I'll be at around 1.56 to 1.6 times the screen width. If I can still resolve the 1080p up to 2 times the screen width then it would make sense for me to still go 1080p.

I can now use my future, matching center channel and the HD81 together since the screen bottom from the floor will be 26"...

Who's heard of the Optoma H80 a one piece design http://www.pjreview.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31 http://images.cinenow.com/reports/2005_cedia_us/Optoma/cedia-us-05-optoma-008.jpg

true

2 pjs in september: with and without scaler.

However it is not quite accurate. To eliminate all of the offset you will need the following tilt at the widest angle (shortest throw):

arctan of (9/16*0.362/1.8) = 6.45 degrees

and for the telephoto (long throw) end of the zoom:

arctan of (9/16*0.362/2.2) = 5.29 degrees

These values are independent of screen size. -Mr. Wigggles

Mr. W,

Sorry for my lack of geometry skills. Can you please explain each component of the above calculations?

Thanks

Joe

true

2 pjs in september: with and without scaler.
This begs the question, what is the price of the H80?

HD 81 : please what's tha max distance throw for a 122' screen width?

Thanks

HD 81 : please what's tha max distance throw for a 122' screen width?

Thanks

Post #1197 has a calculator you can use to easily figure this out.

Joe

thanks

This begs the question, what is the price of the H80?
I'll bet it's the 6k model and the scaler model is going to cost more. You know it can't be less than 6k?! for a 1080P projector.

Bulldogger:

That's a good guess.

The Gennum scaler is outstanding though.

Yes that would make sense.

I wonder if Tom TzungIlin or Wing have any more definite info on that and for pricing though..

Gary

The 1080p machine will only be sold with the scaler. A user that has a different scaler can try his scaler and the HDMI port on the projector only accepts 1080p. One catch all the functions from the remote are sent via RS232 from the scaler box. Functions for setting the IRIS etc. You'll be needing to run two cables over to the PJ this I didn't know and is news. At least there won't be complaints about RF's from the remotes. :)

Pricing was changed from $9999 to $7999MSRP, street price will be whatever your friendly dealer wants to give it to you for. Initial shipment amounts will be low around 100, I expect an average discount price might be $6999. Once allot more are shipping that price could go lower.

The 1080p machine will only be sold with the scaler.

Does that mean that the HD-80 will not be sold in the US? (Which is fine by me; I really like the separate scalar box.)

There's no H80 seperate projector plan.

Appears I am lucky enough for the fixed vertical offset to work well for me with this projector (combination of high ceiling and small screen). I input my numbers into the spreadsheet and its actually perfect (many, many thanks to the contributor of that). One question I have though is the horizontal offset. From looking at the EP910, the lense is on the far left (ceiling mount) of the projector (I'm guessing around 6" off center). I have a mounting box on the ceiling that is dead center of the screen location horizontally. So, is there any horizontal offset available with this projector or would I need to offset the center line of the screen by the 6"? The ceiling box is 20" wide (vs the 18" HD81 width) so not much room to move there and I do not have much wiggle room on the screen location either (screen is being mounted in built-in cabinetry). I know 6" sounds trivial but its literally a game of inches for me given where things are in the room. Any ideas?

there will be 2 projectors 1080p: one all by itself like most pjs, and the H81 with the Genum.

What are the maximum and minimum distances you should be seated from the screen before the detail on 1920x1080 material is lost and 720p becomes the more sensible option? Or, rather, what is the threshold between 1080p and 720p as far as viewing distance, where one type of projector makes sense over the other?Here is my take on this question: 1080/720 = 1.5. So if I sit 2.5x screen widths from a 720p projector then I simulate the image that I would get from a 1080p projector at 1.67x (albeit seeing only the central 720*1280 pixels of that 1080*1920 pixel image). So, I don't need to actually view a 1080p projector to see what difference the increased resolution makes (although I do need a room that is 19' deep or 2.5x from my 106" screen!)

So, here are my impressions after doing that experiment. Using a high quality HD feed and sitting at 1.67x from a Samsung H710ae 720p DLP projector I get an immensely satisfying image. However, two aspects of image quality improve noticably when I move back to 2.5x. Firstly the slight "digital" look (combination of pixelation the SDE) is completely eliminated. Secondly, the image looks as sharp as what real life looks like (ie: I get the impression that the detail is limited by my eyes, not by the projected image). I think these two factors combine to give the "3D, looking through a window effect” that is not quite there at 1.67x. So my prediction is that 1080p resolution will provide an essentially perfect image at 1.67x (and actually down to about 1.5x or so).

So, you can answer the question for yourself by going into a store with a tape measure. Walk back from a 720p (DLP) until the image looks perfect (or “good enough”). Figure the distance in terms of screen widths and if you want to sit closer than that, and you think the $$ premium is worth it, then 1080p would be the way to go.

For me, the deficiencies of 720p from the Samsung at 1.67x are not that obvious in routine viewing. They don’t really detract from enjoyment of the movie. Personally I don’t think it is worth paying over double (depending on H81 pricing) to be able to sit at the same 1.5 – 1.67x distance to eliminate these deficienies. And, in the case of the H81, especially because I would have to give up lens shift and the ability to use a retroreflective screen.

