Bevanj
08-07-09, 11:50 AM
Hi,
This is my first post here. Great forum! I just bought a BENQ W5000 as my first projector. However, I'm noticing a difference between what I observe, and what is in the manual. This has to do with lens shift. What I seem to have is the opposite of what the manual shows. I seem to have -120, +80 lens shift. The manual diagrams show the opposite. I have my projector rear mounted on a shelf at almost roof height sitting on it's feet (FEET DOWN). Anyhow, I can get the top of the image projected to be 20% below the projector level, when I put the lens shift as far downward as I can get. When I put it upward as far as I can get, the bottom of the projected image about 20% below the level of the projector lens. In other words, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to ceiling mount the projector without a drop tube or keystone. Can anyone else check and confirm if their projector is the same? I've found the following reference that indicates that it may well be normal, and the manual may be incorrect in terms of it's diagram.
It's from the projector central review:
"The vertical lens shift of two picture heights is perfectly adequate for almost all rear shelf mounted installations. If you ceiling mount, you may find that a drop tube is required in order to avoid tilting it and using keystone to square up the image."
Here is a diagram from the Benq Manual:
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh303/kiwibevanjones/benqw5000.jpg
Here is a diagram that I drew of what I'm getting:
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh303/kiwibevanjones/2benqw5000.jpg
It works fine for me in it's current configuration. However, I worry that If I move and am forced to ceiling mount it, it'll become a bit of a pain.
So, is there something not right with my BENQ's lens shift, or is it a mistake on the manuals part? The way I see it, they've cocked up the diagram anyway haven't they? The 120% regardless of whether it's positive or negative shift should be the top of the image, not the center line. The same could be said for the 80%. Correct?
Thanks,
Bevan
This is my first post here. Great forum! I just bought a BENQ W5000 as my first projector. However, I'm noticing a difference between what I observe, and what is in the manual. This has to do with lens shift. What I seem to have is the opposite of what the manual shows. I seem to have -120, +80 lens shift. The manual diagrams show the opposite. I have my projector rear mounted on a shelf at almost roof height sitting on it's feet (FEET DOWN). Anyhow, I can get the top of the image projected to be 20% below the projector level, when I put the lens shift as far downward as I can get. When I put it upward as far as I can get, the bottom of the projected image about 20% below the level of the projector lens. In other words, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to ceiling mount the projector without a drop tube or keystone. Can anyone else check and confirm if their projector is the same? I've found the following reference that indicates that it may well be normal, and the manual may be incorrect in terms of it's diagram.
It's from the projector central review:
"The vertical lens shift of two picture heights is perfectly adequate for almost all rear shelf mounted installations. If you ceiling mount, you may find that a drop tube is required in order to avoid tilting it and using keystone to square up the image."
Here is a diagram from the Benq Manual:
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh303/kiwibevanjones/benqw5000.jpg
Here is a diagram that I drew of what I'm getting:
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh303/kiwibevanjones/2benqw5000.jpg
It works fine for me in it's current configuration. However, I worry that If I move and am forced to ceiling mount it, it'll become a bit of a pain.
So, is there something not right with my BENQ's lens shift, or is it a mistake on the manuals part? The way I see it, they've cocked up the diagram anyway haven't they? The 120% regardless of whether it's positive or negative shift should be the top of the image, not the center line. The same could be said for the 80%. Correct?
Thanks,
Bevan