Optoma HD81 1080p DLP official discussion [Text View] - Page 2

kuebler

01-12-06, 06:39 PM

As many of you know that Optoma has been trying very hard to create good looking HT projectors, be it telecentric engine (the one that do lens shift) or non-telecentric engines. Please forgive me my naive question, because I have zero optical engineering knowhow:

I want to know how the HD81 achieves to shift its projected image 77% from the lens center axis. Your post seems to suggest that the absence of a variable lens shift is due to the non-telecentric design. But after some research I found that the DWIN Transvision 3 uses a non-telecentric design as well, without a TIR prism, but still achieves a variable lens shift.

The purpose of my question is to know, whether in theory and in principle, by mechanically manipulating the relative optical axis of the projection lens within the HD81, one could achieve to reduce this 77% offset. As I said, in theory and in principle ;)

If I would dare to try in practice, then I could destroy a first HD81 and then succeed on the second one, without having paid more than for a single PD Action 1080 with lens shift (but less contrast). So if I have only a 10% chance to succeed already with the first unit, then my net result is already a probabilistic saving :cool:

My 165" High Power screen and my liking of the HD81 lead me to these experimental thoughts of vandalism :eek:

Rob Tomlin

01-12-06, 08:09 PM

Rob Tomlin,
In your 10' ceiling condition, actually offset works better for you, sicne you can mount the projector closer to ceiling, and not worrying about the odd presenence of the projector. A "within the screen frame" len shift will mean a very long ceiling mount neck in your 10' ceiling ...

Yep, you are right. I certainly would NOT want a pj that must be within the screen frame!

I am more concerned with the throw distance required. My screen is 123" diagonal, and my room is only 19 feet long. The PJ would be very close to the back wall and behind my electrical outlet and cabling.

flint350

01-12-06, 09:28 PM

I am more concerned with the throw distance required. My screen is 123" diagonal, and my room is only 19 feet long. The PJ would be very close to the back wall and behind my electrical outlet and cabling.

I'm in a similar situation. While my room is physically 20w X 32l, at the mid point (16 ft) there is a bulkhead running across the room widthwise containing HVAC plumbing and a boxed lolly column in the middle.. I didn't know it would be there until a recent pre-drywall meeting with the builder. So, now my nice 32' long room is effectively 15' for throw distance for anything needing to be mounted near the ceiling. Anything mounted further back would be blocked by the bulkhead. Since the bulkhead will probably be at least a 10" wallboarded unit, it effectively drops the ceiling by those 10" right in the middle. The lolly column would provide a great mount for most other projectors (Ruby, etc) on a shelf at about 15' throw and any height (think High Power). But, it is probably going to knock out the HD81 for me, as much as I like it.
Damn! I was just imagining that 123" Firehawk and HD81 combo. Looks like the long throw and the low midpoint are going to prevent that now.

Edit - hope this isn't a forum OT violation, but here is an example of the room and my problem, showing the lolly column and hvac box across center, behind seats with PJ mounted on column at any height necessary. Screen is on a 21' wide wall. I am planning an RF remote, so equip will be in cabinet behind column in wet bar section OR - I was thinking of just putting it all completely out of sight in the closet, making it an equip. closet. Have a look: (apologies all around if this is inappropriate for the forum/thread and I will delete it if requested):

http://home.comcast.net/~flint350/HTExample.jpg

Ron Jones

01-12-06, 10:06 PM

TzungTLin -

Thanks for the input on my question related to the RS232 cable. Just to be certain that I have it correct: the RS232 cable has DB9 male connectors on both ends and is required to connect the switch/scaler box to the projector. I assume this is a normal serial cable with each DB9 pin connected to the same pin on the other end and not a 'null modem' (that would have the Tx and Rx connections reversed on one end vs. the other).

Can you please confirm that the above is correct?

On the topic of the required 27% offset the real issue for a lot of home theater owners would be when we have two rows of seating. The riser for the second row of seats would have to be really high (two steps up) when using a 120" or larger sceen with an 8 or 9 ft. ceiling. A much smaller fixed offset would be much more suited for home theater use even if for cost considerations the HD81 does not have lens shift adjustments to provide a variable offset.

Ron Jones

Rob Tomlin

01-12-06, 11:45 PM

danielo

01-13-06, 04:44 AM

I'm in a similar situation. While my room is physically 20w X 32l, at the mid point (16 ft) there is a bulkhead running across the room widthwise containing HVAC plumbing and a boxed lolly column in the middle.. I didn't know it would be there until a recent pre-drywall meeting with the builder. So, now my nice 32' long room is effectively 15' for throw distance for anything needing to be mounted near the ceiling. Anything mounted further back would be blocked by the bulkhead. Since the bulkhead will probably be at least a 10" wallboarded unit, it effectively drops the ceiling by those 10" right in the middle. The lolly column would provide a great mount for most other projectors (Ruby, etc) on a shelf at about 15' throw and any height (think High Power). But, it is probably going to knock out the HD81 for me, as much as I like it.
Damn! I was just imagining that 123" Firehawk and HD81 combo. Looks like the long throw and the low midpoint are going to prevent that now.
[/IMG]

Can't they move the lolly column say 2feet either way (not in the middle anymore) or
replace them with 2 off axis ? Seems that if you can atleast use some more space for
the projector it will give you more options in the future selection of projectors.

Daniel.

Ron Jones

01-13-06, 07:26 AM

It would seem to me that the 27% offset would be more appropriate for people with risers in the back. The larger offset means that the pj has to be mounted closer to the ceiling, which means that people standing on the riser won't hit their head on the pj.

When I went through the numbers for a 9 ft. ceiling and the HD81 mounted as close to the ceiling as possible (lens center only 4 inches down from the ceiling) I came up with the following examples:

133" (diagonal) screen - floor to bottom of screen is 21 inches - first row of seats at 12' (viewing distance) and the 2nd row at 16' 8" - required riser height for 2nd row is 18 inches

123" (diagonal) screen - floor to bottom of screen is 27 inches - first row of seats at 12' (viewing distance) and the 2nd row at 16' 8" - required riser height for 2nd row is 16 inches

If you were to use seating whose rows can be spaced closer to each other the riser height would be a little less. I have assumed Berkline 099 seats, which are recliners with a high back, for the above calculations. Chairs with lower backs for the front row would also let you reduce the riser height a little, but you still need to be able to see over the heads of the front row viewers.

What these numbers tell me is that unless you have a really high ceiling to work with, you will need to tilt the screen and projector so that the screen can be moved up higher. For example if you use a 3 degree tilt with a 133" (diagonal screen - i.e., 65" high by 116" wide") the floor to screen bottom distance increases from 21 inches (as listed above) to 33 inches. With the same seating locations described above the riser height would decrease from 18" to about 13.5".

The calculator for riser height can be found at: http://www.cinegi.com/cgi-bin/riser.cgi

Ron Jones
www.dtvmax.com

HiFiGuy1

01-13-06, 09:21 AM

The offset of the HD81 would certainly seem to be an advantage for people with two or three rows of seats. It would keep the projector case out of the line of sight of the back row(s) and remove the possibility of banging one's head on it. I would also think that anyone with a realistic possibility of having two rows, or certainly three, would by default have the ceiling height to accomodate this unit.

sfogg

01-13-06, 09:33 AM

" I would also think that anyone with a realistic possibility of having two rows, or certainly three, would by default have the ceiling height to accomodate this unit. "

I have two rows with a 10" riser for the rear seats and don't have the ceiling height for this projector.

Shawn

flint350

01-13-06, 10:31 AM

Can't they move the lolly column say 2feet either way (not in the middle anymore) or
replace them with 2 off axis ? Seems that if you can atleast use some more space for
the projector it will give you more options in the future selection of projectors.

Daniel.

Daniel,

The lolly column is already in place and cemented and it would take an act of God (and that probably wouldn't be enough) to get the builder to do it. Besides, the HVAC bulkhead above it still prevents mounting further back as it protrudes down into the room from the ceiling across the width of the room. Anything mounted behind that 16' mid-point would have to be lower than that bulkhead to hit the screen. It's the combination of 2 issues that kill it now for me - the offset and the long throw. If I could mount it in front of the bulkhead, even attaching to it, I could use full ceiling height - but that puts the PJ at about 14' or so. I believe the HD81 has a minimum throw of 1.8 which would reduce potential screen size significantly. I really like the looks of this PJ, but I think it simply won't work in my (new) situation.

Thanks for the suggestion though.

Rob Tomlin

01-13-06, 11:45 AM

When I went through the numbers for a 9 ft. ceiling and the HD81 mounted as close to the ceiling as possible (lens center only 4 inches down from the ceiling) I came up with the following examples:

133" (diagonal) screen - floor to bottom of screen is 21 inches - first row of seats at 12' (viewing distance) and the 2nd row at 16' 8" - required riser height for 2nd row is 18 inches

123" (diagonal) screen - floor to bottom of screen is 27 inches - first row of seats at 12' (viewing distance) and the 2nd row at 16' 8" - required riser height for 2nd row is 16 inches

If you were to use seating whose rows can be spaced closer to each other the riser height would be a little less. I have assumed Berkline 099 seats, which are recliners with a high back, for the above calculations. Chairs with lower backs for the front row would also let you reduce the riser height a little, but you still need to be able to see over the heads of the front row viewers.

What these numbers tell me is that unless you have a really high ceiling to work with, you will need to tilt the screen and projector so that the screen can be moved up higher. For example if you use a 3 degree tilt with a 133" (diagonal screen - i.e., 65" high by 116" wide") the floor to screen bottom distance increases from 21 inches (as listed above) to 33 inches. With the same seating locations described above the riser height would decrease from 18" to about 13.5".

The calculator for riser height can be found at: http://www.cinegi.com/cgi-bin/riser.cgi

Ron Jones
www.dtvmax.com

Interesting calculator. But despite what it says, I can assure you that your riser does not need to be 16" high. I have the same Berklines, and I have a 10" riser. People in the back can see just fine. I also think you can lower your screen a few inches as well.

joerod

01-13-06, 12:05 PM

Unfortuneately for me I can't lower my ceiling because I built my screen into my wall so it is actualy recessed. I like it better that way because it is flush. Anyway, with a 120.5" screen and 8 foot ceiling I am now officialy out of the running for getting the HD81. I am contemplating the HD7300 but am worried that a 6(7300) versus 8(H79 what I have now) segment color wheel may make the RBE worse for my wife. I am lucky now that the H79 is a lot easier on her eyes. I may have to end up waiting for a 1080p down the road with lens shift...

millerwill

01-13-06, 02:09 PM

I have a relatively standard room, 100" ceiling, just one row of seats, and when I do the calcualtions (with the HD-81 mounted as close to the ceiling as possible, 4"), I wind up with 27" from the bottom of the screen to the floor, plenty of room for my center speaker. BUT, this puts the screen center (height-wise) at 54" above the floor, quite a bit higher than my ~38" eye level (wife and I are usually in the 'recline' position of the recliners!): is this OK, or would it be better to lower the projector a bit to lower the screen? What is the prevailing wisdom?

Scott B

01-13-06, 02:36 PM

millerwill

01-13-06, 03:03 PM

I designed my theater so that eye level for viewers seated in the first row (primary) is about 1/3 up the screen from the bottom. I based this on articles suggesting that this is the most comfortable viewing position. I am not sure why that would be the case though. The second row of seating puts eye level at around the middle of the screen.

OK, thanks for the info. If I went with your 1/3 suggestion, the bottom of the screen should be ~20" above the floor (38" - 54"/3). So I would need to lower the projector ~6 to 7", which should be no problem. Seems like it will all fit just fine (height, throw, etc.); now I just need to convince myself about the 'controlled light' issues!

Scott Gammans

01-13-06, 04:13 PM

Kevin R. Anderson

01-13-06, 04:20 PM

Scott:

A few beers are known to sufficiently slow the eye's response time and thereby mitigate the dreaded rainbow effect. They also tend to improve the appearance of your wife or "significant other." ;)

On a serious note, some people have reported more rainbow problems with a high-gain screen, so you may want to experiment with a neutral or negative gain screen to see if it makes any difference.

multiblitz

01-13-06, 04:26 PM

TzungTLin,

Thanks for the specs, it helps a lot as many people are still as well in the process of building their cinema (like me) and can now plan ahead. As well the positioning of a real bright and sharp projector in the market is an excellent move, as I want as well a bigger picture and the Ruby is no option with a screen 69" high and 170" wide as I understand from many posts in the forum. So, I am waiting for a machine like the HC81 (which is hopefully as quiet as the ruby).

One question regarding the scaler-box: I actually so for did not need any, as I am using a HTPC with ffdshow doing de-noise, lanszos4-scaling to 720p/1080p and sharping in an extremly high-quality way sofar not beaten by anything when watching DVDs (transferring the DVI-signal directly to the projector). How does your scaler perform against a high-end-HTPC ? I don't want to decrease quality (and pay for an extra box which does not add any value) ?

Second question: Even though your machine is brighter than the ruby: Does it suffer as well badly in brightness (Ruby: 30%less) if not the min-throw-ration will be used ? Helps my planning...

joerod

01-13-06, 04:58 PM

Scott Gammans, that is exactly how my wife used to feel after watching movies on a DLP RPTV or less expensive single chip PJ. The H79 has been very good for her and I only will take a chance on a different PJ if I am sure it won't effective her like the DLP RPTVs used to. Usually 6 segment color wheels are the worst for RBE. Of course depending on the speed as well...To bad you could not sample a H79 to see if it had the same effect as the HC3000 for you...

HoustonHoyaFan

01-13-06, 04:59 PM

TzungTLin,

...I want as well a bigger picture and the Ruby is no option with a screen 69" high and 170" wide as I understand from many posts in the forum. So, I am waiting for a machine like the HC81 (which is hopefully as quiet as the ruby).
...
There is just not a big difference between ~ 730 lcalibrated lumens vs 800 to 900 calibrated lumens on a 81 sq ft screen! Both are going to lose 35% to 50% over their lifetime.

You need ~1,600 calibrated lumens for a low gain screen that size!

HiFiGuy1

01-13-06, 08:05 PM

I might even suggest 2000 lumens calibrated so that you could have about 25 ftL at first, which could be reduced with an ND2 until the light output drops naturally to around 12-15 ftL. Of course, this is based on unity gain, and I suppose at that size, you would at least be considering a gain screen.

Come to think of it, with a real-world 2.0 gain screen, you may be very happy with the HD81 just as it is. That would give you about 22 ftL to start if the HD81 calibrates to 900 as TzungILin suggests in an earlier post. You would finally settle at 10-12 ftL after aging, which would be very watchable, I think.

Robert Clark

01-14-06, 01:58 AM

Well, I may be back out of the running for an HD81, and now it has nothing to do with lens shift. I was at a friend's house last night helping him install his new toy, a Mitsubishi HC3000. After we had the projector mounted we fired it up and watched Revenge of the Sith, but by about halfway through the movie I was really starting to get a headache... it felt like two little men with ballpeen hammers were tink tink tinking away right behind my eyeballs.

Yep, you guessed it--turns out I'm susceptible to the rainbow effect. We popped in Sunset Bouelvard just to be sure, and the rainbows were even more visible to me than ever. I'd never seen this effect before, but then again, I've never seen a single-chip DLP before, either (yes, I've led a sheltered life). 'Tis true that the HD81 has a 50% faster color wheel than the HC3000, but if there's even a slight chance that I'm prone to RBE it's not worth the risk.