BTW, because the same projector is used at both distances, the experiment described above controls for most variables, such as differences in contrast ratios, fill factor, lens quality, focus, gamma, calibration, etc) that otherwise could confound comparisons between physically different (720p and a 1080p projectors). The main thing it doesn't control is the reduction in brightness that occurs when increasing the viewing distance.

Hope that helps.

Brent

Hope that helps.

Brent

It does, a lot, thank you!

- Jeff

However it is not quite accurate. To eliminate all of the offset you will need the following tilt at the widest angle (shortest throw):

arctan of (9/16*0.362/1.8) = 6.45 degrees

and for the telephoto (long throw) end of the zoom:

arctan of (9/16*0.362/2.2) = 5.29 degrees

These values are independent of screen size. It is also important to note that these are just aproximations. You can only get a ballpark estimate of offset as you plan to design your HT. You can't build everything and then slap the projector in place and hope everything works out. The adjustments will need some tweaking. Just remember that in this situation you can remove most of the offset by tilting the projector.

My best advice was from post #999:



-Mr. Wigggles

Ok, you all are starting to convince me that this tilting thing may very well work and be something I am willing to do. As some of you know, I have been stubborn about the lack of lens shift, but this projector may just be to good to pass up just because it may take a little more work to setup. If this lives up to the expectations and can put out 800 usable lumens I think I may really consider this.

Thanks everyone for the alternative options, calculations, calculators, etc. Mr. Wigggles, I think I will take the post #999 advise if I decide to do this..

However it is not quite accurate. To eliminate all of the offset you will need the following tilt at the widest angle (shortest throw):

arctan of (9/16*0.362/1.8) = 6.45 degrees

and for the telephoto (long throw) end of the zoom:

arctan of (9/16*0.362/2.2) = 5.29 degrees

I'm not sure I agree with those formulas. What were they based on?

When you tilt the projector, you are raising the image. The goal is to tilt the projector enough to move the image by the desired amount. That leaves you with a right triangle. One side of the triangle is the distance you want to move the image. One side is the distance between the projector and the screen. The angle will be arctan of (how far you want to move the image) / (throw).

To keep the relationship between the projector and screen the same, the projector and screen need to be tilted the same amount.

Dave only needs to raise his screen by 9". His throw is 200". The angle required to raise something 9" at a distance of 200" would be the arctan of 9/200 or 2.6 degrees.

Joe's calculator assumes you want the screen level with projector's lens so it doesn't currently have the flexibility to do a partial offset like Dave needed, but it would be simple to add it. I believe the formulas used in the calculator are correct. They figure the offset by multiplying the screen height by .362. They figure the angle of a right triangle with one side being the offset and another side being the throw.

With a larger screen, the offset becomes bigger so it would take a bigger tilt to move the screen that amount.

Joe

For me, the deficiencies of 720p from the Samsung at 1.67x are not that obvious in routine viewing. They don’t really detract from enjoyment of the movie. Personally I don’t think it is worth paying over double (depending on H81 pricing) to be able to sit at the same 1.5 – 1.67x distance to eliminate these deficienies. And, in the case of the H81, especially because I would have to give up lens shift and the ability to use a retroreflective screen. Brent

Brent, I agree completely with your arithmetic and analysis. one thing, though, is that a lot of folks like to sit closer than 1.67 (or even 1.5) SW, and then the advantages of 1080p will become increasingly evident.

There's no H80 seperate projector plan.

Tom, I'm confused. What about the link in post # 1234 above, about an HD-80 as well as the HD-81? This is from an exposition in Berlin; maybe the HD-80 won't be marketed in the US. ???

possible (2 units for Europe). we'll know more next week

as for perceived resolution (pj resolution that is, "the constituing elements of the chip"), once the image displayed is made of 4000x2000 elements, the eye beyond that can't see the elements at say 1meter. there was a discussion on that here years ago. just remembering some of the data.
bottom line: a 4K projector :D

4K for ht market arrive next year btw.

Ideally to resolve with less aliasing noise a 1080p signal, a pj should have a 4K resolution (4mirrors for 1 pixel source).

Tom, I'm confused. What about the link in post # 1234 above, about an HD-80 as well as the HD-81? This is from an exposition in Berlin; maybe the HD-80 won't be marketed in the US. ???

I know for sure there's only the HD81 two piece system selling in the USA. Don't know about what's planned for Europe. Maybe they have a plan to split them up to have a decent price on the single unit. First big question is what deinterlacing chip would they put in it? Would it have the Iris second ? Could be just a EP910 with a 1080p chip and HT colorwheel.

"once the image displayed is made of 4000x2000 elements, the eye beyond that can't see the elements at say 1meter. "

This statement is meaningless w/o specifying the image size.

I just want to know how the SDE of the HD81 compares to my LCOS SXGA+ Canon SX50.

I saw the HD81 at CES in Jan. and I remember it being very good in this regard, but I didn't take care to measure.

Tom, (or anyone) can you say how many screen widths back the pixels disappear?

Thanks,
Ken

Here is my take on this question: 1080/720 = 1.5. So if I sit 2.5x screen widths from a 720p projector then I simulate the image that I would get from a 1080p projector at 1.67x (albeit seeing only the central 720*1280 pixels of that 1080*1920 pixel image). So, I don't need to actually view a 1080p projector to see what difference the increased resolution makes (although I do need a room that is 19' deep or 2.5x from my 106" screen!)

