They sound about the same to me, but I've not metered them. It may also be possible that the Lumis is slightly quieter. (I base that statement on my initial feeling that it was versus the 1080.) Perhaps someone has checked both and can provide more than a subjective statement.

Jim

Scott I do not think this would be a good combo. People reported disappointed to see this has sparkles. Its a shame we were hoping it would not be the case.:( I'd just have to go AT then and get a bigger screen to burn some lumens, darn ;).

I had a converstion with an engineer at a laser optics shop re custom ND filters. They don't make them large enough and I'd have to order upa pile to get one done custom, but they had impressive specs anyway. Presumably better than standard photo filters. Minimal MTF and contrast effects. Flar freq. response across the visibile spectrum. Also learned something - unless it's specifically designed otherwise, the angle to place a filter relative to the light is 90 deg. You want it hitting it straight on becasue that's how the AR coarings are engineered to deal with the light wavelengths and prevent scatter. Intuition would have made me (and others) think an angle would work better.

If one of you guys get's bored and has some calipers, measure the width of the rectangular light beam right at the lens and let me know. Be good to kwow how small a filter could be used. How sweet it would be to have a set say 10,20,30,40% that you could switch out, especially if they have minimal (i.e. 1-2%) detrimental effects.

Cheers,
Scott

Is the new Lumis noiser than a C3X?

I think it's slightly quieter in low fan and slightly louder in high fan.

If one of you guys get's bored and has some calipers, measure the width of the rectangular light beam right at the lens and let me know. Be good to kwow how small a filter could be used. How sweet it would be to have a set say 10,20,30,40% that you could switch out, especially if they have minimal (i.e. 1-2%) detrimental effects.

Cheers,
Scott

Sounds like you are going to build a nice custom filter mount so they could be swapped out at will. Next a slide ?

Art

Well, I had mentioned to Alan about a year ago I could do it. Back then the idea was to normalize the brightness between lens on and lens off. Slide a anamorphic in one way, the other way gets a slight filter. Trivial to implement if th efilter was big. But, as I mentioned earlier in one of these Lumis threads, what we need is discrete bulb power RS232 or IR settings. Then one could slide the lens in and at the same time change bulb power to a specified level and control brightness changes that way. If it has enough range that is. It may alrady have the discretes, dunno, I haven't seen the RS232 command set. But that dosen't help those of us with lesser screens than yours trying to not have 75FtL :cool: :D

Scott,
I can confirm the Lumis has discrete power setting for lamp in 20 watt increments via Rs 232.
Ash

Scott I do not think this would be a good combo. People reported disappointed to see this has sparkles. Its a shame we were hoping it would not be the case.

This DNP screen is not the greatest screen on Earth, what they charged me for a custom size, with the results not living out to ambient light expectations, I ended up demanding an exchange for the new upcoming gain material, I even stated to a representative that the deal they gave me made them the Bernie Maddoff of screen co. However I can categorically state that the new low gain Supernova as used in the Epic DOES NOT HAVE SPARKLIES. I know you'l say I am out there and have odd tastes, BUT IF ANYONE IS Ground Mole to detect sparklies it's Ruben, he stood in front of the screen looking for defects just last night with the Titan Reference playing Kung FU Panda, he did not see any sparklies, he did find sheen on the velvet by DNP used and poopooed it, apparently he sources a much darker flock. But fair is fair Alan.

http://www.miamibadc.com/Images/ehx-050.jpg

Another thing about the Epic, or anyone elses Curved screen except the prototype from Vutec is the major wrinkles on the corners of the screen. While the Lumis was the best image of the show, I think joe kanes light grey new screen surface was better, also the sound though very refined by thiel and a tad stepped back by PS audio, the sound was totally steam rolled over by the Genelec surround.

http://www.miamibadc.com/Images/ehx-065.jpg

Scott,
I can confirm the Lumis has discrete power setting for lamp in 20 watt increments via Rs 232.
AshExcellent. Those who can use the low setting on 1.78:1 can turn it up for 2.35:1 if they want then.

Peter, thanks. So your screen is the low gain version? SMX Ruben?

re Kane's, I saw him and it at CEDIA but I forgot what the gain is on that screen. Alan Roser was in the same demo with me and I remember chatting with him afterward chuckling about Joe thinking it would be sacrilege to have that puppy microperfed, so AT is out with that one, if I understood right.