Drat.

Scott,
I hear ya. I've owned several 1 chip DLP machines, and though I adapt to them in a few weeks, there's no getting around the fact that it's a bit of an effort to watch them... for me. Owning an AE500 has only reinforced that fact. Despite it's major flaws, I can watch all day with no strain at all.

Now the HD81 for me was much easier on the eyes than any other 1 chip machine I've seen, but there's no guarantee that this will not be a problem for you. (Another good one was the LG AN110...)

QQQ

01-14-06, 04:09 AM

multiblitz

01-14-06, 05:01 AM

DIY Guy

01-14-06, 05:18 AM

Posted byQQQ
THIS

THAT is a very cool solution...unfortunately, it doesn't look like it does 1080P :(

Here's the Scaler Product Brief (http://www.siliconoptix.com/contentEngine/contentDocuments/Image_AnyPlace_Product_Brief_Sept_2004.pdf)

kuebler

01-14-06, 05:48 AM

Well my plans ona big screen are that I will use Screen goo sprayed on a perfectly prepared wall with crt white as base and lite grey on top. Accourding to screen goo this will have a gain of 1.6-1.8.

Nevertheless I am currently using for learning purposes an Epson TW-600, which has in the living-room-mode around 600 ansi lumens and in the cinema mods 350 lumens. The picture is not perfect at all and should be brighter, but even though currently I am not using a real screen, but a yellow wall as screen. I am already very impressed by the result of this setup and with a real screen and a pj which is quiet and thorws out double of the light the Epson offers, I think I will be a pretty happy man.That's somewhat similar to what I do: I use a TW600 as intermediate PJ before getting a sufficiently bright 1080, possiby the HD81, if early enough, or else maybe the Action 1080.

But if in your setup the TW600 in living room mode is not absolutely bright enough, then you can rule out the HD81. The TW600 in living room mode puts out more like 900 lumens, so that should be comparable to the HD81. Don't let yourself be fooled by the HD81's nominal 1,400 lumens. THat's the same what is the Epson's 1,600 lumens.

In my setup with a 165" High Power screen (real gain app. 2.2) the TW600 in living room mode has plenty of brightness, even with enough headroom to allow for some bulb aging. In cinema mode this is not the case, and the picture, while being better colorwise, loses its pop. So I prefer using the living room mode.

Maybe this weekend I can successfuly fight my lazyness and attack the TW600 with my ColorFacts. If so, I'll give some more info.

multiblitz

01-14-06, 07:49 AM

kuebler

01-14-06, 01:36 PM

Falk, that's interesting, especially as I live only 40 minutes away from you in Bruehl. I feel not bad about the living-room-mode as I said, I have to see what screen-goo will do for me as I had difficulties to find reasonable offers for a high-power in Germany in this size. Where did you get yours ?

The TW-600 is not bad, but to loud and screen-door is visiible to much for me. As well sharpness /resolution could be a bit better. The lumens numbers came from the measurements of Audio-Vision-magazine.I don't know what screen size you are aiming for, but in case it's large, I wouldn't go for screen-goo. In fact I wouldn't go for anything other than a retroreflective screen, which automatically leads to High Power.

The reason you should not go for non-retroreflective high gain material with large screens is that you would get hot spotting, the more gain the more serious. Retroreflective is the perfect solution, provided you can arrange your setup in a way that you can sit "on axis" with the PJ.

The price is not so bad BTW. I paid $1,300 for a 3.66m x 2.60m (165" diagonal using 16:9 format sources) Electrol, i.e. with motor, including shipping to Germany. Add customs and value tax, let's say alltogether you pay $1,700. That's not cheap, but OTOH it's for a really large screen with all comfort.

If you have problems with screen door, I can recommend the IMX lens. You can get it used for app. $350.

If you have uncertainties with respect to such a setup, then you are invited to come to my place and look at it. It's not 40 minutes from Bruehl, if you follow the law, but sure not more than an hour ;)

Ron Jones

01-14-06, 01:50 PM

Interesting calculator. But despite what it says, I can assure you that your riser does not need to be 16" high. I have the same Berklines, and I have a 10" riser. People in the back can see just fine. I also think you can lower your screen a few inches as well.

Rob - what is the geometry of your HT setup?

Screen size
Distance from floor to the bottom of the screen
Distance from screen to 1st row of seats (to the actual viewing position)
Distance from 1st row to 2nd row (from viewing positon to viewing position)

Ron Jones

QQQ

01-14-06, 04:06 PM

THAT is a very cool solution...unfortunately, it doesn't look like it does 1080P :(
If anyone thin it might really be an option, I would contact them. I read a blurb that suggested it does do 1080P. There are a bunch oif Realta guys that particpate in the video proecssor forum. Maybe I'll post there and ask. I want to find out price too.

bgosselin

01-14-06, 11:35 PM

If anyone thin it might really be an option, I would contact them. I read a blurb that suggested it does do 1080P. There are a bunch oif Realta guys that particpate in the video proecssor forum. Maybe I'll post there and ask. I want to find out price too.

The DragonFly can do that too! I saw a demo in Montreal. Don't know if it does 1080p.

sfogg

01-14-06, 11:52 PM

"If anyone thin it might really be an option, I would contact them. "

Don't you end up throwing away a lot of the panels resolution taking that approach?

Shawn

QQQ

01-15-06, 12:02 AM

They claim not I believe. The engineer claimed they would place it in a room at an odd angle and it would look better than the same PJ placed correctly due to their superior scaling. I agree, I am skeptical. It sounded ridiculous at first, and still does! But it is Teranex/Silicon Optix so I will give them the benefit of the doubt. I want to learn more about it. It seems to me the technology could be licensed to just about every PJ manufacturer. Being able to stick the projector where ever you want it would be nothing short of incredible. Hell just read this thread!

I still need to go over there and read just exactly what they are doing - I've only skimmed it so far.

QQQ

01-15-06, 12:13 AM

Here is a short blurb. They have the manual and everything online there for those that want to read it.
The Corner Point Grid Generation is designed to provide an easy method to develop custom warp files for projection onto a flat surface while correcting geometric (keystone) distortion due to the projection angle, as well as any lens optical distortion. This tool should be used when the projector lens parameters, such as throw ratio or lens shift, do not match the keystone correction maps built into the Image AnyPlace Scale

QQQ

01-15-06, 12:15 AM

If the upcoming DragonFly also includes Image Anywhere, I know for sure that machine will do 1080P.

stopdog

01-15-06, 12:44 AM

Please help me determine if the HD81 will fit in my little HT. Room is 11'x18', actually screen wall is 127.5" wide(current screen is 106" diag 16:9), the room widens in the back. Ceiling height is 9 feet. 1st row seating is 9 feet, 2nd row 15 feet, riser is 12 inches high.

I want to change to the largest screen possible, maybe even a 2.35:1 constant height scope screen I'm not sure. Total immersion is the goal. I want to place the speakers in wall behind the screen. Screen Research CP2 seems to be the hot ticket for this application right now. From Screen Research website these are the possibilities:

16:9 fixed screen
Image width 120"
Image height 67.5"
Image diag 137.7"
Overall Width 126.3"

2.35:1 fixed
Image width 120"
Image height 51.1"
Image diag 130.4"
overall width 126.3"

C-Mask Classic Scope 16:9
2 way masking
Image width 120"
Image height 67.5" 16:9
Image height 50.2" 235:1
Image diag 137.7" 16:9
Image diag 128.8" 2.35:1
mask height 8.1" (top & bottom)
overall width 126.3"

I don't care if the screen almost touches the side walls. I do want full 1920x1080 res for 2.35:1 movies and 1.85:1 movies. I assume this will require an anamorphic lens. But which one? Will the Gennum VXP scaler do the vertical stretching ? What would you do?

Thanks,
Rod

MrWigggles

01-15-06, 01:42 AM

I have not been reading this thread the last few days so I hope this is not new info...

All you guys that can't get the offset to work in your room might want to consider THIS (http://www.siliconoptix.com/boxProducts.cfm)

Now you just need to convince TzungILin to offer the PJ without a scaler for installations where the offset will not work...or end up with an extra scaler.

PM me and I will give you the address to send your gratitude checks to.
Ooow, Wow, this scaler would be able to do a new technology called DIGITAL KEYSTONE CORRECTION. :rolleyes:

Sorry, but we are trying to avoid digital keystone correction (I assume the HD81 would already have that feature).

QQQ, come on man. Bring your A-game. :)

-Mr. Wigggles

Ps. I really don't think offset is that big of a deal on this projector. I still think the long throw is going to be more of a problem. People are likely going to want a big image with projector and might not be able to make it fit in their room.

QQQ

01-15-06, 02:02 AM

Mr. W.,

Have fun making fun, but this obviously goes far beyond conventional keystone correction, and for that reason may be able to eliminate the shortcomings that typical keystone correction produces. If the correction can indeed correct for irregular projection surfaces and dome type screens, than that gives a clue as to why the distortions common to typical keystone correction might be able to be eliminated.

My intital reaction was to make fun of the guy who initially posted the info. But I read about it, and thought about how it might be pulled off, and I'm willing to consider it as a possibility. My biggest skepticism is not that it's not possible - so to speak - but that we don't have the technology to pull this off seamlessly yet.

c722

01-15-06, 03:12 AM

Ps. I really don't think offset is that big of a deal on this projector. I still think the long throw is going to be more of a problem. People are likely going to want a big image with projector and might not be able to make it fit in their room.

I'm glad to see someone mentioning this! For me, the offset is not a problem at all. But the throw really kills it for me. I'm kind of disappointed to see it has such a long throw. The ruby is as short as 1.4x ! I guess only those with a real big house can have a 10ft wide screen.

(well I can understand Optoma's reasoning. After all a 1080p FP is not meant for average home any way.)

Dear Optoma, Just a wishful thinking: if you have not already fixed everything, is it possible to have another short-throw version ? Just like what Marantz had done with their S4. They have 2 versions, one long throw for the american market, one short throw for the European/Japanese/Asian markets (where the average home is an apartment and won't have the space for a long throw)

prabhatb

01-15-06, 04:22 AM

Are the Optoma HD81 1080p, Sharp, SIM 2, and Projection Design 1080P DLP all a 1 chip or 3 chips DLP projector?

Were there any 3 chips 1080P DLP?

Were, where? :)

stopdog

01-15-06, 10:34 AM

Looks like the HD81 maybe won't work in my 11'x18' room for 120" wide screen. At 1.8x throw width of screen 120", throw is 18 feet assuming the throw is measured from the front of the lens, not the back of the projector. I would have to shrink to 110" wide screen which would make minimum throw 16.5 feet from the front of the lens. That would work if the projector is less than 1.5 feet long. I can't find the physical dimensions anywhere, they're not in the HD81 brochure or the EP910 brochure.

HQV

01-15-06, 10:42 AM

People are likely going to want a big image with projector and might not be able to make it fit in their room.

Small room, big image, yes you can. Check this out: http://www.projectorcentral.com/news_story_868.htm

3M has launched a new projector with an integrated DVD player, a 5.1 channel audio system, and exclusive Vikuiti Super Close Projection will produce a 100" image from under four feet away and a 60" image from only two feet away and the projector will feature the Realta HQV® processor for outstanding image quality. The new 3M DMS 700 will be sold through distribution and be available in Q2 2006.

HiFiGuy1

01-15-06, 10:44 AM

QQQ,
It does seem to me to be an advanced form of digital keystone correction. There are manipulations you could do to a two-dimensional image off a chip that would allow it to appear to correct for things like irregular projection surfaces, like a form of localized keystone "spot" correction, if you will. However, it is essentially keystone correction. It seems unavoidable that at least technically there will be lost pixels in the process. If it works, great, but I am skeptical about it not introducing any artifacts.

I would like to see it with a 1920 x 1080 Windows desktop, or even better with a Word document with text and images. Also, I would think that a 1:1 black/white test grid would not make it through unscathed. Not to say it wouldn't look fine with a video image, though.

HiFiGuy1

01-15-06, 10:50 AM

QQQ

01-15-06, 11:30 AM

Small room, big image, yes you can. Check this out: http://www.projectorcentral.com/news_story_868.htm

3M has launched a new projector with an integrated DVD player, a 5.1 channel audio system, and exclusive Vikuiti Super Close Projection will produce a 100" image from under four feet away and a 60" image from only two feet away and the projector will feature the Realta HQV® processor for outstanding image quality. The new 3M DMS 700 will be sold through distribution and be available in Q2 2006.
HQV,

I suspect that a 3M machine with an integrated DVD player is last thing people here want, big picture in a small room or not!

kuebler

01-15-06, 12:09 PM

HQV,

I suspect that a 3M machine with an integrated DVD player is last thing people here want, big picture in a small room or not!I totally agree, but obviously HQV wouldn't do his job right, if he wouldn't try to guide our eyeballs toward everything which includes any sort of Realta, be it a truck, a weapon, a coffee machine, or a PJ ;)

kromkamp

01-15-06, 01:03 PM

QQQ,

Image Anyplace/eWarp technology is essentially the capability to do severe keystone/pincushion/barrel/other distortion correction with a very high level of quality. It is much more than just simple keystone correction. We describe the surface to be projected on as a set of parametric equation curves and compute an inverse distortion map to that surface.

HiFiGuy1,

Yes you are exactly right. It can correct for irregular surfaces, including Torus or other curved surfaces (There is a giant video dome in Japan called the 'CyberDome' that is using our product in exactly this fashion - see this press release http://www.siliconoptix.com/about/news/pressReleases/15December2003.cfm .)

You are also correct that, inevitably, you will lose pixels in the process - thats simply unavoidable. You are also exactly correct that you might see the difference with an Excel spreadsheet or sharp text (although in our opinion the quality is still extremely good!), but with a video image the quality is high enough that it is all but impossible to see artifacts.

DIY Guy,

You are correct that the 'Image Anyplace' box does not support 1080p. It uses an older Silicon Optix processor. However, our Realta HQV chip does also have eWarp technology in it and it can support 1080p.

Andy K.

ASIC Design Engineer
Silicon Optix, Inc.

Randall Morton

01-15-06, 02:21 PM

stopdog

01-15-06, 02:22 PM

stopdog,
I think it's safe to say it won't be more than 18". My room is as long as yours, but my screen is 92" wide, and at my viewing distance of about 12' (only one row), I am at the THX recommended 36 degrees included viewing angle. So you're going to be "immersed" to say the least in a 110" wide screen image, especially from only 9 feet away in the front row. That is essentially only one screen width back!

HiFiguy,

One screen width back or just inside that is what I want. I like sitting close to the action. My current screen is 92" wide also. THX recommended viewing distances may change with 1080p becoming the new standard? What do think about a constant height 2.35:1 screen. Would I need the anamorphic lens to advatage of full 1920x1080 res for 2.35:1 movies ? And what would that do to 16:9 movies or HDTV cable?. I guessing black bars on the sides, don't want that .