So, here are my impressions after doing that experiment. Using a high quality HD feed and sitting at 1.67x from a Samsung H710ae 720p DLP projector I get an immensely satisfying image. However, two aspects of image quality improve noticably when I move back to 2.5x. Firstly the slight "digital" look (combination of pixelation the SDE) is completely eliminated. Secondly, the image looks as sharp as what real life looks like (ie: I get the impression that the detail is limited by my eyes, not by the projected image). I think these two factors combine to give the "3D, looking through a window effect” that is not quite there at 1.67x. So my prediction is that 1080p resolution will provide an essentially perfect image at 1.67x (and actually down to about 1.5x or so).

So, you can answer the question for yourself by going into a store with a tape measure. Walk back from a 720p (DLP) until the image looks perfect (or “good enough”). Figure the distance in terms of screen widths and if you want to sit closer than that, and you think the $$ premium is worth it, then 1080p would be the way to go.

For me, the deficiencies of 720p from the Samsung at 1.67x are not that obvious in routine viewing. They don’t really detract from enjoyment of the movie. Personally I don’t think it is worth paying over double (depending on H81 pricing) to be able to sit at the same 1.5 – 1.67x distance to eliminate these deficienies. And, in the case of the H81, especially because I would have to give up lens shift and the ability to use a retroreflective screen.

BTW, because the same projector is used at both distances, the experiment described above controls for most variables, such as differences in contrast ratios, fill factor, lens quality, focus, gamma, calibration, etc) that otherwise could confound comparisons between physically different (720p and a 1080p projectors). The main thing it doesn't control is the reduction in brightness that occurs when increasing the viewing distance.

Hope that helps.

Brent

If i understand all you wrote, people who are sitting 2.5x from there screen don't really benefit from the higher resolution? besides better color etc. and therefor can better buy a top 720p model and save a lot of money?

I sit about 2x screen widths and are thinking about a 1080p design. Not only for it's higher resolution, although it is nice to know that you can display 1080p all the way at home, but also for the better overall look thru glass effect. :)
Besides that, you have an extra choice; sitting closer to the screen without getting that screendoor effect if you want to. I hope you understand my point ;)

If i understand all you wrote, people who are sitting 2.5x from there screen don't really benefit from the higher resolution? besides better color etc. and therefor can better buy a top 720p model and save a lot of money?

I sit about 2x screen widths and are thinking about a 1080p design. Not only for it's higher resolution, although it is nice to know that you can display 1080p all the way at home, but also for the better overall look thru glass effect. :)
Besides that, you have an extra choice; sitting closer to the screen without getting that screendoor effect if you want to. I hope you understand my point ;)

Guys get closer to your screens this is all about recreating that big screen experience. I sit at about 1.6x screen width from my 106" wide screen and plan to move to a 138"-144" wide scope screen when I go to 1080P. I just need lumens to light it up.

Guys get closer to your screens this is all about recreating that big screen experience.


If I could I would... I'm limited by space and acoustical setup.

Guys get closer to your screens this is all about recreating that big screen experience. I sit at about 1.6x screen width from my 106" wide screen and plan to move to a 138"-144" wide scope screen when I go to 1080P. I just need lumens to light it up.

The THX 'recommended' viewing distance is 1.5 x SW, IIRC; I sit at ~ 1.4. It's a very individual matter; some people report to sit at 1.1 x SW, which I've tried but find to close for me. Even at 1.4 x SW I see the screen door pretty clearly (with a 720p dlp), so 1080p is really necessary (at least for me) at these viewing distances.

Mr. W,

Sorry for my lack of geometry skills. Can you please explain each component of the above calculations?

Thanks

Joe
Let me reiterate this. Generally speaking, if you want remove ALL of the offset from the of the HD81, the following equations for tilt will remove all of the offset. For simplicity sake, let us say you are trying to project on to a 1 meter wide screen. For those using the wide angle setting of the lens:

arctan of (image_height X offset / throw_distance) = 6.45 degrees

or,

arctan of (9/16 X 1m X 0.362 / 1.8m) = 6.45 degrees

and for the telephoto (long throw) end of the zoom:

arctan of (9/16 X 1m X 0.362 / 2.2m) = 5.29 degrees

By definition for an angle measurement, the units have to cancel out. The screen could be 10 feet wide, 1 mile wide etc. Thus, these values are independent of screen size.

In the Excel calculator document it is called "Offset elimination angles". The formula is:

offset_inches / throw_distance_inches X image_height_inches

The units given are "degrees". Well folks, any formula that is "inches / inches * inches" is going to leave you an answer in inches.

In the case of Dknight he needs to keep 9.5" of the projector's 18.5" offset and remove the other 9" by tilting. Well, lets say that he is a medium zoom setting for his set-up. This means he has throw distance of 181". The arctan of 9"/181" = 2.85 degrees*.

The important thing to remember here is that anything below roughly 4 degrees is completely doable. You should say to yourself "2.85 degrees isn't much; hey, I can make this work." not "How the hell am I going to tilt my projector exactly 2.85 degrees?" It's pretty simple. If you can install a fixed offset projector in the first place then adding a little tilt to your projector and screen is not much more difficult.