Scott,
Correction....
Lowest setting in Lumis bulb is 230 w and Max is 280 w.
Increments via RS232 are 10 watt steps so 230, 240,250 etc.... even better.
BTW Sim 2 supplied latest version Cineslide works great.
Ash

Increments via RS232 are 10 watt steps so 230, 240,250 etc.... even better.
BTW Sim 2 supplied latest version Cineslide works great.
AshYep 10 is even better. And thanks, I'm always very proud to see the CineSlide in theaters like yours.

Well, I had mentioned to Alan about a year ago I could do it.

I still think this would be a great product Scott. It reminds me of the motorized filter reels used in astronomy.

:( I'd just have to go AT then and get a bigger screen to burn some lumens, darn ;).

I had a converstion with an engineer at a laser optics shop re custom ND filters. They don't make them large enough and I'd have to order upa pile to get one done custom, but they had impressive specs anyway. Presumably better than standard photo filters. Minimal MTF and contrast effects. Flar freq. response across the visibile spectrum. Also learned something - unless it's specifically designed otherwise, the angle to place a filter relative to the light is 90 deg. You want it hitting it straight on becasue that's how the AR coarings are engineered to deal with the light wavelengths and prevent scatter. Intuition would have made me (and others) think an angle would work better.

If one of you guys get's bored and has some calipers, measure the width of the rectangular light beam right at the lens and let me know. Be good to kwow how small a filter could be used. How sweet it would be to have a set say 10,20,30,40% that you could switch out, especially if they have minimal (i.e. 1-2%) detrimental effects.

Cheers,
Scott

I think it was Wolfgang that pointed me at the fact that there's two kinds of ND filters, those based on absorption and those based on reflection. The reflection-based ones are less prone to compromising ANSI. Anyone want to support/rebut this?

I think it was Wolfgang that pointed me at the fact that there's two kinds of ND filters, those based on absorption and those based on reflection. The reflection-based ones are less prone to compromising ANSI. Anyone want to support/rebut this?

What is the difference between using an absorptive ND filter and a reflective ND filter?
There are two types of ND (neutral density) filters: absorptive and reflective. The absorptive type absorb light that is not transmitted, while the reflective type reflect it away. An absorptive ND filter has greatly reduced back reflections when compared to its reflective counterpart. This can be very important for various applications that are severely affected by back reflections, such as electronic imaging. However, since absorptive filters tend to absorb the light passing through them, the result is a slight increase in temperature. If critical temperature control is a factor in your application, we recommend using a reflective ND filter. Also, in absorptive ND filters, optical density is a function of glass thickness - the higher the optical density required, the thicker the filter will need to be. Reflective ND filters gain their properties through a coating material, allowing for thinner substrates and tighter thickness tolerances regardless of optical density. Care should be taken when using the reflective type of ND filter to insure that reflected light does not interfere with the application. In stacks, the reflective filters are not parallel in order to reduce back reflections.

How should I orient my reflective ND or interference filter?
Reflective ND (neutral density) filters and Interference filters will function as specified with either side facing the source. However, we recommend orienting the side with the "mirror-like" reflective coating toward the source. This will minimize any thermal effects resulting from the absorption of the heat by the glass on the other side. Also, having the "mirror-like" side facing away from the source will cause an interference pattern when the source is a coherent beam of light. For filters in general, the coated surface is oriented toward the source. In addition, filters will perform optimally if positioned in a collimated beam of light. This will reduce the angle of incidence and the performance results will closer match that of the filter's design. Interference filters in particular, are extremely sensitive to angle.


So, I'd say reflective would be bad for this application. It would be akin to one giant DMD mirror and you'd have to do something with the light it reflects away. I'd think you definately would not want it to reflect back into the projector. Light might go all over the place in there.

This is an interesting topic.
How do we tell what side of the filter has the coatings. I just spent a few hundred on a filter and do not see a difference between ether side and there is no mention of this in the paper work that came with the filter.





.

This is an interesting topic.
How do we tell what side of the filter has the coatings. I just spent a few hundred on a filter and do not see a difference between ether side and there is no mention of this in the paper work that came with the filter. Sometimes the ND filters have anti-refelctive (AR) coatings on both sides. But the same document said this about determining the coating side:

How do I determine which side of my filter is coated?
The coated surface is easily determined by looking at the edge of the substrate, from the direction of the center of the filter at a slight angle so looking at the inside edge. If you can see the actual edge (thickness) of the glass, then the coating is on the other side. From the coated side, the edge is not visible. This is more difficult to check on coatings that transmit in the visible, but the edge can still be detected by viewing the filter at a steep angle.