QQQ

01-15-06, 03:08 PM

Image Anyplace/eWarp technology is essentially the capability to do severe keystone/pincushion/barrel/other distortion correction with a very high level of quality. It is much more than just simple keystone correction. We describe the surface to be projected on as a set of parametric equation curves and compute an inverse distortion map to that surface.
I assumed that's exactly what is was doing but am having a hard time imagining how that is pulled off. For that to work correctly you would have to be able to provide the unit with considerable input/feedback to allow it to map the projection angle and especially an irregular surface, in order for it to generate a worthwhile inverse distortion map. That could involve countless areas on the screen, not just the corners! I'll follow up with any further questions in the other forum.

prabhatb

01-15-06, 05:39 PM

I am upgrading my current 100" wide screen to at least 144" wide screen with 2.35 constant height. Apart from lack of lens shift in H81, a smaller zoom of 1.22 may not fit my need to have 2.35 constant height where 1.85 material can be zoomed out in the middle of the screen.

Previously I was thinking seriously about Ruby, but I saw a demo at local Fry's Electronics, it is pretty dim for my needs.

Is anyone attempting to do 2.35 screen with optoma H81?

Hed

01-15-06, 05:43 PM

Here's my theater layout, would the HD81 work with this?

http://photobucket.com/albums/v130/quibbles/?action=view&current=HTlayout2.jpg

prabhatb

01-15-06, 05:53 PM

My questions are very much similar to Stopdog's. Sorry I did not notice.

I have these doubts:
1) With 27% offset, I doubt that zooming picture in or out to fit into 2.35 screen will work, without shifting the projector itself.

2) With low 1.22 zoom ratio (compare H79 1.33 zoom ratio) it may not be able to fit HDTV material into 2.35 screen.

Anamorphic lens is only solution to get full 1080p resolution for 2.35 material. But as stopdog asked, which one?

stopdog

01-15-06, 06:47 PM

I've been checking out the 2.35 constant height forum for some answers. To get full 1920x1080 res on 2.35:1 anamorphic movies, the scaler or projector must vertically stretch the 2.35 movie 33% , then the anamorphic lens squeezes the image to fit the 2.35 screen. Will the Gennum VXP scaler do the vertical stretch? My current scaler Lumagen ProHDP apparently will, but will it perform as well as the Gennum VXP in other areas who knows. Then for 16:9 movies the scaler must do a horizontal squeeze I think. As far as which lens, the Panamorph looks like it would work maybe, but there are issues with lenses such as corner abberation, basically looks like you could spend up to $5k on a lens if you have deep pockets

Bytehoven

01-15-06, 08:09 PM

The top of the line Panamorph and Prismasonic get you into the same performace range as the Isco II. Although the motorized functions on some of the lenses are sweet.

The Isco III is the next level of performance, which is what you might referencing at $5k. Although I have seen this lens ins action, it has gotten wonderful reviews from some forum members. Alan has one if I recall correctly.

stopdog

01-15-06, 08:32 PM

HiFiGuy1

01-15-06, 10:11 PM

This really should move to the CH/2.35 forum.

stopdog said:
HiFiguy,

One screen width back or just inside that is what I want. I like sitting close to the action. My current screen is 92" wide also. THX recommended viewing distances may change with 1080p becoming the new standard? What do think about a constant height 2.35:1 screen. Would I need the anamorphic lens to advatage of full 1920x1080 res for 2.35:1 movies ? And what would that do to 16:9 movies or HDTV cable?. I guessing black bars on the sides, don't want that .
THX recommended guidelines are for 1080p images with the 36 degree viewing angle. This is part of the THX Certified Home Cinema stuff, IIRC. I've slept since CEDIA. :) The usefulness of an anamorphic lens to me is that you can maximize the resolution of 2.35 material AND native 16:9 and/or HD material. To me, it is a compromise to have a lens that doesn't move into and out of place to accomplish just that. As far as zooming is concerned, you don't have to do that at all if you get a lens that stretches horizontally. I think ISCO II/III do this. I am not familiar enough with the models from other companies to rattle off other ones without researching it a little, sorry. Seems like there is a nice lens from one of them called the H-1200R which is remotely adjustable, but I don't know whether it is horizontal stretch or not. I am personally not interested in a solution that requires adjustment of the zoom on a regular basis.

Rob Tomlin

01-15-06, 10:18 PM

Rob - what is the geometry of your HT setup?

Screen size
Distance from floor to the bottom of the screen
Distance from screen to 1st row of seats (to the actual viewing position)
Distance from 1st row to 2nd row (from viewing positon to viewing position)

Ron Jones

Ron, I will send you a PM!

HiFiGuy1

01-15-06, 10:20 PM

kromkamp said:
HiFiGuy1,

Yes you are exactly right. Holy crap!! :D :D :D

You have to understand, I have been married for almost 16 years, so I haven't had anyone tell me that in a long time! Talk amongst yourselves, I'm a little veklempt (sp.?). (Choking back tears of joy.)

TzungILin

01-16-06, 01:32 AM

Let me see if I can answer the rest of the questions here (since many are repeated issues or concerns).

HiHoSteveo, post #73,
Thanks for your kind words, yes, we did want to have a quick solution, but we will adress to other concerns in the follow-up model as well. It's always a race, against time, against competitions, if we could have our 2nd model out about in the same time for other company's first 1080p, then HD81 will be like "extra product" for people that can enjoy it. And yes, through the work of HD81, we accumulate much more experiences with the 1080p platform, you can rest assured that we will pass the good knowledge to the 2nd, 3rd generation models, and make them even better. :)

Dave Harper,
I'm pretty sure that the noises was there in the source materials. Please download the Narnia trailer from Apple web site and view it on your monitor.

Regarding ISCO that may or may not change the offset, and how to get HD81 ready for constant height theater, let me try it out, and I'll report further, we have one ISCO and one Panamorph, no Prismsonic lens yet. :rolleyes:

But, definitely, the scalar box has a mode that stretch the image for 2.35:1 use with the 16x9 lens. That is a given. :)

Kevin R. Anderson, #85,
Thanks for your and your group's comment, I'm glad you all enjoyed the demo. I'm the person who is behind the look of HD81, I like tweaking. :D Before I went to CES, I spent many times watching Victoria Secret fashion show to tune the flesh tone, the contrast, dark details and color performance. Yep, it's a dirty job, but I have to do it! :cool:

I agree with you that HD DVD output only 1080i is a let down, I'm now looking forwad to BlueRay, which claims 1080p output, but I'm yet to see one. But don't let that stop you, there are many HD 1080i broadcast now, HD81 comes with Gennum processor, with motion adaptive de-interlacing and inverse telecine for film mode, going through HD81, at least you will get an image as clean and minimum artifacts as possible. Too bad, we did not show the Jay Leno interview of Dennis Richard, you will be able to see the 1080i being upconverted to 1080p.

Scott Gammans, #90,
Not to argue, but I don't think any company would roll out a projector without any scalar. Lens shift is not just a cost issue, more time-to-market issue. Though many people already have scalar box, this HD81 scalar comes with Gennum, one of the few chip that does 1080i to 1080p de-interlacing for video and film contents.

Robert Clark & Steve Goff,
Thanks for the compliment, since I am not sensitive to rainbow or eyestrain, so your feedback is important to us, I get to know that our current setting/tuning has combined to come out a better presentation that may have less eyestrain to sensitive folks like Robert. We will continue to make any improvement if we could.

Mr. Wigggles,

What a clever way of big screen in limited height! Thanks for sharing with us. And remember we talked about in PM last year about making an affordable 1080p DLP, well, TI came out with this 0.95" 1080p DMD, so I don't have to use SX+ with 16x9 lens to make a psudo 1080p any more. ;)

HiHoStevo,
If I have the luxury to ship HD81 by CEDIA, I would be smiling on my way home. No, it doesn't work that way. After a good demo and good response to the image quality, the sales are now on my back jumping, asking me when can I deliver. Q2 is the target like I stated in my first post, and we shall see! :)

Actually, before CES, some people even question whether this HD81 is a vaporwere or not, I guess that somehow made my determination to show it at CES, and we did! Now, I guess your "CEDIA speculation" is the same thing to push us harder, right? ;)

Randall Morton, #136,
Please see my post about comparing Ruby to 1080p DLP technology (post #228). It should give you some ideas of the differences in technologies.

Kiwishred & stopdog,
I was transferred to Optoma effectively Nov. 1, 2005.

darinp2,
It was nice meeting you and chat over projectors and marketplace. Were you able to download the trailers and view them on SXRD?

AllenM,
Thanks for your comments, we will improve the demo room environment next time. (INFOCOMM and CEDIA) And thank you for your comparison of your 60" SXRD RP (and SHARP Z20000 1080p) to HD81 on 135". It was a good reference that you think its resolution seem better than SXRD. Please read my own comparison of SXRD to 1080p DLP (post #228), I think SXRD is softer, maybe due to 3-panel convergence or something else.

D_B_0673,
Yes, it will take 1080p input, and pass it through to projector.

anthonymoody,
No, I don't think TI would delay it any further (they couldn't affort it). I was just wishing that they could have gave us the DMD sooner.

TheLion,
Personally, I would love to do a 3-chipper, so we are still open for the product idea. As for IRIS/gamma, sorry, I have to keep some confidentiality here. :p

Randal Mortons,
No, there is no light spill any where surround the projector. We will do calibration before shipping, will try D65.

danielo,
you are not the first one to mention this, we will implement a way to turn down the LED as user wish.

O.K., up to page 8 now. Later.

danielo

01-16-06, 06:09 AM

Let me see if I can answer the rest of the questions here (since many are repeated issues or concerns).
danielo,
you are not the first one to mention this, we will implement a way to turn down the LED as user wish.

O.K., up to page 8 now. Later.

Thanks for this, i guess most of us seeing the h7x models went like wow they spend alot of time making sure its silent and no light leaks only to be ehmm suprised seeing that damn blue led.

My second question on being able to use the scaler to 'shift' the image up and down to allow us to mask easer. So being able to shift for example a 2.35 or 2.76 active area inside the display 16:9 box. They added this to the dvdo scalers a while back after many requests and there was alot of positive feedback its something alot of us need in a scaler.

Daniel.

bgipson

01-16-06, 08:26 AM

I have a dedicated theater, completely light controlled. I forget the exact size in inches that my screen is. It measures 9'9" wide. I think it's either 133" or 135" diagonal 16x9 Firehawk microperf. The screen is 25" off the floor, my ceiling is 10' and from the screen to the back of my wall measures 20'. I now have a Sanyo PLV60 installed hanging from the ceiling 6" from the back of the wall enclosed in a soffit. Will the throw be sufficient for my screen.

Bytehoven

01-16-06, 11:32 AM

Need to check out Prismasonic. By motorized functions do you mean that the lens will move out of the beam path on a motorized slide system for 16:9 constant width screens with masking top and bottom for 2.35:1. That seems like the best solution if you want a much bigger screen for HDTV 16:9 shows or 16:9 movies. I have much to learn on this sorry for the basic questions, have been stuck in CRT land (not a bad place to be) for the last few years.

Here is a .pdf file on the H1200. http://www.prismasonic.com/pdf/H1200R_manual_download.pdf

I believe the motor function adjusts the amount of horizontal stretch as well as puts the unit in PASS or by pass mode.

stopdog

01-16-06, 12:14 PM

Here is a .pdf file on the H1200. http://www.prismasonic.com/pdf/H1200R_manual_download.pdf

I believe the motor function adjusts the amount of horizontal stretch as well as puts the unit in PASS or by pass mode.

Looks very cool. TzungILin, would love to see you try this one out.
Bytehoven, any idea of ballpark price on it?

kevivoe

01-16-06, 01:37 PM

@ TzungILin and @ Kevin R. Anderson

I think you are incorrect about HD-DVD supporting only 1080i. See the following interview.

http://www.audioholics.com/ces/CEStechnology/HDDVDCESinterview.php

All 1st generation HD content is now being recorded 1080p/24. The current player display format is 1080i but when the HDMI standard is approved both the BD and HD-DVD players will support the standard 1080p/24 variation that will be adopted. From what I read there is only 720p and 1080i standards approved, not yet 1080p. Incidently, most content providers are moving away from 720p standards to 1080p standards.

k

Kevin R. Anderson

01-16-06, 02:04 PM

I didn't say that HD-DVD only supports 1080i, but that the first DVD releases in HD-DVD will be in 1080i, which is what Audioholics was also told by the RCA reps. I asked the same question about 1080p mastering and 1080i output, and was told they were mastered in 1080i. I hope I was misinformed and that Sage Schreiner is right that all of the HD-DVD discs will be mastered in 1080p.

I was told by a Toshiba rep that because of unresolved HDMI/HDCP issues regarding the ability of TVs to display a 1080p signal, they were worried customers would connect their new HD-DVD player to most display devices that don't have the latest HDMI protocol and get a nice blank screen. This is not a Toshiba problem but a compatibility issue caused by the poor design and implementation of HDMI/HDCP.

I don’t know if or how manufactures will upgrade older display devices to handle a 1080p signal. For this reason, people shouldn’t get too excited about any type of high-definition DVD until they know they have a display device that can accept and display 1080p.

Sony can "promise" 1080p discs with Blu-Ray but I don’t see how they can avoid the same compatibility issues with the HDMI connection. Personally, I think Sony is fully aware of this problem but they are using it as a marketing spin to mislead consumers into thinking that Blue-Ray can do 1080p and HD-DVD cannot.

I think a lot of consumers are going to be very upset when they find out all the hoops they will have to jump through to watch true 1080p DVDs.

I fully anticipate that the Optoma H81 will make watching true 1080p as simple as plugging in the HDMI cable.

Bob Sorel

01-16-06, 03:01 PM

Ok, now for my earth shattering 5000th post:

Denise Richard has great hooters! :D

(I wanted to say something really meaningful and deep.)

flint350

01-16-06, 03:14 PM

Ok, now for my earth shattering 5000th post:

Denise Richard has great hooters! :D

(I wanted to say something really meaningful and deep.)

And you know this how, exactly? Can you offer proof? Will Charlie Sheen show up drunk at your home to beat the crap out of you, but be sufficiently distracted by your neat HT, that he forgets and goes home? Enquiring minds want to know.

Al Sherwood

01-16-06, 06:56 PM

Ok, now for my earth shattering 5000th post:

Denise Richard has great hooters! :D

(I wanted to say something really meaningful and deep.)

Too bad I missed the now famous Jay Leno episode that she was on...

Do the do reruns by request? :rolleyes:

Al Sherwood

01-16-06, 06:57 PM

Scott Gammans

01-16-06, 07:06 PM

Maybe it's on iTunes! (Heck, the rest of NBC's schedule seems to be.)

Rob Tomlin

01-16-06, 10:26 PM

Ok, now for my earth shattering 5000th post:

Denise Richard has great hooters! :D

(I wanted to say something really meaningful and deep.)

I was ready to agree with you, then I realized that this was only your 4995th post, not your 5000th!

;)

Bob Sorel

01-16-06, 10:33 PM

It was my 5000th post, but then some of my posts were deleted (not by me).
And you know this how, exactly? Can you offer proof?
I'll have to save that info for my second 5000th post...;)

Rob Tomlin

01-16-06, 10:48 PM

It was my 5000th post, but then some of my posts were deleted (not by me).

I'll have to save that info for my second 5000th post...;)

Were the other posts that were deleted also have to do with female body parts?

;) :p :D

HiHoStevo

01-16-06, 11:12 PM

Tzun...........

I figure a little "encouragement" cannot hurt... we must throw the gantlet occasionally!

Any chance you might consider making your scaler available as an "option" with the HD72? or would that come to close to the HD7300..........?

Randall Morton

01-17-06, 02:25 AM

Ok, now for my earth shattering 5000th post:

Denise Richard has great hooters! :D

(I wanted to say something really meaningful and deep.)