-Mr. Wigggles

*yes, even that number is an aproximation. The correct answer is (arctan of (18.5/181)) - (arctan of (9.5/181)) = 2.83 degrees

I just want to know how the SDE of the HD81 compares to my LCOS SXGA+ Canon SX50.

I saw the HD81 at CES in Jan. and I remember it being very good in this regard, but I didn't take care to measure.

Tom, (or anyone) can you say how many screen widths back the pixels disappear?

Thanks,
Ken

I read a post in the Marantz 1080P DLP thread that said the poster had to be closer than 1/2 SW to see any screen door. Since the HD81 uses the same DMD, I would think that should hold true for the HD81 as well.

Ken,

When I saw the projector at CES in January I wrote in my notes that I had to be inside 4' to see any pixel structure... and that was with my glasses on.

arctan of (image_height X offset / throw_distance) = 6.45 degrees

By definition for an angle measurement, the units have to cancel out. The screen could be 10 feet wide, 1 mile wide etc. Thus, these values are independent of screen size.

In the Excel calculator document it is called "Offset elimination angles". The formula is:

offset_inches / throw_distance_inches X image_height_inches


You're right about the formula. Thanks for catching that! The formula should be the arctangent of (offset distance) / (throw distance). That's the formula I've been using when I compute things manually. It must be a typo in the spreadsheet. It's easy enough to fix. Thanks again for finding it!

As far as being independent of screen height, I think we're saying the same thing two different ways. If the ratio of screen size to throw distance remains the same, the angle remains the same. But for a given throw distance, changing the screen size requires changing the zoom setting which changes the angle.

Thanks for clarifying. I didn't understand that your formulas were for a 1 unit wide screen so I thought one variable was missing. And thanks for catching the typo!

Joe

-Doh- I finally figured it out.

The column is just mis-labeled. That number computed in that cell is how far the top of the screen needs to be tilted forward in inches. Since the projector and screen need to be tilted the same angle, the ratio of (screen tip) / (screen height) would equal the ratio of (offset distance) / (throw), which resolves to the formula in that cell. I figured that is the number you would need to devise a mount - how far forward the top of the screen needs to be moved. You wouldn't try to measure an x degree tilt for the screen, you'd just find a way to mount the screen so that the top is y inches forward.

You're right. The tilt angle at maximum zoom and the tilt angle at minimum zoom are constant regardless of screen size. My other formula was for figuring tilt for a given throw and screen distance (which would in turn dictate the zoom amount needed to fill the screen).

Sorry about the confusion. It was my fault for not doing a better job labeling the drawings and formulas I sent to Joe.

Joe

I've been thinking about this and it occurred to me that the scenario Dave proposed may work out best in lots of installations. He needs a screen offset of 18.5". The biggest offset he can accomodate is 9.5". He only needs enough tilt to make up for the 9" difference between the required 18.5" and the available 9.5". That cuts the required tilt approximately in half.

I sent some more formulas to Joe. We could modify the calculator so people can enter how much offset they can provide and the calculator would tell them what tilt angle would be required to make up for the difference and how many inches forward the top of the screen would need to be moved to accomplish that. I'm thinking it would be helpful to be able to try various actual offsets and see how that affects both numbers. If you enter 0 for the available offset, it would base the calculations on having the top of the screen level with the lens.

Joe

Tom,

When are you getting your unit to review? Next week? I think we are all impatiently waiting to hear some feedback from you. At least, I know I am. I must check several times a day just to see if you got your test unit yet.

I've been thinking about this and it occurred to me that the scenario Dave proposed may work out best in lots of installations. He needs a screen offset of 18.5". The biggest offset he can accomodate is 9.5". He only needs enough tilt to make up for the 9" difference between the required 18.5" and the available 9.5". That cuts the required tilt approximately in half.

I sent some more formulas to Joe. We could modify the calculator so people can enter how much offset they can provide and the calculator would tell them what tilt angle would be required to make up for the difference and how many inches forward the top of the screen would need to be moved to accomplish that. I'm thinking it would be helpful to be able to try various actual offsets and see how that affects both numbers. If you enter 0 for the available offset, it would base the calculations on having the top of the screen level with the lens.

Joe

Sounds good. I will add these capabilities and repost tomorrow.

Joe

F300 and HiHo,

Thanks for the info. .5SW definitely makes 1080P DLP a candidate for replacing my LCOS pj. Well... if the lumens work out.

My pj is rated at 2500 lumens, but it is much less measured. I need to remeasure and be ready to compare to actual measurements from the HD81.

Tom should be supplying some numbers real soon, no? :)

Ken

When will this puppy be officially released in the USA?

Tom,

I must check several times a day just to see if you got your test unit yet.

So i'm not the only one who is mad ;)

I am working on my plan for my first HT setup and I am jumping in with both feet for the HD-81. Any opinions on a good screen, the plan is a 106" 16:9 screen with seating approximately 12 feet back. The room has 8 foot celings with a plan for a ceiling mount for the PJ. Throw distance can be as much as 18 feet, but I would rather minimize it. The only problem is that while ambient light can be controlled it will likely not be very well controlled much of the time. The room is relatively narrow , max width of 15 feet, so angular drop off is not a huge concern. Any advice is greatly appreciated.