I've got a call in to my Schneider industrial optics man to get some input from him on what's best. Of course I expect I know the answer, but we'll see. Probabably be a few days before I have anything to tell.

I've got a call in to my Schneider industrial optics man to get some input from him on what's best. Of course I expect I know the answer, but we'll see. Probabably be a few days before I have anything to tell.

Could you ask him what, if any, detriment is caused to the ANSI number?

Sometimes the ND filters have anti-refelctive (AR) coatings on both sides. But the same document said this about determining the coating side:



I've got a call in to my Schneider industrial optics man to get some input from him on what's best. Of course I expect I know the answer, but we'll see. Probabably be a few days before I have anything to tell.


Do the filters you guys have have visible edges(raw) or are they framed ?

Art

Could you ask him what, if any, detriment is caused to the ANSI number?I will of course. But as all of their stuff is designed and thought of from the taking perspective, things like ANSI CR probably wont' mean anything to them. I'll bring them up to speed :)

I expect it will just take some experimenting to find out. But if I'm going to start testing them, I want to be sure I'm starting with the best I can. My friends at Sim2 like me, but not enough to give me a Lumis to play with though :)

Do the filters you guys have have visible edges(raw) or are they framed ?Both with the one's I've been looking at. There is a wide range in use from industrial to photographic.

MTF would be interesting as well.

In particular, what effect would the combo of ND lens plus anamorphic lens have on the overall MTF and ANSI contrast of the Lumis/AR lens/ND filter system at the screen?

Or in Ash's case, what are the effects of the addition of the AR lens plus port glass on the above, and are they expected to be any different?

I think it was Wolfgang that pointed me at the fact that there's two kinds of ND filters, those based on absorption and those based on reflection. The reflection-based ones are less prone to compromising ANSI. Anyone want to support/rebut this?

you need to tilt this reflection version one that no light at all are comes back into the optic.
this can make ansi cr. drop and more problems.

also a black part of velvet or similar material should be there to absorve
this light.

MTF would be interesting as well.




How are you measuring your three chip MTF ?

Art

This may be silly since I don't have a lot of experience with filters and these may not be applicable, but I bought a fliter to wrap around some LED light strips (DIY backlight) to change the color temperature of the light and it also reduced the light output by 0.5 stops. But at this site (http://www.gamonline.com/) you can get all sorts of filters that won't change the color temperature but will decrease the light output by varying degrees. Mostly used by Hollywood to create a night scene during a daytime shoot.

Here is a excerpt from the neutral density filter description:
ND (NEUTRAL DENSITY)
ND Filters are designed to reduce the light output (measured in foot candles or candelas) of your light source without changing the color temperature. ND filters are often used on windows to reduce the brightness and balance the contrast ratio of daylight to the indoor or shadowed area.

GamColor ND filters are available in five graduated steps providing for a light loss from 1/2 stop (.15) to 3 stops (1.2). See the convenient GamColor correction chart for your choices of GamColor ND and combination ND and CTO filters. GamColor ND filters are available in five steps: .15, .3, .6, .9 and 1.2.

Here is a link (http://www.gamonline.com/catalog/cinefilters/index.php) to the page in the site where this excerpt came from called Cine filters


Here (http://www.gamonline.com/catalog/colortheory/index.php) is the page where they discuss color theory

Here (http://www.gamonline.com/catalog/colortheory/colorsystem.php)is the page where they discuss how their filters are made

I had some time watching some movies over this weekend on the Lumis.
I find the picture to be very 3 dimensional....
The most surprising observation is that my front stage has been very refined ... there is very less light reflected back... as compared to my Qualia...
For example, I have curtains red material above the top of the screen (decorative) and the side curtains which were very visible and almost distracting with the Qualia...
Now the picture is so contained within the screen that I do not notice the curtains....the light seems to not spill out of the screen.
I would think that with a much brighter projector it would be the opposite.
The picture the Lumis throws is simply very 'Involving' and I cannot figure out the reason/s why.
Ash

The picture the Lumis throws is simply very 'Involving' and I cannot figure out the reason/s why.
Ash

It beats the Qualia in every measurable parameter perhaps? :)



Art

Art,
That's for sure... the difference betweenthe Qualia and Lumis is night and day... I skipped a few generations of projectors.
But would it be because of High ANSI Contrast less light spills out of the screen or gets reflected back into the room.? Or would be due to High CR On/Off?
Ash

For those of us screen challenged...:)

I've had a few technical conversations with some big dogs in the filter optics world. Learned quite a bit. For the best, the photographic ND filters are not on the top of the quality list, even for the best brands. The industrial optics world have better filters. They are judged by density uniformity, lact of striations in the glass (can be there but invisible), parallelism, and surface flatness. You do want the light hitting the filter as perpindicular as possible (angle of incidence). You do not want to use a reflective type filter for that reason in this application (if not for others, too).