The first time I saw the above post it was numbered 5002 and I was wondering why you were calling it your 5000th.

TzungILin

01-17-06, 03:07 AM

Let me get the reply up-to-date,

Millerwill, #245,
I would suggest to get the center of the screen as close to eye level as possible, or slightly above like HiFiGuy1 said, some situation may not be possible, then one would need a good chair with head support, so that you can rest your head and neck while watching upward for 2 hours.

Kuebler,
Sorry, I don't know too much optical myself, my background is actually Computer Science, mathematical modeling kind of stuff, you know probabilities, queueing theories, those good stuff. ;)

Ron Jones,
On DB9 RS232, that is correct. On the offset part, it's pretty much a given once we select an optical platform, so not much we can change that. We will have next platform coming next year to address the needs for lens shift installation. So, stay tuned, if you can.

multibliz,
HTPC optimised DVD is tough to beat, I doubt any scalar can out perform it. HD81 comes with the scalar box, we do not sell separately, not everyone has a HTPC or know how to operate those S/W though (ffd show, Dscalar, ...) But I think Gennum probably can show a better 1080i than HTPC. Only probably. On brightness, I don't know the answer, will need more labs data to find out.

prabhatb,
I'll try HD81 with 16x9 lens, and will update in the future.

HiFiGuy1,
Will check out H-1200R, stay tuned.

danielo,
yes, HD81 has image shift, in fact, it's four-side independent control.

Bob Sorel,
you must have seen the movie Wildthing. :)
But Dennis has matured much more since Starship Trooper or Wildthing. How should I say, she "aged" gracefully? ;) She looks very different from Wildthing, more matured, more attractive now. (at least from the Jay's talk show)
Teri Hatcher has also changed alot since her days as Lois (sp?) in Superman TV shows. Age sometimes does magic to certain women, make them even more attractive than when they were young. Or am I getting old now? :rolleyes:

O.K., back to work.

Starred

01-17-06, 08:31 AM

Then on the detailed analysis, the 2 hour review on a 120" white wall, I came to realize that VW100 is even better, it was so smooth and ease to look at. The color is intense and deep, very film like. It certainly looks like a G90 with higher brightness only with less black level ;)

How serious is a review on a white wall? :rolleyes:

Hed

01-17-06, 09:10 AM

Chopped liver? (Points to his post....) :rolleyes:

guitarman

01-17-06, 09:22 AM

TzungILin, taking the scaler out of the loop what kind of connections are on the back of the H81? Is there a chip inside to take up the scalers duties, pixelworks etc?

TzungILin

01-17-06, 09:32 AM

How serious is a review on a white wall? :rolleyes:

It's the owner's house, he chose to use white wall (painted 3-4 times to get the thickness and smoothness he desires), not that we want to downplay SONY ...

The owner used to own several projectors, from G70, to Z9000, and had screens before, but abandoned the screen and embrace white wall instead ...

Kevin R. Anderson

01-17-06, 09:53 AM

TzungILin, taking the scaler out of the loop what kind of connections are on the back of the H81? Is there a chip inside to take up the scalers duties, pixelworks etc?
From the attached photo, there is one HDMI connection (sorry the picture isn't more focused).

However, the scaler has 3 HDMI inputs (yes!), 2 component, 2 BNC RBGHV (VGA or another 2 component), 2 s-video, 2 composite. The scaler also has an input and output for HDMI audio.

Al Sherwood

01-17-06, 11:51 AM

From the attached photo, there is one HDMI connection (sorry the picture isn't more focused).

However, the scaler has 3 HDMI inputs (yes!), 2 component, 2 BNC RBGHV (VGA or another 2 component), 2 s-video, 2 composite. The scaler also has an input and output for HDMI audio.

I wish that the HDMI connector gave me more confidence, I work in the computer industry and one thing that anybody that works on any of the hardware components appreciates is a good connector.

You know the kind, easy to insert, but with tactile feedback that it has been fully inserted either by a locking tab or with supplimentary screws or retainers, the HDMI connector doesn't inspire confidence.

For me the outboard scaler (although adding expense) will allow a cleaner installation and hopefully the best treatment of the "lesser" video signals in my setup.

Starred

01-17-06, 01:22 PM

It's the owner's house, he chose to use white wall (painted 3-4 times to get the thickness and smoothness he desires), not that we want to downplay SONY ...

The owner used to own several projectors, from G70, to Z9000, and had screens before, but abandoned the screen and embrace white wall instead ...

I see. I presume the rest of the room was dark enough to completely demonstrate max. contrast of the Ruby?

guitarman

01-17-06, 02:46 PM

From the attached photo, there is one HDMI connection (sorry the picture isn't more focused).

However, the scaler has 3 HDMI inputs (yes!), 2 component, 2 BNC RBGHV (VGA or another 2 component), 2 s-video, 2 composite. The scaler also has an input and output for HDMI audio.

Thanks for the picture, well that rules out splitting them up. Wow all these named guys I know were there and I didn't see anybody. Ken, Greg, Darin, Andrea not one. Just all the Optoma guys which I already know quite well. Maybe next year

I'm bored with the items I have now and have to get a new projector. If not the H81 then the H7300 first, it comes with the scaler also. Very interested in what the scaler can do.

Optoma's on the right track with the H81 -

300watt bulb
Brilliant color
180hz 7 segment color wheel puts it over 6Xspeed
Gennum
Most important adjustable Iris

All this should take me out of the doldrum, pls hurry :)

If I missed anything or I'm off on something lmk

Bob Sorel

01-17-06, 05:13 PM

Optoma's on the right track with the H81

Tom, could you please clear up the model designations for us? I thought this projector was the HD-81, not the H-81. Or is the H-81 the name for the projector (head) end only?

TheLion

01-17-06, 06:41 PM

guitarman

01-17-06, 06:44 PM

Hi, If Tz posted HD81 than HD it is. Wonder if they're calling the H7300 the HD7300 :)

Or is 720p not considered good enough for the (HD) designation. ;)

All that aside, you going to get one?

guitarman

01-17-06, 06:56 PM

TzungILin, thank you VERY much for your participation here.

One thing puzzles me: I'm a (proud) user of an Optoma H79 at the moment. My girlfriend and I were attending a couple of Sony VW100 demonstrations over the last weeks. The ONE thing that comes to my/our mind when looking at Rubys performance is not contrast, black level, resolution, smoothness,... NO - IT IS COLOUR. Punchy, highly saturated colours (maybe not 100% accurate to DVD standards BUT very pleasant to watch). Not just the exceptional color saturation but also the lack of any color dithering, very smooth transitions. THAT IS the ONE thing that really sets the Ruby apart my H79 IMHO.

Now on to my question: I take it that the new 10bit "BrilliantColor" chipset will help with color dithering/transitions on the new H81. BUT is it even possible to expect the same breathtaking level of color saturation out of a non-Xenon DLP based device like the H81???

One other issue: Will the scaler be able to not just pass 1080p signals (e.g. from a BluRay player) through to the projector BUT also apply some filters on the signal (expecially the "detail enhancement" and sharpness filters)???

Thank you very much for your time!!!

You know what bugs me about the Sony, the $1000 2500hr bulb. I know that's cheap compared to the $3000 Qualia bulb, but man a $350 bulb price bothers me. Especially when it's time to get one which is around half life for me.

Lately the trend for new buyers is not just good contrast but high brightness. This is where the HD81 will find it's buyer nitch, plus the $350 bulb.

Colors and punch level looked superb on the demo run of the first HD81 at CES. Just wait till the final machine is out with it's Iris control. Waiting is the tuff part.

Robert Clark

01-17-06, 07:53 PM

HiHoStevo

01-17-06, 11:13 PM

Bob & Tom................

I believe Tzun mentioned in an earlier post that all of the designations are changing... it is a marketing decision and as of 2006 the H81 is now the HD81, the H72 is the HD72, and the H7300 is the HD7300.............. the marketing guys have to have something to do... :-)

Randall Morton

01-17-06, 11:56 PM

You know what bugs me about the Sony, the $1000 2500hr bulb. I know that's cheap compared to the $3000 Qualia bulb, but man a $350 bulb price bothers me. Especially when it's time to get one which is around half life for me.

Lately the trend for new buyers is not just good contrast but high brightness. This is where the HD81 will find it's buyer nitch, plus the $350 bulb.

Colors and punch level looked superb on the demo run of the first HD81 at CES. Just wait till the final machine is out with it's Iris control. Waiting is the tuff part.

What makes you think the bulb will be only $350? I haven't seen anyone mention bulb price, but maybe I missed it. My Dwin bulb is $450. I could see the HD 81 bulb being anywhere from $350 to $600.

azjetski

01-18-06, 01:46 AM

Randall shhh Optoma's reading this thread do not give them any ideas. ;)

Dale

TheLion

01-18-06, 08:20 AM

@ Tom and Robert

Thank you for your replies. Any first hand experiences with the HD-81 demo unit at CES are greatly appreciated. BUT please keep one thing in mind - I know the shown 1080p demo clips inside out AND all of them with the exception of "Fastest Indian" have very high color saturation to beginn with. Looking at them on my H79 and my former Sharp Z10000 they look "exceptionally colourful". I think there is hardly any projector they will not look ""exceptionally colourful" on. The point is that the Sony with its SXRD tech and its Xenon lamp has a much wider color gamut than DLPs in general. Even low-cost LCD projectors like the Z4 and Panasonic 900 are "better" in this regard compared to (single chip) DLP designs. I LOVE very strong colours. I`m aware that DLP has to sacrifice brightness for color saturation (use "higher density" color filters on the wheel).
My question is: Does the HD-81 go down this road or at least does it provide an optional "wide colour mode" like the Sony. I think the HD-81 will have plenty of brightness with its 300W bulb, 0,95" 1080p DMD and probably the BrilliantColor RGBCMKY color wheel. So there is lots of brightness which can be "sacrificed" for deeper colours and higher color gamut (approaching not just PAL/NTSC standards but HDTV standards or even going beyond them for the sake of a really exceptional colour performance). Some may say that this approach will result in "unrealistic" colours and that we should stick with the standards. 2 things about that - No single chip DLP I know of comes even close to the HDTV color gamut standard. So getting there should be a priority in development. And why not providing a "Wide" colour OPTION like the Sony in order to comply with personal preferences and make stuff like CGI movies really shine? Colour performance is IMHO the ONE area DLPs are really behing SXRD and even "cheap" LCD (in addition to the usual 1-chip artifacts just a small percentage is even sensible to...). The obvious differences in colour performance/saturation EVERYBODY can easily spot...

stopdog

01-18-06, 01:53 PM

Any first hand experiences with the HD-81 demo unit at CES are greatly appreciated. BUT please keep one thing in mind - I know the shown 1080p demo clips inside out AND all of them with the exception of "Fastest Indian" have very high color saturation to beginn with.

Lion,

This is a screenshot from HD81 "Fastest Indian" from CES '06 show. Colors were fabulous. As I said in another post the colors reminded me of the rear projection SONY SXRD TV colors, have not seen the Ruby. The "Brilliant Color" must have something to do with this because I did see the same color satururation in the HD72 which has "Brilliant Color" but did not see it in the Infocus DLP projectors which do not.

http://i45.imagethrust.com/p/215830/cespics2006day1and2063_jpg.html

guitarman

01-18-06, 03:07 PM

I know what he's saying about saturation but in the end which PJ would you buy? I have an HS51 I'm playing with and colors are nice - not accurate but nice so I see what Lion's saying. GregR noticed the coloring of the Ruby being high in saturation, said it's not accurate and what he's use to seeing in test video's. But he did say many will like the extra color.

Personally I think the Optoma line like with the H79 has bold coloring. Lion is your H79 optimized? With the H79 red is a limiting color, not meaning weak becuase it is deeper due to the larger red segment. But you can get more out of the color by maximizing red. I find with graysaling I start by boosting red/contrast usually to around +15 or +20. From there I'll balance the Green/Blue to Red. On the low end I'll tune black to it's bottom most point with the pluge. Results are very vibrant color, just a few clicks lower on black increases color depth greatly.

Send me your H79 ;)

Steve Goff

01-18-06, 03:19 PM

I watched the full set of demo clips four times. I noticed the noise seen by some, but attribited it to the source material. I thought the colors were vibrant, with good reds, but the color gamut did not seem artificially wide, as it has at times with the Ruby. I don't know whether the projector provides for wide primaries, if this is what you are looking for. Blacks and overall contrast ratio were quite good, but no match for a really well set up CRT. The picture had great punch, and was adequately bright on the large screen employed by Optoma. The picture seemed more detailed that of the Qualia or the Ruby, but not as smooth. I don't think the Apple clips showed the full resolving power of the projector. I noticed no deinterlacing errors, though the DLP logo (screensaver?) did seem to have some twitter when the logo enlarged in size. (The logo had a fine horizontal line.)

Kevin R. Anderson

01-18-06, 03:59 PM

Now that an accurate D65 colortemp is becoming more commonplace, the next goal is in the area of accurate primaries and secondaries. One of the benefits of having a color gamut that is larger than the NTSC and ATSC standards is that it should allow you to calibrate the primaries and secondaries to the exact x,y coordinates on the CIE chart.

Here is what the brochure says about Color Management on the HD81: "Studio-Grade CMS, 10-step Gamma enhancement, RGBCYM 6-color, 15 region adjustment."

I will let others speculate as to the exact meaning of some of these terms.

gregr

01-18-06, 04:52 PM

TzungILin,

Thanks for spending an hour with me at CES. I was impressed by what you and Optoma are doing, and I'm looking forward to the HD-81.

Al Sherwood

01-18-06, 05:25 PM

Sage: The HD DVD players announced so far will not support 1080p outputs -- yet. This is in part because the latest version of HDMI (only one supporting 1080p output) is still being finalized. There are CE [consumer electronics] HD DVD players "in the works" that will ship later and are expected to have 1080p outputs, but nothing has yet been announced.

Since the input to the PJ is an HDMI cable...

Is the output from the scaler to the HD81 is 1080P? AND

that brings us to the next question: Are the HDMI inputs to the scaler capable of carrying 1080p as well?

guitarman

01-18-06, 05:43 PM

"Studio-Grade CMS, 10-step Gamma enhancement, RGBCYM 6-color, 15 region adjustment."

Could add a new learning process on color tuning. Find your target, looks promising.

Kevin R. Anderson

01-18-06, 05:47 PM

The brochure says "converts all sources to 1080p." Nothing is said about the inputs being 1080p. I would think one could assume that, but in the world of electronics I've learned to never assume anything.

Mark my words, the HDMI compatibility mess with 1080p (and it is a big one) could be the death nail of high-definition DVDs. My personal opinion is that people who want 1080p, need to be thinking HTPC rather than a stand-alone player.

TheLion

01-18-06, 06:39 PM

Tom/guitarman, Thanks for your advice. My H79 is D65 ISF calibrated and because I don't have any color sensors at hand I will better not mess with the settings. Interesting approach nevertheless.

My point is: I'm spoiled by watching too many Ruby demos lately. Colors are so much more vibrant and saturated (and pleasant to MY eye) than on any DLP I have ever watched. The Sony has a much higher color gamut than our usual DLP. So it is not "higher saturation" per se but many more displayable colors. As I take it when viewing NTSC/PAL SD material the colors get mapped to the larger color gamut of the Sony. So we end up with oversaturated colors for SD material. But it is oversaturated in a very pleasant way IMHO. The pictures look very vibrant, colors seem to be jumping of the screen but it never gets overly "unrealistic" or looks fake to my eye. Expecially skin tones remain to look "right". Animated movies are one hell of a ride - there is no "right or wrong" with them - they really SHINE with the vibrant Ruby colors.