The THX 'recommended' viewing distance is 1.5 x SW, IIRC; I sit at ~ 1.4. It's a very individual matter; some people report to sit at 1.1 x SW, which I've tried but find to close for me. Even at 1.4 x SW I see the screen door pretty clearly (with a 720p dlp), so 1080p is really necessary (at least for me) at these viewing distances.

The THX recommendations are a range of distances, not just a single value.

Where do you all sit in a commercial theater? I've done some very technical measurements during the movie trivia previews when the theater is still bright enough to see (i.e.- couting ceiling tiles), and of the 3-4 theaters around me, the auditoriums are rarely any larger than 2.5x the screen width. Ussally closer to 2X.

I usually sit at about the ~40% mark (from the screen, 100% being the very last row), and it alomost always ends up being about ~1.1X screen width away where I find myself immersed.

I think people would be surprised to find they may be closer to screens in theaters then they realize. Ceiling tiles are either 2'x2' or 2'x4'... figure out the screen width and your seating positon next time you go.

I have updated the calculator again. Thanks to Mr. Wiggles and Joe Linn I have corrected the mislabeled cell and added some additional calculations. I have made the following additions:

1. I have created a section that allows you to eliminate part or all of the 36.2% offset requirement. So if your offset calls for 25 inches and you can move your screen down 12 inches the spreadsheet will recalulate both the angle and screen movement necessary to eliminate the remaining offset.

2. I have added a drop-down box that contains the available throws from 1.8 to 2.2. You can now select the throw you wish to work with and the spreadsheet will recalculate all information based on that throw.

The one enhancement that I plan to make is the recommended seating distance based on the angle of the screen. I will repost another version when this is complete.

Once again, please let me know if you find any errors or if you would like to see any additional enhancements.

Joe

Here is my take on this question: 1080/720 = 1.5. So if I sit 2.5x screen widths from a 720p projector then I simulate the image that I would get from a 1080p projector at 1.67x (albeit seeing only the central 720*1280 pixels of that 1080*1920 pixel image). So, I don't need to actually view a 1080p projector to see what difference the increased resolution makes (although I do need a room that is 19' deep or 2.5x from my 106" screen!)

So, here are my impressions after doing that experiment. Using a high quality HD feed and sitting at 1.67x from a Samsung H710ae 720p DLP projector I get an immensely satisfying image. However, two aspects of image quality improve noticably when I move back to 2.5x. Firstly the slight "digital" look (combination of pixelation the SDE) is completely eliminated. Secondly, the image looks as sharp as what real life looks like (ie: I get the impression that the detail is limited by my eyes, not by the projected image). I think these two factors combine to give the "3D, looking through a window effect” that is not quite there at 1.67x. So my prediction is that 1080p resolution will provide an essentially perfect image at 1.67x (and actually down to about 1.5x or so).

So, you can answer the question for yourself by going into a store with a tape measure. Walk back from a 720p (DLP) until the image looks perfect (or “good enough”). Figure the distance in terms of screen widths and if you want to sit closer than that, and you think the $$ premium is worth it, then 1080p would be the way to go.

For me, the deficiencies of 720p from the Samsung at 1.67x are not that obvious in routine viewing. They don’t really detract from enjoyment of the movie. Personally I don’t think it is worth paying over double (depending on H81 pricing) to be able to sit at the same 1.5 – 1.67x distance to eliminate these deficienies. And, in the case of the H81, especially because I would have to give up lens shift and the ability to use a retroreflective screen.

BTW, because the same projector is used at both distances, the experiment described above controls for most variables, such as differences in contrast ratios, fill factor, lens quality, focus, gamma, calibration, etc) that otherwise could confound comparisons between physically different (720p and a 1080p projectors). The main thing it doesn't control is the reduction in brightness that occurs when increasing the viewing distance.

Hope that helps.

Brent

Although the reduction along the vertical axis is indeed what you quote, it's also the same accross the horizontal.

So each pixel in a 1080p projector is .44x the visible area of one in 720p unit.

Therefore I think the "scoot your couch closer" factor is even greater than you state.

While maybe not the 2.25x closer that the math on this factor alone my indicate (other thinng like neck injury, audio setups, not wanting to smudge the screen with your nose, etc... come in to play), I think your point is well made that you can sit significantly closer without seeing pixel structure.

People who have held on to a 2X number may find that the 1.0x range is acceptable from a visble-pixel standpoint.

Thanks for the update on the calculator Joe........

I am working on my plan for my first HT setup and I am jumping in with both feet for the HD-81. Any opinions on a good screen, the plan is a 106" 16:9 screen with seating approximately 12 feet back. The room has 8 foot celings with a plan for a ceiling mount for the PJ. Throw distance can be as much as 18 feet, but I would rather minimize it. The only problem is that while ambient light can be controlled it will likely not be very well controlled much of the time. The room is relatively narrow , max width of 15 feet, so angular drop off is not a huge concern. Any advice is greatly appreciated.


Go with the Stewart Firehawk all the way! I am doing the same thing as you and I have chosen either the HD81 or Sony Ruby paired with the Firehawk.

Thanks Joe! The spreadsheet looks great! I sent you a private message with even more ideas. I'm getting carried away here. I'm thinking that the calculator tells you where the screen top and bottom are located with the 36.2% offset and no tilt. It would be great to show where everything would be located as adjusted with the tilt and offset reduction.