There are some industrial quality filters made specifically for motion picture and broadcast television that are high quality, but they are comparing those to the high end industrial filters for me now.

So far I do not have any MTF data, and I may or may not be able to get it. Ditto on CR affects. These aren't inexpensive, so if the "yo get what you pay for" saying goes, they woudl be the way to go for a Lumis install that was too bright. They are much better than the photgraphic (e.g. B+W) which do not have published tolerances, wheras the industrial filters by the same company do. Has a lot to do with the "pour" density, and what density the thing is after it's ground. 2 variables to control which drives costs up.

Potentially bad news so far is the very best industrial filter company only makes a 0.3 density filter as the "lightest" ND filter. It has a very flat frequency response but that's equivilant to one "stop" on a camera, or 50% light reduction (ND 2 in the camera world). There are 0.1 and 0.2 densities available from other companies which I am looking into.

More to come....

Hi Scott, good stuff.

A few thoughts. Wondering what this difference in cost will be and will the eye be able to see any difference.
I just paid $200 for a 4" square 10x. Its very thick and multi coated. Of course no specs came with it. I do not see any difference in performance between it and my $40 filter.
Not saying there is no difference just that I cannot see it if its there.

You bring up a good point regarding the quality of glass and its thickness but if they say their glass is better in this regards and do not provide MTF specs then I wonder how they could know if their own product is any better then their competitors without these specs.

Hi Alan:

Don't want to go too far off on a tangent, but since it's the admin conversing :)...

For us, at a measly 1080 resolution, it may indeed be all moot. Dunno. And one may work perfectly as well as another (i.e. photographic vs. laser quality). A film based ND might even work, but I have my doubts there. The absorbtive (glass) filter specs are more about the physical characteristics of the filter itself than what it does to an image. Parallelism for example may well affect MTF or CA. But whether or not a laser grade ND and a photo grade will have a significant difference in our world, I can't say, without having one in hand to test with (A PJ as bright as the Lumis would be handy to test with as well). The filter transmission curves of the industrial filters show the %attenuation over the range of light wavelengths in the visible spectrum, obviously we want that line to be flat as possible so light of all colors is attenuated the same amount. I don't yet know how the photo vs. industrial curves look in that regard. I do know that there is visible color variation in regular photo ND filters. Here's a photo of some popular ones to demonstrate:http://www.2filter.com/prices/nd_filters.htm

The potential straie in the glass are(is?) something that could also casue CA or an increased MTF multiplier, but that would be localized to the area where the effect existed in the filter glass. My laymen translation of the straie are places where the glass cools quicker/slower/different and casue "ripples" in the light passing properties of the glass itself. It takes a cross polarizer (http://home.comcast.net/~cassarole/CrossPolarizer.html)setup to check for this anomaly according to one company president I spoke to. According to him, all of the ND filter's glass are suceptible to this anomaly. But again, this may not be something we would see, or it may be a luck of the draw filter.

As we all know it's harder to see things like that in real video even if it is there. But there are plenty of purists amoung us "enthusiasts" who would be bent if we saw a "light wrinkle" in a solid blue test pattern. I think that's one of the reasons the high end lenses cost what they do, the glass they cherry pick to start with. So I'd expect the same from high end filters.

Cheers,
Scott

Don't want to spoil all this party about MTF. Yes the lumis have a combo of contrast/brightness/Lense unseen before. But but, its motion resolution is on the avg side. It scored a resolution of 450 with materials moving an avg of 6ppf(pixels per frame). Just run my FPD test disk on it.... (PS: pls don't bash my post cause you think this is unimportant, Get an FPD and see what you are missing with fast action details. Or better yet, don't get it and ignore my post and be very happy with the lumis)...