But it is HD material the Ruby really delivers. The standarized HDTV color gamut is larger than PAL/NTSC standards. Our DLPs fail to display all the specified colors of HD material. The Ruby provides that...

Why don't you just shut up and buy yourself a Ruby than, you ask me? I would never go down that road because of the absence of DLP like "crystal clear" sharpness (when I want the more "analog", smooth PQ of the Ruby I just defocus my DLP ;) ) brightness and ANSI contrast. I guess I'm all DLP when it comes to picture preference. BUT now that I have seen the light (super duper vibrant colors) I have a very hard time to go back to my DLP. Last weekend I visited a friend which has one of those cheapo Sanyo Z4s. I was SHOCKED. This little thing had MORE VIBRANT colors than all my beloved DLPs I have ever seen.

I think it is well known that SXRD and LCD techs provide more color saturation than DLPs. But it is just now that they manage to attack DLP up front with high contrast ratios. When I compare the new Z4 LCD projector with the Z1 I watched some years ago it is night and day. When I compare the new H79 or any other rather new DLP for that matter with my years old Sharp Z10k the difference is MUCH less pronounced. I was shocked that comparing the rather cheap Z4 with my H79 I all of the sudden had no real preference for one or the other. And I happen to find LCD colors more pleasant (read vibrant, more saturated) than DLPs.

All I'm saying is that the other technologies (SXRD, LCD) seem to progress faster than DLP does. And one of the main issues there is about DLP is COLOR. I was just curious about the opinion of a developer of DLP FP for that matter. I know that all the companies rely and depend on TI regarding the progress of DLP as a technology. BUT I'm interested if there are certain "tricks" to improve color performance with existing DLP DMD designs - why not use Xenon lamps with DLP FP for instance??????? Or sacrifice some of the high brightness DLPs are delivering for a larger color gamut and more vibrant colors. Another point is not just vibrancy but "thickness" of color - I don't actually know how to put this right. I heard somebody here on avs say: The DLP picture looks like painted with watercolors in contrast to a 9" CRT or the Ruby which look like oil paintings. I couldn`t agree more...

Rob Tomlin

01-18-06, 07:00 PM

TzungILin,

Thanks for spending an hour with me at CES. I was impressed by what you and Optoma are doing, and I'm looking forward to the HD-81.

And TzungILin, please be sure to send Greg one of the first units, so we can get his review ASAP!

:)

guitarman

01-18-06, 07:19 PM

And TzungILin, please be sure to send Greg one of the first units, so we can get his review ASAP!

:)

Wait a minute he said I'm up for one right away. Says pls post it at AVS, where else!

Rob Tomlin

01-18-06, 07:50 PM

Wait a minute he said I'm up for one right away. Says pls post it at AVS, where else!

That works too!

;)

sspears

01-18-06, 08:11 PM

the HDMI compatibility mess with 1080p

There is no mess. All HDMI chipsets released from Silicon Image, since day 1, have supported 1080p60.

The only problem is CE companies making other mistakes in their products that don't allow 1080p60.

Kevin R. Anderson

01-18-06, 10:17 PM

The only problem is CE companies making other mistakes in their products that don't allow 1080p60.
I agree -- my comment was more related to the rather ineffectual implementation of the HDMI standards by manufacturers in the design of source and display devices. The result is that it is not uncommon for consumers to buy a source or display device and have them refuse to communicate with each other over the HDMI connection.

On another level, I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that when it comes to the design of the connection itself, HDMI is second only to the s-video connection in potential, physical fallibility.

I much prefer the more robust DVI connection.

Erik Garci

01-18-06, 10:49 PM

BUT I'm interested if there are certain "tricks" to improve color performance with existing DLP DMD designs - why not use Xenon lamps with DLP FP for instance???????
The "trick" is 3-chip DLP. ;)

Al Sherwood

01-18-06, 11:46 PM

I agree -- my comment was more related to the rather ineffectual implementation of the HDMI standards by manufacturers in the design of source and display devices. The result is that it is not uncommon for consumers to buy a source or display device and have them refuse to communicate with each other over the HDMI connection.

On another level, I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that when it comes to the design of the connection itself, HDMI is second only to the s-video connection in potential, physical fallibility.

I much prefer the more robust DVI connection.

Exactly, see my comments in post #333 of this thread, I am in agreement.

Hopefully we will get some clarification from TzungILin on the HDMI connections in and out of the scaler used with the HD81 as well as the PJ itself.

I would hate to step up and buy this combination just to find that the scaler doesn't accept a 1080p input only 1080i :(

D_B_0673

01-19-06, 04:45 AM

TzunILin answered this in post 310. The scaler does accept 1080p and pass thru to the pj

D_B_0673

01-19-06, 04:51 AM

TzunILin
Is there a digital coax out put from the scaler. Most AV receivers that folks have do not have HDMI input.

We would need that digital coax to have audio delay to allow the video to catch up with the audio.

Kevin R. Anderson

01-19-06, 08:20 AM

rlhjr34

01-19-06, 02:34 PM

TzungILin,

Does the HD81 allow the Vertical Stretch for CH to be performed on 720, 1080i and 1080p signals? I know that some projectors internal scalers only allow it on 480p signals (like my Panasonic AE900).

Al Sherwood

01-19-06, 06:25 PM

TzunILin answered this in post 310. The scaler does accept 1080p and pass thru to the pj

Ahh yes, I remember reading that now, funny how a tired mind can miss such things. :o

So based on the quote that I included in post #350, the HDMI connections in the PJ and the scaler must be compatible with the "new" and not yet finalized HDMI spec?

D_B_0673

01-19-06, 07:15 PM

From the brochure (which only shows the"prototype"), there is not a coax or optical digital audio ouput (see photo at post no. 332).

Many mid-level receivers (the Yamaha comes to mind) have sound delay, but I agree that the better solution would be to handle that functionality through the processor.

On providing "legacy" support, manufacturers often seem to assume (right or wrong) that if one can afford something like a $10,000 projector, then they can afford a receiver that supports HDMI audio.

I might be able to afford a $10,000 pj but that does not mean I want to piss away money needlessly and buy a new receiver. If the scaler does not have other audio outputs I will wait for some other manufactuer.
My receiver has audio delay, (Denon 4802R) but I have never used is as my current scaler does.

I still think it is foolish to eliminate the audio input that most people have

Steve Goff

01-19-06, 07:30 PM

Very, very few scalers have audio capabilities of this sort.

Randall Morton

01-19-06, 10:26 PM

I don't have audio problems(sync) now with my 720p projector or an audio output from my scaler. I would think the more advanced chip for the 1080 would have very little processing time delay. Since I don't have a 1080 display I don't really know. Anyone having audio sync issues with the Ruby?

grellberg

01-19-06, 11:18 PM

Randall Morton

01-20-06, 02:08 AM

The product mgr at CES told me the brochure is incorrect, and that the unit will accept a 1080p input.

In regards to the HDMI compatability issues mentioned above, I was told that
no current receiver will pass bluray or hddvd HDMI. Lots of unhappy consumers
with $5k receivers!

Why do we need to pass HDMI through our receivers. I don't do it now as I have a Denon 5800. I'm happy with the Denon and don't plan on upgrading anytime soon. The scaler of the HD81 will do all the video switching. I would use the digital sound output from my cable box, DVD player, DVHS decks, computer etc. going directly to the receiver. When I change a Video source I also have to change a sound source on my receiver. Its not that big of a deal. I always thought that it was a bad idea going through extra switching devices unless absolutely necessary.

D_B_0673

01-20-06, 04:14 AM

Very, very few scalers have audio capabilities of this sort.
Are you saying that very few scalers have audio delay? If so I am surprised at that. Perhaps it is not needed, but I set mine at 41 ms

joerod

01-20-06, 07:57 AM

That's why as an Onkyo TX1000 owner we are still waiting for our new 4/1 updated HDMI card. Hopefuly it will be out sometime this year...

Al Sherwood

01-20-06, 12:05 PM

stopdog

01-22-06, 08:08 PM

For those with small theaters like mine (11'x18') who wanted to go with a really wide screen with the HD81 but don't have the required throw distance, there is a solution, please someone correct me if this is wrong.

With a constant height 2.35:1 screen and anamorphic horizontal stretch lens, throw distance is decreased. For example, with a 120" wide by 51.5" high 2.35:1 screen , minimum throw distance of 1.8 is 13.8 feet from the screen, 2x throw distance is 15.3 feet. Throw is still calculated using 16:9 ratio for 16:9 panel projector (92" wide x 1.8/12 = 13.8 feet). Before image is vertically stretched by scaler and then horizontally stretched by the anamorphic lens, the 2.35 image is 92" wide by 39" high. After applying these, image is 51.5" high x 120.5" wide.

I saw this application at CES with the Vidikron 90 and Runco VX2C projector demos, it is truely amazing the dramatic increase in resolution, brightness, and size of image. They did a before lens and after lens in place comparison with huge electric masking screens. You guys probably already knew about this but I just figured out how it works. The other advantage of this is you use the full 1920x1080 panel for 2.35:1 movies instead of partially cutting some pixels off. Of course if your watching 16:9 material, you would bypass the lens and still have full 1920x1080 res, but have black bars on left and right sides of screen. Ideally you would have electric masking left and right, but I'm sure this is mucho expensive screen. But if you're like me and the majority of your theater time is spent watching blockbuster movies which seem to be mostly 2.35, this works great.

I know now the HD81 will work in my room with a 10 ft wide screen. I do have 9 ft ceilings so offset not a problem.

grellberg

01-22-06, 08:23 PM

[QUOTE=Randall Morton]Why do we need to pass HDMI through our receivers.

I'd like it so I don't have to run multiple HDMI cables.

c722

01-22-06, 11:14 PM

Randall Morton

01-22-06, 11:52 PM

[QUOTE=Randall Morton]Why do we need to pass HDMI through our receivers.

I'd like it so I don't have to run multiple HDMI cables.

Maybe I'm missing something about your setup but I still don't understand. I have my scaler and receiver next to each other along with my other sources. If I had an HDMI switching receiver I would still not use it with the HD81. Would you run an HDMI cable in from your DVD player, DVHS deck, cable box(or whatever sources) to your receiver and then one HDMI cable out from your receiver to your scaler for the HD81? That's 3 cables to your receiver and another to your scaler. If you just go straight to the scaler you only use 3 HDMI cables, but then you would have to run separate digital sound cables to your receiver. I wouldn't think this is a problem. You could also set up a macro on a remote so that when switching sources the sound and video would switch together.

millerwill

01-22-06, 11:54 PM

I've been following this thread; though I don't have any experience with FP, I am thinking about it for the future (now had a 73" Mits 1080p dlp RPTV). I have a question that I hope is not too naive: for a ~106 to 120" diag screen, in a room with some ambient light (e.g., a low lamp on in the room, but not directly in front of the screen), can one recommend an optimum screen for the HD-81 (with a celing mount, ~16 ft from the screen)? The ones that I'm guessing would be good (with very little knowledge!) are the Stewart Firehawk and the Carada gray screen (the Carada also seems to be at a very reasonable price). At first I thought the SilverStar would be good, but it seems not to be good with ambient light, in addtion to to having pronounced 'sparkies' and unevenness. The brightness of the HD-81 seems to be sufficient to utilize these gray screens, and they are reported to be good at rejecting ambient light.

Am I totally on the wrong track, or do these seem like good possibilities for a room that is not a dedicated, light-controlled setup? Are there other screens that I should research (that don't cost a forture!, i.e., no more than $1000 or so)? (My room is rather long and narrow,17.2ft long and 13 ft wide, so viewing angle is not much of a problem; all viewers will be within the width of the screen, no more than 15 deg off axis.)

Rob Tomlin

01-23-06, 01:08 AM

tantalus

01-23-06, 09:41 AM

I might be able to afford a $10,000 pj but that does not mean I want to piss away money needlessly and buy a new receiver. If the scaler does not have other audio outputs I will wait for some other manufactuer.
My receiver has audio delay, (Denon 4802R) but I have never used is as my current scaler does.

I still think it is foolish to eliminate the audio input that most people have

Some of the Gefen hdmi switches have an optical out. I know it's a pain to add an unnecessary link in the chain, but it shouldn't necessarily be a dealbreaker. The switch could be handled with a macro on your remote, so you wouldn't have to worry about controlling it manually. In this case you would lose the extra hdmi inputs on the scaler, but you could still use them for video only devices.

D_B_0673

01-23-06, 09:43 AM

[QUOTE=Randall Morton]Why do we need to pass HDMI through our receivers.

I'd like it so I don't have to run multiple HDMI cables.

You should only send audio to the receiver. Send video to the PJ. Any time you "Pass" something through something else you problably degrade the signal.

that being said the scaler in this set up ought to send the audio out via dig coax and/or HDMI to the reciever and allow an audio delay on each.

stopdog

01-23-06, 10:53 AM

I have an even smaller room. Yes anamorph lens is a solution, but a) is there a lens that can do 1920x1080 resolution without distortion ? b) the combined price is not that attractive anymore (for H81). projection design's multiple lens option looks more attractive.

TzungILin said he would test some of the anamorphic lenses, so we'll have to wait for his report concerning performance/distortion. As far as price, maybe $2-3k, I don't know. PD 1080p w/Crystallio II scaler is $25k.

prabhatb

01-23-06, 02:34 PM

Yes, Tzunglin said that and I am waiting for his reply too :)

Stopdog, that's a good analysis that H-stretch anamorphic lens is good for shorter throw distance / or wider screen at a given room size. I was thinking earlier to use a Vertical compress lens for reason of more brightness and higher resolution, but now it seems that I must weigh two options.

guitarman

01-23-06, 03:45 PM

TzungILin said he would test some of the anamorphic lenses, so we'll have to wait for his report concerning performance/distortion. As far as price, maybe $2-3k, I don't know. PD 1080p w/Crystallio II scaler is $25k.

I just talked to Wing about the new machines. He's working with the new scaler right now. Working to make all aspects available for people who want to use anamorphic lenses for 2.35 setups.

stopdog

01-23-06, 07:42 PM

I just talked to Wing about the new machines. He's working with the new scaler right now. Working to make all aspects available for people who want to use anamorphic lenses for 2.35 setups.

That's good news Tom, thanks.

Prabhatb, if you went with vertical compression lens and constant width screen, min throw distance at 1.8x would be 18 ft, 2x (min throw recommended for anamorphic lens) would be 20 feet, too far for me. Also you would probably go with 16:9 screen for CW, if you had 2.35:1 screen and CW when you bypass the lens the image would be too tall for screen. Maybe you could zoom it down but what a PIA that would be especially since its manual zoom.

Plus if you followed the Ruby threads, it seems brightness decreases as throw increases, thus with a horizontal stretch lens and almost 5 feet closer throw for 120" width screen, you might actually get a brighter image this way. As far as the differences in image distortions due to different throws and hor stretch vs vert squeeze I haven't a clue.

darinp2

01-23-06, 07:48 PM

Plus if you followed the Ruby threads, it seems brightness decreases as throw increases, thus with a horizontal stretch lens and almost 5 feet closer throw for 120" width screen, you might actually get a brighter image this way.
The key isn't really the throw distance from the screen, but the lens position. With no anamorphic lens they are basically the same, but with a horizontally stretching lens you would generally be using a longer throw lens position and so less light out of the projector. But if you move the projector closer and use the same projector lens position as with a vertically squeezing lens then things should pretty much be a wash.