Great job! I think this tool will be really useful for people trying to determine how the projector will work in their space.

Joe

I was wondering if this model could essentially replace my existing 4805 and remain in the same mounting location. I have a fixed screen theatre that has lots of custom paintings/curtains/theme type items that demand a replacement get pretty darn close to the location of the 4805.

It appears from reading posts that the offset is nearly identical 27 vs 27.8 and the calibrated lumens are higher 600 vs 900. I am assuming I could rig my mount to keep the projector in a similar vertical plane.

My current set up is a 4805 ceiling mounted with a 133" HP. I run the projector in low power mode through M1/HDMI and have plenty of lumens for myself and anyone who has come over for movie night. I am thinking with the 81 I could get all the benefits of true HD, a couple more seating rows up front, less noise, and a plasma like bright picture.

Does my logic hold?

Once again, please let me know if you find any errors or if you would like to see any additional enhancements.

Joe

Joe, either I'm crazy or a moron, but I still think your calculation for where the top of the 2.35:1 image is located is not correct. One more time: Since the image width is identical for both 1.78:1 and 2.35:1 and you are not using an anamorphic lens, the projected image from the projector is actually identical in both cases meaning the offset will not change. It is 24.435" for both 1.78:1 and 2.35:1. What is changing is the 2.35:1 image is being displayed in the center of the 1.78:1window. Therefore the top of the 2.35:1 image will be located at 67.565"-(67.5-51.06)/2 = 64.345", not 73.51489".

If this isn't correct, please let me know where I'm going wrong so I can regain my sanity.

Tom,

When are you getting your unit to review? Next week? I think we are all impatiently waiting to hear some feedback from you. At least, I know I am. I must check several times a day just to see if you got your test unit yet.

Hang on on the checking, I was told 2nd week of August I should get mine out of the first batch. Which is a small amount about 15. One will go to Projector Central others will go to Magazines and Dealers. The dealers will get there's to sell. A couple of weeks later the next batch arrives, official launch is called for September and only tallying up to 100 units, more to follow. Customers who are tight with dealers should be first in line. I plugged in before put a call into Jason or another AVS sales rep express your interest to be an early adopter.

Does my logic hold?


Unfortunately not because the offset for the HD81 is now being reported at 36.2% and not 27%

Unfortunately not because the offset for the HD81 is now being reported at 36.2% and not 27%

The offset for the projector IS 36.2%. Somewhere in this long thread, Optoma announced that the offset was going to be 36.2% and not 27%.

Joe

Since the image width is identical for both 1.78:1 and 2.35:1 and you are not using an anamorphic lens, the projected image from the projector is actually identical in both cases meaning the offset will not change. It is 24.435" for both 1.78:1 and 2.35:1.

I'm confused. Wouldn't you need to use an anamorphic lens to get 2.35:1? Otherwise, how are you filling a 2.35:1 screen with a 1.78:1 projector?

Joe

I'm confused. Wouldn't you need to use an anamorphic lens to get 2.35:1? Otherwise, how are you filling a 2.35:1 screen with a 1.78:1 projector?

Joe

You do not need to use an anamorphic lens to get a 2.35:1 image from a 1.78 projector. The 2.35:1 image is simply letterboxed on the 1.78:1 target resulting in a projected image having black bars of equal size above and below the 2.35 image. In this case, if you are projecting this image on a 2.35:1 screen, the bars will fall on the masked area and the picture height will be what I calculated in my last post. However, it's normal to use an anamorphic lens with a 2.35 screen. In this case, processing circuitry is used to stretch the 2.35:1 image vertically over the entire 1.78 image area and the lens either stretches the image horizontally or compresses it vertically to re-establish image geometry. Now, the location of the image on the screen will be dependent on the projector offset plus whatever affect the lens has on image location.

You do not need to use an anamorphic lens to get a 2.35:1 image from a 1.78 projector. The 2.35:1 image is simply letterboxed on the 1.78:1 target resulting in a projected image having black bars of equal size above and below the 2.35 image.

I understand letterboxing. That part that I don't understand is that if you use a 2.35:1 screen without an anamorphic lens, what happens when you are watching something 1.78:1 or 1.33:1? Do you just use the zoom lens to get the height to fit the screen?

Joe

I understand letterboxing. That part that I don't understand is that if you use a 2.35:1 screen without an anamorphic lens, what happens when you are watching something 1.78:1 or 1.33:1? Do you just use the zoom lens to get the height to fit the screen?

Joe

Yes, but this is why those people who do have a 2.35:1 screen typically use an anamorphic lens to create a constant height imaging system. They back the lens out of the way when displaying a 1.78:1 image. But your spreadsheet was set up for constant width with no anamorphic lens. In this case one would probably use a 1.78:1 screen and my caculations for 2.35:1 indicate where the top of the image is located not the top of the screen. It's difficult to calculate where the top of the screen would be located using an anamorphic lens as the type of lens used will impact the projected image location.

Barry

Hey guys, just got back from vacation and there is some great info on here regarding offsets and tilting. I think my situation is definitely doable with minimal (<3 degrees) tilt. Just what I wanted to hear!