Now on another note, I think sim QC is really below avg. My unit had a reflection of red content on the upper left corner outside of the screen. I talked with Sim tech and they seem to find this normal. Here is the email I received:
" checked the picture you sent; this effet is intrinsic of 3chip compact DLP projectors.
Due to the compact nature, high brightness and contrast of the optical system within the C3XLumis-HOST, a small amount of light scatter may be seen outside the edges of the screen area and this effect will vary depending on the type of lens used and the zoom and shift setting. This is a normal characteristic of the optical system.
This is also present on C3X 1080 models
To reduce this effect SIM2 recommends that the area surrounding the screen should be as dark as possible."
Basically they asked me to mask this error cause its a feature of 36K$ high quality PJ...
Even if PQ is not affected by this, they should have failed it at the factory. My theater is already built and won't change anything because of this.
I regret spending such huge amount of money to a company like sim2. I will sell their product and move to more serious company like barco and others...

K, I think I made the only negative post on this thread! :D

Don't want to spoil all this party about MTF. Yes the lumis have a combo of contrast/brightness/Lense unseen before. But but, its motion resolution is on the avg side. It scored a resolution of 450 with materials moving an avg of 6ppf(pixels per frame). Just run my FPD test disk on it.... (PS: pls don't bash my post cause you think this is unimportant, Get an FPD and see what you are missing with fast action details. Or better yet, don't get it and ignore my post and be very happy with the lumis)...

Now on another note, I think sim QC is really below avg. My unit had a reflection of red content on the upper left corner outside of the screen. I talked with Sim tech and they seem to find this normal. Here is the email I received:
" checked the picture you sent; this effet is intrinsic of 3chip compact DLP projectors.
Due to the compact nature, high brightness and contrast of the optical system within the C3XLumis-HOST, a small amount of light scatter may be seen outside the edges of the screen area and this effect will vary depending on the type of lens used and the zoom and shift setting. This is a normal characteristic of the optical system.
This is also present on C3X 1080 models
To reduce this effect SIM2 recommends that the area surrounding the screen should be as dark as possible."
Basically they asked me to mask this error cause its a feature of 36K$ high quality PJ...
Even if PQ is not affected by this, they should have failed it at the factory. My theater is already built and won't change anything because of this.
I regret spending such huge amount of money to a company like sim2. I will sell their product and move to more serious company like barco and others...

K, I think I made the only negative post on this thread! :D

I can understand your frustration. QC issues seem to continue to follow Sim. A great shame since the Lumis has raised the bar. I do hope Sim will address these issues somehow.

Is it really so bad as to sell the unit though? I would have thought that a comparable Barco or DPI product would be significantly more expensive than the Lumis? Other than the light scatter, are you otherwise happy with the unit?

Regards,

Sean

I can understand your frustration. QC issues seem to continue to follow Sim. A great shame since the Lumis has raised the bar. I do hope Sim will address these issues somehow.

Is it really so bad as to sell the unit though? I would have thought that a comparable Barco or DPI product would be significantly more expensive than the Lumis? Other than the light scatter, are you otherwise happy with the unit?

Regards,

Sean


Sean, I will post a pic of the artifact tonight. And you guys judge.
As for the reason of moving away from it, its because of the way it handle motion. Whats the point of setting new records in MTF/focus/resolution with static scope patterns if those numbers plumb when the pattern moves few pixels per frame. With 6ppf content, the resolution is almost cut in third...
Moving Picture is not static... I will also post a pic that tries to simulate what my eyes (and my wife and most of my friends who came to my theater) noticed with some movie content with fast motion.
Beside those 2 issues, I never saw a pic more 3D and it remain so with any APL scene thrown at it. Thats a first and that must be the reason why its being raved so much.
But but, to each person his priorities.

Sam.

Sam, what are your lens, throw ratio, and shift parameters in your theater that produced the artifact?

k, this pic is from internal test pattern, it clearly shows a red artifact on the upper left corner of the screen. Something that should be masked according to sim2.

This is the scope used in FPD to test for motion resolution, It scolls at 6.5 frames per second:

With the lumis when the pic moves, the lines join together starting around 450 (less the half the resolution)

And for those skeptics stating this won't transate into anything significant while watching real word content video, I attached 2 pics, one paused and 1 moving. I had to play with shutter speed in order to get something close to what my eyes actually see but I bilieve the result is pretty consistent with what my eyes brain interpret:
(this is in no way a scientific method of measurement but it gives an idea...)


The difference is especially easy to spot on car imatriculation plate. With the FPD benchmark disk, they stress this point as well in that particular scene.

COW, would juttering motion artifacts be a direct result of these issues?