--Darin

MrWigggles

01-23-06, 08:20 PM

The key isn't really the throw distance from the screen, but the lens position. With no anamorphic lens they are basically the same, but with a horizontally stretching lens you would generally be using a longer throw lens position and so less light out of the projector. But if you move the projector closer and use the same projector lens position as with a vertically squeezing lens then things should pretty much be a wash.

--Darin

To be clear you guys are talking about the Ruby, most projectors are very much zoom independent - you get the same light for either position.

-Mr. Wigggles

stopdog

01-23-06, 08:24 PM

benthx

01-23-06, 08:49 PM

Hey Stopdog good idea.

I know with the prismasonic lens you need at least a ratio of 1.8 for an acceptable image without too much pincushion(distortion). Basically if you can go for the maxim throw ratio (furtherest position of the projector from the screen no zoom applied) for the given 16:9 size screen. You would be fine. Or you can backward calculated the 2.35:1 screen for your room width. eg if you can accommodate a 10ft wide screen(2.35:1) then work out its equivalent in 16:9. Your height will be set just the width will change for the image. You need the 16:9 equivalent to figure out how far you can have the projector from the screen.

Using my set up for an example. The room is 5.5 meters wide. The screen is 3.10 meters wide(2.35:1). The 16:9 equivalent if 101" diagonal. The maxim distance for (intended PJ) is 5.65 meters. A throw ratio of about 2.4

Hope this helps.

c722

01-23-06, 10:07 PM

TzungILin said he would test some of the anamorphic lenses, so we'll have to wait for his report concerning performance/distortion. As far as price, maybe $2-3k, I don't know. PD 1080p w/Crystallio II scaler is $25k.

I really hope he can find some gd results. From what I read , a lens that can do this resolution well without distortion has to be of the calibre of ISCO III or something like that. That's $5k at least. I dun know abt the final pricing of PD, but I think without the CII scaler it should be close. The gd thing abt this H81 is its attractive price for the mass. But if I have to add a lens that's 50% of the PJ itself, for me I just can't do it. I will have to wait for the next guy. :(

Randall Morton

01-24-06, 02:53 AM

To be clear you guys are talking about the Ruby, most projectors are very much zoom independent - you get the same light for either position.

-Mr. Wigggles

I believe there was some differing opinions on this in some of the Ruby threads. Some indicated that this was pretty much true for all projectors, not just the Ruby.

MrWigggles

01-24-06, 03:11 AM

Randall,

Could be the case but with the HD81's 1.2X zoom range I don't think it is going to matter regardless.

-Mr. Wigggles

Randall Morton

01-24-06, 12:19 PM

Randall,

Could be the case but with the HD81's 1.2X zoom range I don't think it is going to matter regardless.

-Mr. Wigggles

No argument here. :)

darinp2

01-24-06, 02:02 PM

Darin, by longer throw lens position do you mean less zoom? So this means less light leaving the projector? Sorry I thought I had this but still confused.

Are my calculations correct in that using a horizontal stretch anamorphic lens would require less distance from the lens to the screen than a vert compression lens to get the same width/height 2.35:1 image?

In other words, could I get a 120" wide x 51" high image from 15.3 feet away. I'm guessing the light output wouldn't be that much different either H stretch or vert comp lens.
I try to avoid using "less zoom" or "more zoom" because they are fairly confusing to me. The end I was referring to as the "longer throw position" is the same one as the smallest image if you keep the projector in one spot (so probably what you are calling "less zoom") and that is generally less lumens than the other end.

The confusing part is that the horizontally stetching lens does require less distance to the screen, but at the same distance it requires that the image coming out of the projector be smaller, which is also the lower lumens coming out of the lens. But with just 1.2x throw range (I didn't realize it was this small) and moving the projector I wouldn't expect much difference between horizontal stretch and vertical stretch as far as ft-lamberts, like you said.

--Darin

mark haflich

01-25-06, 08:08 AM

One can design a zoom lens to have a constant effective aperture. These lenses are much more expensive than zoom lenses which have an effective aperture than decreases (increases in f number) as one goes fro close zoom to far zoom. The wider the zoom range with a non constant aperture lens the more noticeable he light loss. The Ruby has a very long zoom range.

mmiles

01-26-06, 12:55 PM

All I can say is MAN oh MAN what a picture on that H81 at CES!

Just in case no one has picked up on that yet...

Regards,
Mike

stopdog

01-26-06, 01:24 PM

Hey Mike I was blown away too. The HD81 rejuvinated my interest in this crazy hobby once again. Now must figure how to get mondo sized screen in my itty bitty room. I'm thinking 10 ft wide Cinemascope CH if I can cram it in ! :D

Robert Clark

01-26-06, 01:47 PM

"All I can say is MAN oh MAN what a picture on that H81 at CES!

Just in case no one has picked up on that yet...

Regards,
Mike"

You're not alone. I felt the same way. My thoughts were, "How do I get this quality and size of image into my home with my budget?"

Tom Hilton

01-27-06, 01:52 AM

Not to get anyone started on something else but the actual throw ratio seems more problematic. We are talking 1080p here and most viewers are going to want to be in the 1.0 to 1.4 screen widths away. With the min throw 1.8, we are talking about a projector that is likely going to need to be behind your back wall in some situations.

The projector is highly praised in everything else. I wish we could concentrate on the everything else. Give Tzung some warm-fuzzies

-Mr. Wigggles

The H81 really sounds promising...but the long throw ratio is the problem for me. I enjoy and have grown accustomed to a large picture with a relatively close viewing distance. Because my projection distance is already at maximum due to room constraints, the 1.8-2.2 throw ratio of the H81 would mean downsizing to an image smaller than I like. It seems to me that moving to a 1080P device that will significantly upgrade picture quality is exactly the wrong time to be forced to downsize. Having to go smaller just as the projected image improves is a frustratingly ironic situation. The "longish" throw will likely be a deal killer for me.

One other point: Tzung did indicate that the the throw ratio he mentioned was not absolutely precise, i.e., it was "about" 1.8-2.2. If the actual throw turns out to be a bit shorter than he specified, then the H81 may still work for me. Keeping my fingers crossed... :)

D_B_0673

01-27-06, 04:28 AM

The H81 really sounds promising...but the long throw ratio is the problem for me. I enjoy and have grown accustomed to a large picture with a relatively close viewing distance. Because my projection distance is already at maximum due to room constraints, the 1.8-2.2 throw ratio of the H81 would mean downsizing to an image smaller than I like. It seems to me that moving to a 1080P device that will significantly upgrade picture quality is exactly the wrong time to be forced to downsize. Having to go smaller just as the projected image improves is a frustratingly ironic situation. The "longish" throw will likely be a deal killer for me.

One other point: Tzung did indicate that the the throw ratio he mentioned was not absolutely precise, i.e., it was "about" 1.8-2.2. If the actual throw turns out to be a bit shorter than he specified, then the H81 may still work for me. Keeping my fingers crossed... :)

Perhaps I have it backwards, but 1.8 to 2.0 is a not that long of a throw. I have a 92 wide screen and the throw would only be 15.3 at the longest. A 110 wide screen would be 18.3. Even in my small theater that barely gets it in the next room. I wish for a longer throw myself

Tom Hilton

01-27-06, 06:55 AM

Dan,

My projection distance is maxed at 198" (16.5 feet), and the throw from the H81 would produce a smaller picture than I now get from my older Dreamvision DLP (1.35-2.00). So, as it relates to my room constraints and preference in picture size, the throw ratio of the H81 seems to be on the "longish" side. Moreover, I have lately been looking at throw ratios for several candidate projectors (LCD and DLP), and the H81 is the longest throw I have encountered to date. I must acknowledge that my data base is limited---I have checked 12 so far.

pocoloco

01-27-06, 07:47 AM

Tom,

If the HD81 is the only viable 1080 option for you, you can always buy an aftermarket short throw lens. There's some very good ones out there for not much money.

guitarman

01-27-06, 02:26 PM

My name is Tom and the H81 is the only viable option for me. ;)

"All I can say is MAN oh MAN what a picture on that H81 at CES!

Just in case no one has picked up on that yet..."

Mike you can say that again. I'm in waiting mode and it's killing me, things are so boring now. We need these 1080p DLP's.

Someone thought my idea on the HD81 being twice as good as the 720p H79 could be over the top. Thinking back at what I saw. The HD81 seemed twice as bright and the resolution was twice the resolution. So yeah twice as good. :) Black level and contrast wasn't too shabby either. Can you imagine once the Iris is installed.

I bet my buddy Darin buys one at the nice price they come in at. Then he can try his bulb Iris tricks or whatever he's doing. Shooting for 15000.1, this added brightness should help him get there.

Scott B

01-27-06, 03:22 PM

Anybody hazzard a guess as to what we can expect regarding street price? Does 7K seem reasonable given Optoma's past history regarding MSRP vs street pricing?

guitarman

01-27-06, 03:40 PM

The good new is it will probably be lower than that. Here we go again with bang for the buck. Not one but two items Projector and Gennum Scaler. The wait is painful :(

Scott B

01-27-06, 03:52 PM

That is good news. I have not had good experience with single chip DLP (viewing fatigue), however, I may give this one a shot if I can figure out how to get around that freakin fixed offset. The high brightness and external processor being big advantages. I am hoping for at least 3000:1 on-off contrast at 900 lumens post-calibration (this would obviously be with the iris wide-open).

millerwill

01-27-06, 04:52 PM

I presume the exhaust from the cooling fan comes out the rear of the unit; is this correct? So if it is ceiling mounted toward the rear of a room, I presume that one should put it no closer that 1 ft or so from the wall; is that correct?

guitarman

01-27-06, 05:57 PM

1' would be plenty. Looks like a Seleco with sparkles.

darinp2

01-27-06, 09:55 PM

I bet my buddy Darin buys one at the nice price they come in at. Then he can try his bulb Iris tricks or whatever he's doing. Shooting for 15000.1, this added brightness should help him get there.
I'm not sure if I will buy one or not. It would be fun to try to tweak one, but with the offset I'm not sure if I would want to do the screen tilting thing I would have to do with my pull-down High Power to get the projector low enough to get good gain. At 1080p I also want to be able to use whatever I get on my 10' wide High Power from about 16' away.

--Darin

Alan Gouger

01-27-06, 10:23 PM

Without reading through 14 pages what is the finalized throw of this projector. Is it still short throw?

millerwill

01-27-06, 10:41 PM

Without reading through 14 pages what is the finalized throw of this projector. Is it still short throw?

I don't think it has changed: between 1.8 and 2.2.

flint350

01-27-06, 10:51 PM

The throw issue seems to me to be less of an issue for most than that awfully high fixed offset of 27%. And the bigger the screen you want, the worse it gets unless your ceilings are pretty tall.

Rob Tomlin

01-27-06, 11:53 PM

The throw issue seems to me to be less of an issue for most than that awfully high fixed offset of 27%. And the bigger the screen you want, the worse it gets unless your ceilings are pretty tall.

Since I have 10 foot ceilings, and a big screen, the throw is definitely the bigger issue for me. I agree that for most people, the offset will be the bigger issue though.

Robert Clark

01-28-06, 12:17 AM

My name is Tom and the H81 is the only viable option for me. ;)

"All I can say is MAN oh MAN what a picture on that H81 at CES!

Just in case no one has picked up on that yet..."

Mike you can say that again. I'm in waiting mode and it's killing me, things are so boring now. We need these 1080p DLP's.

Someone thought my idea on the HD81 being twice as good as the 720p H79 could be over the top. Thinking back at what I saw. The HD81 seemed twice as bright and the resolution was twice the resolution. So yeah twice as good. :) Black level and contrast wasn't too shabby either. Can you imagine once the Iris is installed.

Tom, based on what I saw at CES, I would definitely rate the HD81 as twice as good as other 720p projectors that were there, certainly twice as good as the HD72 in the next room...

millerwill

01-28-06, 12:37 AM

Since I have 10 foot ceilings, and a big screen, the throw is definitely the bigger issue for me. I agree that for most people, the offset will be the bigger issue though.

I calculate that my 8'4" ceiling, and 17'3" depth makes my room almost perfect for the HD-81 with a ~110" to 120" screen. Now I just have to decide whether I want to go FP or not!

flint350

01-28-06, 10:17 AM

I calculate that my 8'4" ceiling, and 17'3" depth makes my room almost perfect for the HD-81 with a ~110" to 120" screen. Now I just have to decide whether I want to go FP or not!

Is that a CH setup calculation? If not (1.78 instead), a 120" wide scrn has a 67" height, which would require an 18" offset drop. Starting at 100" ceiling, minus about 6" for mount (94"), offset drop of another 18" (76" top of scrn), minus scrn height of 67", leaves only 9" to the floor and that doesn't account for screen borders. Maybe I messed up the math, but it doesn't seem to work well for a 120" wide 16:9. I have 8' ceilings and had similar problems bcz I wanted a large screen.

stopdog

01-28-06, 10:34 AM

Alan Gouger

01-28-06, 12:29 PM

millerwill

01-28-06, 12:42 PM

Is that a CH setup calculation? If not (1.78 instead), a 120" wide scrn has a 67" height, which would require an 18" offset drop. Starting at 100" ceiling, minus about 6" for mount (94"), offset drop of another 18" (76" top of scrn), minus scrn height of 67", leaves only 9" to the floor and that doesn't account for screen borders. Maybe I messed up the math, but it doesn't seem to work well for a 120" wide 16:9. I have 8' ceilings and had similar problems bcz I wanted a large screen.

I think the missunderstanding is that I was referring to a 120" DIAGONAL screen, which is ~105" W and 59"H. The 27% offset is 16", and mount will take at least 4". The ceiling is 100" high, so the top of the screen will be ~20" from the top of the ceiling, and the bottom about the same amount above the floor. My front wall is ~150" wide, so this will leave about 20" on each side of the screen. I.e., the screen will be right in the center of the wall, with a ~20" border on all 4 sides.

stopdog

01-28-06, 03:08 PM

Regarding CH setup with 1080P. Many are leaving their lens in place at all times and letting the scaler perform the needed custom aspect ratios with 720P projectors. The results are very good. The increase in resolution using a 1080P will really benifit these setups. I doubt anyone will see any shortcoming to leaving a lens in place at all time. Plenty of resolution.

Didn't know that Alan, thanks. Curious to hear how the lens expensive lenses like UH-50 will handle 1080p. As the 2.35:1 screens become more popular as I believe they are, hopefully more manufacturers will enter the scene with less expensive options for anamorphic lenses.

Is there a scaler that can fit a 16:9 image properly (filling the screen in proportion) on a 2.35:1 screen with the anamorphic lens in place? Or is the only option to have black bars on the sides? Maybe question for scaler or 2.35 forum.

millerwill

01-28-06, 03:51 PM

Last night I brought home my office projector (used for power point presentations, etc.) to see how it would do in my home situation, with regard to light, image size, etc. Although I only used a bed sheet for a screen, I was pleasantly surprised. (It is a 3x4 projector, and I had it back far enough to have a 105" W picture.) But I do have a question vis-a-vis the HD-81, the discussion about which I've been following is this thread and have my eye on for the future.