I now have a new concern. I've got a 2.35:1 screen that I plan to use with an ISCO II anamorphic lens on a slider (it slides into place only for 2.35:1 aspect ratio). Does anybody know if the ISCO II is going to change the offset in any way? I'm assuming that the lens will have to be tilted the same amount as the projector (so the lens is perfectly parallel with the lens of the projector). If I do that, I assume that everything will just work.

Anybody know for sure?

Thanks!


-Dave

my caculations for 2.35:1 indicate where the top of the image is located not the top of the screen.
Barry

I'm trying to figure out what to do with the spreadsheet to make it useful for people with 2.35:1 screens. Should we figure things assuming there is no anamorphic lens or should we allow for either case? Without the lens, I'm assuming the figure that would be helpful for people would be the location of the top of the screen, not the top of the image? So we would need to figure out the location of the top of the image then subtract 1/2 the difference in height between a 16:9 and 2.35:1 screen to find the location of the top of the screen. In computing the tilt, the angle would be the same, but the inches of tilt would be based on the shorter screen height.

Is that what would be useful to people?

Joe

Joe,

Most people who are installing 2.35:1 screens will want figures with the anamorphic lens. Otherwise, those who have 1.78:1 screens probably will be satisfied with just that section of the calculations. The 2.35:1 letterboxing imaging on a 1.78:1 screen is important only for determining the masking requirements.

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about creating a calculator for the 2.35:1 installs. There are just too many variable to have to keep track of. The chosen anamorphic lens will make a big difference on the calculated values beyond the its simple "constant width" or "constant height" classification (you'll be lucky to get constant anything).

I also think that anyone trying to do a anamorphic lens with any high offset (or even low offset) projector is going to have to live with a good deal of barrell, pincushion, or keystone distortion. When watching movies it is not that big of a deal; just be ready to have a ton of masking. (Most theaters already have these anamolies to begin with and they use heavy masking at the screen and in the projection booth.)

With any anamorphic lens, don't expect PC desktop images to look good and don't expect to have perfect corner to corner sharpness either in the resulting image.

-Mr. Wigggles

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about creating a calculator for the 2.35:1 installs. There are just too many variable to have to keep track of. The chosen anamorphic lens will make a big difference on the calculated values beyond the its simple "constant width" or "constant height" classification (you'll be lucky to get constant anything).
-Mr. Wigggles

Thanks Mr. W! Those were exactly the things that had me puzzled. I had an anamorphic lens in my old 16mm days, so I remember all the "fun" I had trying to get that set up correctly.

btw, where did the name come from?

Joe

First very small but elite group of HD81's will be shipping by air from Taiwan on Wednesday, just got the word. If customs works fast I should see one on Monday. Then expect the review Tuesday. Nice!

First very small but elite group of HD81's will be shipping by air from Taiwan on Wednesday, just got the word. If customs works fast I should see one on Monday. Then expect the review Tuesday. Nice!

Can't wait to hear from you on this. Please report if the included processor will stretch 2.35:1 content to fill the 1.78:1 panel, ready to be used with an anamorphic lens.

Thanks!

Can't wait to hear from you on this. Please report if the included processor will stretch 2.35:1 content to fill the 1.78:1 panel, ready to be used with an anamorphic lens.

Thanks!

Yes, it does. And it has dedicated buttons to do so.

Press the LBX button, will stretch letterboxed movie to 16:9 and is also suitable for 2.35 anamorphic stretch.

It also has a 4:3 button that can quickly squeeze 16:9 content back to 16:9 even with anamorphic lens on. This is useful when you need to pop up a HD DVD style menu that appears near the bottom of a 16:9 image. (resolution is down to 1440 x 1080 using this mode - some highly compressed HD broadcast and HDV video are also 1440 x 1080 native though)

Wing it is good to see you posting some info on this. It's good to hear from someone who has already had hands on with it.

Dale

Wing,

Can you tell us when we can expect to see some specs available on the Optoma website (or elsewhere for that matter)? Now that the vertical offset question has been resolved, it would be really helpful to know the location of the lens so I can figure out where and how I can mount this machine. For example, is the lens centrally located on the horizontal axis, or is it offset to one side? How far is it from the bottom of the case to the center of the lens? What are the overall dimensions of the unit? So many questions!! Oh yeah, one more, when can I have one? :D

Thanks!
Mike

(I'm hoping the throw allows for closer placement than it currently appears to, assuing the calculator's throw is what the final product will be.)

Yes, it does. And it has dedicated buttons to do so.

Press the LBX button, will stretch letterboxed movie to 16:9 and is also suitable for 2.35 anamorphic stretch.

It also has a 4:3 button that can quickly squeeze 16:9 content back to 16:9 even with anamorphic lens on. This is useful when you need to pop up a HD DVD style menu that appears near the bottom of a 16:9 image. (resolution is down to 1440 x 1080 using this mode - some highly compressed HD broadcast and HDV video are also 1440 x 1080 native though)

Great! this just made this projector $1600 cheaper for me.

Great! this just made this projector $1600 cheaper for me.

That sounds great! Why don't you buy two of them and I will buy your spare for $4400. :D

That way we both can save $1600 :p

Joe

Great! this just made this projector $1600 cheaper for me.
I agree completely. To be honest, the flexibility of this scaler in a constant-height screen scenario is the main reason this projector is at the top of my list without even seeing it. The fact that it sounds like a fantastic projector from previous showings is just a HUGE bonus.