My office projector is a Mits XD450U, rated at 2600 Lumens. It cost a couple of thou, as I remember, and is several years old. But the light output of the HD-81 is rated in its specs to be only 1400 (900 when calibrated for video). Now I know that specs are often exagerated, and also the Mits might loose half its light output if it were calibrated for video (a figure I've heard tossed about), but this would still leave it 50% brighter than the HD-81, a brand new model.
Why such a large difference?

flint350

01-28-06, 05:27 PM

I think the missunderstanding is that I was referring to a 120" DIAGONAL screen, which is ~105" W and 59"H. The 27% offset is 16", and mount will take at least 4". The ceiling is 100" high, so the top of the screen will be ~20" from the top of the ceiling, and the bottom about the same amount above the floor. My front wall is ~150" wide, so this will leave about 20" on each side of the screen. I.e., the screen will be right in the center of the wall, with a ~20" border on all 4 sides.

Yep, I thought you meant width of 120" (that's what I'm considering in a CH setup, with 54" ht). You are right, your numbers should work fine in your setup.

romanesq

01-28-06, 05:30 PM

jimsfield

01-28-06, 05:32 PM

Why is tilting the screen so the bottom is farther away than the top a better option than leaving the screen vertical and adjusting the keystone?

darinp2

01-28-06, 05:36 PM

I'm going to ask this question at the risk of death. On projectorcentral.com they mentioned this Optoma but said that since there is no good cable content (much of it at 720p) and DVDs are not in force with the higher standards either, the ability of this projector will fall short for a while as the material can not match its capabilities.
I haven't read their article, but by the time this projector comes out HD-DVD will probably be in the marketplace and BluRay should be out or close. With Netflix announcing that they would carry both at no premium a person buying this projector (at least in the US) could get an HD-DVD player for $449 (with $50 coupon from Crutchfield) and/or and early BluRay player for probably under $1000 or wait for the PS3 at about $500. This isn't even counting how upscaling helps, but only next gen DVDs that will likely be encoded at 1080p24 on disk.

For those who don't like the content that will be coming out on those (sounds like about 200-300 movies this year would be a good estimate) or that is available on 1080i channels, well they'll just have to make their decision based on the content they do like.

BTW: The same argument about content and resolution could have been made to discourage people from buying 720p projectors for DVDs, but I think most people here felt that 720p projectors in general looked better than 480p projectors with DVD content (at least when the only major difference was projector resolution). It does depend on how far back you sit though.

--Darin

Robert Clark

01-28-06, 08:59 PM

romanesq

01-29-06, 06:39 PM

Well it looks like we'll have to wait a bit more to get some real world comparisons of different types of material, i.e. 720p, 1080i, etc. and then the improvements can be appreciated.

I can't wait to see more on a head to head of the 7300 vs. the HD81 with the same content as they are using the same external scaler.

That will probably help me on my upgrade decision.

MrWigggles

01-29-06, 07:33 PM

Why is tilting the screen so the bottom is farther away than the top a better option than leaving the screen vertical and adjusting the keystone?
Optical keystone correction, which would be called lens shift, is fine.

Digital keystone correction distorts the image by squeezing one side of the image while leaving the other alone. This squeezing is just one more place for image degradation to take place. If you feed a 1080p projector a 1920X1080 image you will no longer have a 1920X1080 output. On the top of the image (or bottom) you will be using all 1920 horizontal pixels but the other side of the image will be using less maybe 1800. Moire and other imager artifacts can creep up (not as much for movies but definitely for desktop images)

It is a complicated topic but to sum it up, digital keystone correct WILL deteriorate the image. It can be very mild or sometimes enough to be bothersome.

-Mr. Wigggles

danielo

01-30-06, 04:36 AM

Why is tilting the screen so the bottom is farther away than the top a better option than leaving the screen vertical and adjusting the keystone?

To extend a little on why in this case a 'analog' keystone is better than Digital, One of the strong point of digital is that each pixel is placed in 'its' correct little box so in this case you have 1920 boxes per line and 1080 lines so about 2M boxes. When showing a 1920x1080 image it will put pixel 1 in box 1, 2 in 2, 3 in 3....

If you use a analog correction the size of each pixel changes so say in this case you keystone so much the image becomes 5% smaller at the top that means the 1920 pixels
on line 1 will still be displayed just 5% smaller but still all 1920 of them all in their correct place (1 in 1, 2 in 2...)

If using digital the 1920x1080 boxes stay the same but we change the image mapped into it so we wil not put pixel 1 into box 1, 2 in 2... anymore since we want the image to be smaller at the top we need to put pixel 1 into box 48, pixel 2 in box 49... And we need to stop earlier in this case box 1872. The end result is that we only use 1920-5%=1824 boxes !

This means 2 things. We are not using the full resolution anymore since alot of boxes
will be unused and stay black. The second and maybe even worse the video processor has to 'guess' how best to put 1920 pixels into 1824 boxes. This means it has to drop pixels and make best guesses say a black pixel should 'move' 1/5 box that won't work you can only put a pixel into box a or box b the processor will probably be forces to compromise for example by placing a gray pixel in both.

In the end when distorting a image in a analog way it can be 'perfect' in that if you for example rotate the image all pixels will be perfecty rotated say 30degree. when doing this in a digital way it means you have to put rotated pixels into boxes that are still rightside up boxes.

Sorry if this is not a perfect way to explain it and my examples are not good enough but i hope it makes you think a little about the problem and you see why in this case analog keystone is alot better than digital.

Daniel.

jimsfield

01-30-06, 08:08 AM

Thanx for the explanations. I think I understand.

Ron Jones

01-30-06, 10:49 AM

For those HT owners that really need an optical (i.e. analog) solution to correct for keystone due to the projector to screen geometry, it appears that they will need to wait for the release of other 1080p projectors. From a previous posting it appears that Optoma won't have such a model before early 2007. Perhaps the new 1080p model from Sharp (due out 3rd quarter 2006) will offer this feature. General information from the Sharp press release appears below. Did anyone learn anything from Sharp at CES to indicate if their new model XV-Z20000 will have an adjustable lens offset or a fixed offset like the Optoma HD81? I would assume it will be adjustable, but will cost a few thousant dollars more than the HD81?

Quote from Sharp press release: "Sharp brings home theater to the forefront with the new XV-Z20000, utilizing a single chip 1080p DMD from Texas Instruments. This groundbreaking 1080p projector has a native resolution of “full HD” 1920 x 1080 for true 16:9 widescreen movie viewing, producing clear vivid images, transforming any room into a high-tech home theater. DVI/HDCP (High Bandwidth Digital Content Protection) and HDMI terminals ensure a secure digital connection with all high definition set top boxes. The XV-Z20000 will be available in 3Q 2006. Pricing is not yet determined. "

Ron Jones

prabhatb

01-30-06, 10:04 PM

Now we have at least three 1X1080P DLP FP players. Optoma, Sharp and Digital projection. Competition is good for us if Ruby2 joins the club with better ansi lumens (like 1400) by end of this year. But unlike Optoma, Sony does not read AVSers' mind.

Horta

01-31-06, 09:46 AM

The scaler information is what I am waiting for. If they set it up for CH, they get my business. Come on that will save us in having to buy a scaler just for that. The Ruby cant touch that. !!!!

stopdog

01-31-06, 11:20 AM

The scaler information is what I am waiting for. If they set it up for CH, they get my business. Come on that will save us in having to buy a scaler just for that. The Ruby cant touch that. !!!!

TzungIlin has already stated the Gennum VXP scaler will do the vertical stretch for 2.35 movies. Can you explain further what you mean by "set it up for CH". I am looking at the HD81 also for CH 2.35 screen so trying to learn all I can. Your concept theater looks beautiful by the way.

Horta

02-01-06, 10:23 AM

Well he was going to get back with us on lenses and which works best. Also I want to read the spec stating that it will do the vertical strech. I do beleive him but the product is not in final release yet.

My goal would be to leave the lens in place all the time.

Thank for the nice comment about my new Theater. I just need the builder to get off his bottom and build the darn house!!!!! It will be my dream house and room, but thats for another thread.

Alan Gouger

02-01-06, 11:12 AM

My goal would be to leave the lens in place all the time.

.

You will need a scaler with some aspect ratio flexibility ( not just typical pre sets ) in allowing you to custom stretch and create a ratio.
Most current scalers already allow this. I would expect this scaler to also allow this.
You should be able to change thew width and height of the image at random and put it into memory.

If this scaler allows custom picture sizing you will be all set.

lovingdvd

02-03-06, 12:28 PM

TzungILin - will the HD81 provide the ability to tweak the r/g/b gain and bias at 10 IRE step increments for tine tuning grayscale calibration, like some external processors do today (i.e. Lumagen)?

HiHoStevo

02-03-06, 02:41 PM

TzungILin....

When you get time :rolleyes: ..... I understand your kinda busy...

Could you start a thread with as much information as possible on the HD7300?

I believe that projector is supposed to be available in the 2nd Quarter of this year and I would like to know a lot more than I do...

So far all I know (or think I know, which information may or may not be accurate) is that it is supposed to be an HD2+ dmd based projector coupled with a similar external Gennum processor as was shown with the HD81.

It would be nice to know more about the projector itself (which platform was it based on)... what will be it's capabilities (lumens and contrast), what will be the zoom ratio, does it have a "fixed" offset or will it have lens-shift, how many inputs of what type will the processor have, how will your processor compare to the lumagen or vantage processors that will soon be coming out with the HQV chip (I am making the giant leap of assumption that you considered the HQV chip before selecting the gennum)?

Thanks for your time and efforts in behalf of us..... your interested consumers!

MrWigggles

02-03-06, 06:14 PM

Lovingdvd,

For some analog display technologies being able to tune at every 10 IRE point can be very beneficial.

However for DLP, the designer would literally have to force it to have non-linearities.
DLP's have extremely good tracking - set 100 IRE to D65 and the rest will follow. The only exception is complete black on DLPs which tend to have a very slight reddish cast this comes from the slightly red underside of the DMD. Most people don't find it bothersome but all you have to do it raise the blue and green brightness values up a couple clicks to compensate (there will be slight reduction in contrast ratio due to this so it probably best to leave it alone)

You certainly don't need a tool to fix every IRE. DLP certainly has better tracking than any film stock.

-Mr. Wigggles

darinp2

02-03-06, 06:40 PM

DLP's have extremely good tracking - set 100 IRE to D65 and the rest will follow.
I agree with you starting with the Sharp 11k/12k. The 10k didn't really and the SIM2 HT500 I had didn't. There was a frustrating blue hump around 80 IRE. But in theory it is just math and DLPs have this capability as you say. Just needs to be implemented right and I'm not sure if TI should have gotten more of the credit or Sharp for how well the Sharp 11k tracked to whatever I set 100 IRE too (assuming I didn't make it run out of one color).

I would also be concerned about certain manipulations outside a projector causing banding from rounding type errors.

--Darin

MrWigggles

02-03-06, 07:14 PM

Darin,

As far as the banding is concerned, some form of degamma has to be done at the DDP chip and in the projector design that should be the only place degamma is done.

Now if the external processor does its own gamma manipulation then you can have problems. The only thing it should do is switch, deinterlace, and scale. For good video it shouldn't even have to do any brightness or contrast adjustments. (We can go into a long long discussion about how to use the 16.7 million colors of full 8 bit RGB space to more than apply handle the 3 million or so colors of 8 bit YCrCb video space. I'm trying to keep my responses brief here.)

The point is there is no sense for a company designing a scaler, for their projector, to have multiple IRE correction points, when all the company has to do is program the DLP to be linear to begin with.

With 99% confidence, I would say the reason your 10K had strange bumps in grayscale tracking is because Sharp put them in there for some strange reason (maybe extra brightness or who knows.)

Dating back to the Plus UP-1100 (many moons ago) I have programmed gamma tables. The projector does exactly what you tell it to do. The Plus came shipped with three gamma tables, one was permenantly fixed (and it was fairly accurate) and two other flash programmable tables that were absolutely awful by design. The flash tables from factory had all sorts of strange humps and had different humps for each primary color. I simply made a couple new tables with no humps where each primary had the same values. After I reprogrammed those new tables, the projector became linear and no color shift was observed.

Not only can gamma be changed with the tables but it is also the best place to do overall color temperature adjustments to minimize banding. And that way you are guaranteed to have good color tracking even if overdrive the contrast to an input signal.

-Mr. Wigggles

Hyrax

02-04-06, 02:09 PM

I've questions about the included scaler, but don't know where to get answers. I've looked at the Optoma site with no luck. Is it too early to try to get answers?

People seem to be talking much bigger screens than I like. What screen material would be good for a 84" wide screen (96" diagonal) in a room that controls light fairly well?

GeorgeAB

02-04-06, 07:51 PM

Hyrax,

People seem to be talking much bigger screens than I like. What screen material would be good for a 84" wide screen (96" diagonal) in a room that controls light fairly well?

The best screens I know of for that size would be the Stewart StudioTek 130 white screen, if you have absolute light control, or their GrayHawk RS gray base, if there will be some light present.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
G. Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

lovingdvd

02-05-06, 04:02 PM

Yep, I second Darin's statement about the Sharp 10K. It definately did not track evenly from 100 IRE down. At some points I had to turn to the individual RGB gamma settings in conjunction with the bias/gains to get an excellent D65 grayscale.

I asked this question about 10 IRE config abilities because having this would be very handy for my Ruby because it is very sensitive at 10 IRE and its tough to get dE within 0-3 from 20-50 IRE and have 10 dialed in correctly. Plus of course the dynamic iris in the Ruby affects the top end so it would be great to have this flexibility to make adjustments necessary to the top end (80-100) without affecting 50-75). Seeing that DLP is much more linear this would be a non-issue - unless a future auto-iris design caused similar shifts.

stopdog

02-06-06, 11:24 PM

TzungILin,

How are things progressing with the HD81 ?

Anxious to hear about developments with the iris system .

Have you had a chance to test drive any of the anamorphic lenses ?

Please throw us a bone... :)

Roughneck

02-07-06, 06:47 PM

TzungILin,

I've been following the forum for some time, and I'm real interested in the HD81. I just read a review on Projector Central stating that on the final day of CES that Optoma had to bring down the projector. In the reviewers words the projector "died".

Any comment on what the problem was, or a reason for bringing it down before the close of the show? Reliability is something that can't be gauged until the product has been out on the market for a few years. Any R&D testing data on the PJ?

Thanks

Roughneck

jimbecker

02-08-06, 03:11 PM

When will the HD81 be available?

rlhjr34

02-08-06, 03:23 PM

Unless it has been delayed. Should be Q2 this year.

jimbecker

02-08-06, 04:06 PM

When will the HD81 be available?

Scott B

02-08-06, 04:50 PM

Unless it has been delayed. Should be Q2 this year.

Rob Tomlin

02-08-06, 05:38 PM

Is there an echo in here?

Erik Garci

02-08-06, 10:32 PM

Is there an echo in here?

inky blacks

02-08-06, 11:13 PM

Is there an echo in here?

Yes.

Has it been confirmed that the throw ratio of the HD81 is 1.8 to 1? That is a very long throw for home theater use and I do not understand their reasoning. I hope that is just a rumor. Please post a link if anyone has hard evidence.

IB

MrWigggles

02-08-06, 11:33 PM

IB,

That is not that long of a throw but it is a long throw for 1080p considering how large of screens people are going to want for 1080p.

-Mr. Wigggles

Rob Tomlin

02-09-06, 12:07 AM

Yes.

Has it been confirmed that the throw ratio of the HD81 is 1.8 to 1? That is a very long throw for home theater use and I do not understand their reasoning. I hope that is just a rumor. Please post a link if anyone has hard evidence.

IB

Post a link for hard evidence? How about the very thread you just posted in?

See the first post in this thread by TzungILin:

6. The throw ratio is about 1.8 to 2.2:1 (about), the offset is 27% (of vertical height), sorry that this may not fit everyone's installation.

3no

02-09-06, 12:22 AM

Has it been confirmed that the throw ratio of the HD81 is 1.8 to 1? That is a very long throw for home theater use and I do not understand their reasoning. Their reasoning may be based on available lenses, after all their primary goal is get to market quickly. In any case, those with anamorphic lenses will prefer the longer throw.

inky blacks

02-09-06, 12:28 AM

Post a link for hard evidence? How about the very thread you just posted in?

See the first post in this thread by TzungILin:

Obviously, I meant a link to a official Optoma Web page with specs.

IB

Rob Tomlin

02-09-06, 12:32 AM

Obviously, I meant a link to a official Optoma Web page with specs.

IB

You do realize that TzungILin works for Optoma, right?

inky blacks

02-09-06, 01:10 AM

Yes, but the projector is not shipping and there is no spec sheet yet at the Optoma Web site. Nothing is written in stone until it ships.

IB

Rob Tomlin

02-09-06, 01:19 AM

Yes, but the projector is not shipping and there is no spec sheet yet at the Optoma Web site. Nothing is written in stone until it ships.

IB

I agree with that. But to say that the 1.8 throw is "just a rumor" is not accurate either in light of TzungILin's post(s).

MrWigggles

02-09-06, 05:09 PM

Yes, but the projector is not shipping and there is no spec sheet yet at the Optoma Web site. Nothing is written in stone until it ships.

IB

Yeah, but you have the two best sources in front of you, this thread and Optoma's website. So, why ask the question to begin with? (and this question is rhetorical. Please, let's move on.)

-Mr. Wigggles

seandudley

02-10-06, 12:13 PM

I'm trying to figure out if I should wait for the Optoma HD81 projector when it becoms available or if I should get the Sony Ruby (VPL-VW100) projector now. I see that the Optoma has higher lumens (1400 lumens for the Optoma vs. 800 lumens for the Ruby -- according to www.projectorcentral.com). I am not sure how many lumens I need. I am planning to have a screen size of around 150 inches diag. Would 800 lumens be sufficient if it wasn't pitch black in the room? If I wanted to watch TV with the lights on, would 800 lumens be sufficient for that? Are there some major advantages of the Optoma vs. the Ruby which would make the Optoma worth the wait? Also, as I understand it, the Ruby is a LCOS projector where as the Optoma is a DLP projector. Which is better? What are the advantages/disadvantages? By the way, the 27% offset isn't a problem for me on the Optoma because I have a high ceiling in the room. Sorry for all the questions, I am new to the projector scene and trying to make sense of it. The things which I am mainly looking for is good image quality, a projector capable of 1920 X 1080 natively, support for 1080P inputs and display, and enough brightness where the screen doesn't look dim even if there is some light in the room.

Thanks for any input!

Randall Morton

02-10-06, 12:57 PM

Yeah, but you have the two best sources in front of you, this thread and Optoma's website. So, why ask the question to begin with? (and this question is rhetorical. Please, let's move on.)

-Mr. Wigggles

I agree, let's move on. But, what are we moving on to? I'll be glad when we can move on, but I don't think it is going to happen until someone has a 1080 DLP.

inky blacks

02-10-06, 07:27 PM

WOW! I just checked out the current street prices on the Optoma HD72. Will the HD81 be worth the extra money? I remember it was only a few years ago you could not even get a SVGA LCD projector for 2k and no projector had a contrast ratio higher than 800 to 1. Everything has gotten allot better except for bulb life.
The throw ratio of the HD72 is allot shorter as well.

IB

kuebler

02-11-06, 01:24 AM

The things which I am mainly looking for is good image quality, a projector capable of 1920 X 1080 natively, support for 1080P inputs and display, and enough brightness where the screen doesn't look dim even if there is some light in the room.

Thanks for any input!At 150 inch diagonal, you have no chance with the Ruby, and possibly only slight chances with the Optoma (still speculative though).

And even if so, you definitively would need a high gain screen such as the Dalite High Power. But while this is an excellent screen, it imposes positioning conditions for the projector and allows only some folks in the sweet spot looking optimally. You find a lot about High Power here in the forum.

If the above is a problem for you, you should drop 1080 and go for a bright 720p machine such as the Sim C3x or the Infocus 777, both at about $10..15k street.

seandudley

02-12-06, 10:12 PM

Thanks for the input. I just can't find what I really want in the price range I want yet, so I'm just going to wait a while. I have a nice Pioneer Elite 710HD (64" screen) to tide me over until a projector that has everything I am looking for in my price range becomes available.

By the way, the first post says that the HD81 was being displayed on a 135" Studiotek HD130 screen which isn't a lot smaller than the size I am looking to use, so it seems like the HD81 should be able to handle the 150" screen or a screen not much smaller anyway.

HiHoStevo

02-13-06, 12:23 AM

Ron Jones

02-13-06, 10:26 AM

By the way, the first post says that the HD81 was being displayed on a 135" Studiotek HD130 screen which isn't a lot smaller than the size I am looking to use, so it seems like the HD81 should be able to handle the 150" screen or a screen not much smaller anyway.

I would think the HD81 would work fine with a 150" screen in a HT where you can really control the lighting. However, I would investigate using a screen with a gain of 1.5 and you might be able to get by with a gain of 1.3. However, remember that the light output of the projector decreases from the time the bulb is new to around 50% of the original output over the life for the bulb and the goal is to have at least 12 ft. lamberts of brightness from the screen at the nominal end of life for the bulb. Also the manufacturer's rated light output from the projector is usually not at the desired 6500K color temperature and after the projector is properly calibrated for 6500K and for the proper gray scale the the light output will be probably be lower.

The equation for calculating the Ft. Lamberts (FtL) of brightness at the screen is:

FtL= projector output (in lumens) X screen gain / screen area (sq. feet)

or looking for what projector light output is necessary to get the desired FtL the equation would be:

Projector Output = Desired FTL X Screen Area / Screen Gain

For a 150" diagonal 16:9 screen the area is (approx. 131" wide x 74") 67 square feet

With a 1.3 gain screen and a desired minimum of 12 FtL at the screen you would need a projector with a light output of:

12 X 67 / 1.3 = 618 lumens

or with a screen gain of 1.5:

12 X 67 /1.5 = 536 lumens

Thus given the allowance for the deceased light output of the projector's bulb over its lifetime and the probably reduced light output when the projector is properly calibrated, you should be OK with the HD81 using a 150" screen, especially one with 1.5 (or higher) gain. I would guess that a calibrated HD81 would have something on the order of 600 lumens of output at the nominal end of its bulb's life.

As for the Ruby, here is a thread with a lot of info about its brighteness: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=618448 Note however in the plots in that thread they have used a new and a 70% brightness level with the latter to show wear on the bulb while, as I recall, the Sony's rated bulb life is for 50%.

A good thread on comparing a few different screen materials can be found at: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=262466

Ron Jones
www.dtvmax.com

Hyrax

02-16-06, 11:58 AM

I've just been reading the thread where people have reported bulb problems with the H79. This disturbs me a lot and I would not buy the HD-81 unless I am fairly sure Optomo has addressed this issue. If the bulb life is given as 3000 hours, I should expect an acceptable brightness at 3000 hours. I may want to change it at 1500 hours, but I should not need to do so. The reports of having to change bulbs at 360 hours are scary.

I know that the HD81 is a whole different machine that the H79, but because it is a converted presentation projector may mean it was not designed to be hung upside down in a home theater.

I really want to buy this projector as soon as it comes out... I've been waiting and saving to upgrade for 3 years and the time seems right. But I'm thinking it might be smarter to wait a little longer.

Timbelmont

02-16-06, 08:23 PM

I was just on the TV Authority (AVS advertiser) website and they have an ad for the HD81 saying it is "coming soon". I'm kind of excited about it because for my set-up, it has all the features I'm looking for...including a "low" price (for 1080P).

I'll wait for a few reviews before I take the plunge. I was thinking the HD81 or something like the Infocus 777 (I know - 720P but a 3-chipper) but it may be a little overwhelming for my small HT cave.

TA

seandudley

02-17-06, 10:08 AM

Wow, Ron, thanks for all the great info! That is very helpful. I really appreciate the time it took you to put that together for me.

millerwill

02-17-06, 11:21 AM

I'll try this question over here since folks over in the RPTV forum don't seem much interested. Re Optoma's BigVizion 80", 90", and 100" RP dlp units: does anyone know if the TI chip in these is the same one as in the HD-81, i.e., the 'full', non-wobulated 0.95" 1080p chip? Thanks for any info.

lovingdvd

02-17-06, 01:00 PM

millerwill

02-17-06, 01:04 PM

From everything I've read the HD81 will definately be brighter. Just make sure you are comparing apples to apples though when working with lumens. For instance the Ruby has greater lumens than 800 - its just that it goes to 800 (actually a bit below) once calibrated to D65. I believe the 1400 lumens spec for the HD81 is pre-calibration so there is a big difference (even in the end it will likely still be brighter).

It was stated way back up in this thread that the HD81 puts out 900 Lumens after calibration for video.

ScottJ0007

02-18-06, 06:09 PM

You will need a scaler with some aspect ratio flexibility ( not just typical pre sets ) in allowing you to custom stretch and create a ratio.
Most current scalers already allow this. I would expect this scaler to also allow this.
You should be able to change thew width and height of the image at random and put it into memory.

If this scaler allows custom picture sizing you will be all set.TzungILin,
Can you confirm that the scaler has custom picture sizing as Alan described above? The HD81 seems to be exactly what I am looking for. The throw ratio and the 27% offset will work perfectly with my room size and 9' ceilings. If the scaler is customizable, I will get an anamorphic lens and have the ideal setup for constant height 2.35:1.

guitarman

02-18-06, 06:59 PM

TzungILin

02-19-06, 07:59 AM

TzungILin,
Can you confirm that the scaler has custom picture sizing as Alan described above? The HD81 seems to be exactly what I am looking for. The throw ratio and the 27% offset will work perfectly with my room size and 9' ceilings. If the scaler is customizable, I will get an anamorphic lens and have the ideal setup for constant height 2.35:1.

Yes, the scalar box that comes with HD81 allows one to control the vertical zoom and horizontal zoom independently, so that one can create any ratio as they wish, we will implement a ratio for 16x9 lens usage in one of the mode.

barrysb

02-19-06, 08:24 AM

TzungILin,
Can you confirm that the scaler has custom picture sizing as Alan described above? The HD81 seems to be exactly what I am looking for. The throw ratio and the 27% offset will work perfectly with my room size and 9' ceilings. If the scaler is customizable, I will get an anamorphic lens and have the ideal setup for constant height 2.35:1.

Will someone please explain to me why a constant height 2.35:1 setup is ideal when a 2.35:1 image is over 30% larger than a 16x9 image? Wouldn't a constant area image display be more "ideal"?

Gary Lightfoot

02-19-06, 04:35 PM

barrysb

02-19-06, 05:19 PM

Constant height 2.35:1 is ideal because that is exactly how the movies are projected at the cinema, and how much bigger thay are intended to be over 16:9 - as the director intended so to speak. You just move the side curtains to mask for which ever ratio is being used (and those that may exist in between) so it's easy to accomodate.

Gary

Not to belabor the point since this is OT, I just feel constant area is more ideal, since I don't have to be looking at such a puny-looking 16x9 image when viewing sport events.

GeorgeAB

02-19-06, 05:38 PM

Only certain commercial theaters are constructed to accommodate constant height projection. In this age of megaplexes that incorporate dozens of small box theaters, fewer people have ever experienced a Cinemascope 2.35:1 movie properly exhibited. That usually involves an anamorphic lens on the projector and a curved (for relatively short throw distance venues), constant height screen.

In this case the various film formats are masked with curtains drawn from the ends of the screen. The ultimate presentation would be a film shot in 65 mm anamorphic and exhibited on a 70 mm projector with an anamorphic lens. There have only been less than 20 feature length commercial films actually shot entirely with 65 mm cameras. Not all were filmed with anamorphic lenses for 2.35:1 exhibition. 'Lawrence Of Arabia' is one example. 70 mm film is to most movies what HDTV is to DVD. The original film stock quality makes a huge difference in how large a screen can be used successfully. Lower quality film blown up on a constant height screen will look soft compared to something like 70 mm or IMAX.

Most 2.35:1 movies today are shot with 35 mm cameras and anamorphic lenses. In some rare instances, native 35 mm films have been printed on 70 mm film for distribution. Most moviegoers have never seen properly presented 2.35:1 movies. They most likely have only seen them on a constant width screen, which would be masked from the top, or top and bottom together.

The advent of 1080p projectors, such as the HD81, make constant height projection a genuine option in the home. This would be appropriate for HD material but debateable for DVD. Much depends on the quality of upconversion processing, screen size and viewing distance. Even a 1080p display with perfect upconversion cannot add resolution that was never there. Many DVDs will look softer than intended, for the sake of so-called immersion. Some viewers think "big" equates with quality. Not necessarily. Image fidelity and size are not always mutually inclusive.

A "constant area" display would have to distort every original image format being projected except the one defined by the aspect ratio of the screen being used. Only 1.78:1 programs would be undistorted by such a display on a 1.78:1 screen.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
G. Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

Gary Lightfoot

02-19-06, 06:42 PM

Ideal for sports perhaps, but not necessarily for movies. 2.35 is designed to be larger than 16:9.

Gary.

barrysb

02-19-06, 10:23 PM

A "constant area" display would have to distort every original image format being projected except the one defined by the aspect ratio of the screen being used. Only 1.78:1 programs would be undistorted by such a display on a 1.78:1 screen.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
G. Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

I appreciate the detail you wrote in your response. Apparently, I'm not clear in exactly what constitutes a constant area display. Done correctly, it does not distort OAR. It does involve a more complicated masking system. The sceen aspect ratio is usually about 2:1 where the full width is used to display 2.35:1 and the full height for 16X9 requiring a small change in zoom settings.

ScottJ0007

02-19-06, 10:36 PM

Not to belabor the point since this is OT, I just feel constant area is more ideal, since I don't have to be looking at such a puny-looking 16x9 image when viewing sport events.Barry,
This will be my first constant height setup. I seriously considered constant area, but decided to go with constant height instead. The way I'm doing it, I will set up the 16:9 to the size I like. In my case my 16:9 will be 91" X 51" from a viewing distance of 12'. This gives a viewing angle of 35 degrees. I like this size for 16:9 and I don't consider this puny-looking at all. When I switch to 2.35:1, I will have an image that is 120" X 51" with a viewing angle of 45.2 degrees.

I think that the advent of 1080 projectors like the HD81 make this large of a screen at a 12' seating distance a viable possibility for the home theater with its brighter image and 1080 resolution. On some DVDs, the picture may be a little soft as George explained, but with the HD81, I think I am ready to take the plung to constant height 2.35:1. I'm anxiously awaiting the first reviews of this projector!