:)

-Dave

Hey all!
Just found out that my first batch is coming in within the next couple weeks. Pricing is set at $6999 list, so basically right smack in the middle of where the rumors were. :)

Pricing is set at $6999 list
So what will be your sale's price?

I cannot post that. I would ask anyone interested to call me at the below number.

OK -- I called Jason and I'm in the que!

I saw this unit at CES and thought it bested projectors costing ten times as much, and I've been anxiously awaiting its release ever since -- even with its "goofy" offset. True 1080p at 110" inches, here I come!

Thanks Kevin!

I also think that anyone trying to do a anamorphic lens with any high offset (or even low offset) projector is going to have to live with a good deal of barrell, pincushion, or keystone distortion. When watching movies it is not that big of a deal; just be ready to have a ton of masking. (Most theaters already have these anamolies to begin with and they use heavy masking at the screen and in the projection booth.)

With any anamorphic lens, don't expect PC desktop images to look good and don't expect to have perfect corner to corner sharpness either in the resulting image.

-Mr. Wigggles

This was just the set-up I was planning! The HD81 with a Panamorph lens!!! :eek:

And I was under the impression that there would be minimal pincushion/barrel or keystone distortion? I also use the PJ image to show PC images and just a bit of surfing.

So you feel that the HD81 with an anamorphic lens would be a bad idea for this kind of use?

Is this all due to the high offset? or the anamorphic lens? or both?

This was just the set-up I was planning! The HD81 with a Panamorph lens!!! :eek:

And I was under the impression that there would be minimal pincushion/barrel or keystone distortion? I also use the PJ image to show PC images and just a bit of surfing.

So you feel that the HD81 with an anamorphic lens would be a bad idea for this kind of use?

Is this all due to the high offset? or the anamorphic lens? or both?


The high offset has nothing to do with the amount of geometric distortion you'll see. That is dependant on the throw, and with a throw of up to 2.2 on the HD81, internal vertical stretch (LBX mode) and horizontal squeeze (4:3 mode), it will be a perfect projector to use with an anamorphic lens. The distortion will be very minimal at the long end of the throw range. PC text will be sharp, even after scaling, with this high a resolution projector. The quality of anamorphic lens also comes into play - but that's not the fault of the projector!

The offset just means you'll have to tilt the lens to match the exit angle of the beam leaving the projector. Most if not all lens mounts provide this ability, and the angle is not that bad at 6 degrees or so.

Looks like we are finally getting close to getting these PJ's into users hands. Definitely looking forward to owner reviews/impressions.

I spoke with Jason and placed my order also.

I can't wait!

Joe

The high offset has nothing to do with the amount of geometric distortion you'll see. That is dependant on the throw, and with a throw of up to 2.2 on the HD81, internal vertical stretch (LBX mode) and horizontal squeeze (4:3 mode), it will be a perfect projector to use with an anamorphic lens. The distortion will be very minimal at the long end of the throw range. PC text will be sharp, even after scaling, with this high a resolution projector. The quality of anamorphic lens also comes into play - but that's not the fault of the projector!

The offset just means you'll have to tilt the lens to match the exit angle of the beam leaving the projector. Most if not all lens mounts provide this ability, and the angle is not that bad at 6 degrees or so.

So at the low end of the throw, distortion will be worse?

OK -- I called Jason and I'm in the que!

Ditto!

True 1080p at 110" inches, here I come!

Ditto again!

Mike

So at the low end of the throw, distortion will be worse?

Yes, which is typical of all anamorphic lenses. I'm at a throw of 1.8 (the shortest throw of the HD81) with the HD72 and geometric distortion is minimal. It can be seen as slight bowing of the edges (0.5" over 9ft), but the screen border on my 120" 2.35:1 Carada screen absorbs it so you cannot tell. It's a non-issue even at shorter throws with proper masking.

Is this 110" wide or diag? Have there been any further estimates (since 900) for the calibrated lumens this unit puts out? With a 110" wide screen (126" diag), I come up with 19.1 x gain for the ftL with 900 lumens. This would be ~ 24 ftL with a Studiotek or Firehawk, or ~ 53 with a HighPower. Should be bright enough for everybody.

So at the low end of the throw, distortion will be worse?


Yes, shorter throw lenses have much much more distortion.

I don't have the link in hand, but one of the representatives from an anamorphic lens manufacturer posted a link some time ago... I am sure one of the folks in the Constant Height thread will have it.

He discusses what type of throw is required for a good image from an anamorphic lens.. if I remember correctly the bottom end of the good range is about 2.0->2.2... longer throws get even better.

The rep for Joe Kane productions also discussed this in the Samsung 710 thread... it makes very interesting reading.

Is this 110" wide or diag? Have there been any further estimates (since 900) for the calibrated lumens this unit puts out? With a 110" wide screen (126" diag), I come up with 19.1 x gain for the ftL with 900 lumens. This would be ~ 24 ftL with a Studiotek or Firehawk, or ~ 53 with a HighPower. Should be bright enough for everybody.


Good point. 110" diag for me, a Firehawk.

Mike

Yes, which is typical of all anamorphic lenses. I'm at a throw of 1.8 (the shortest throw of the HD81) with the HD72 and geometric distortion is minimal. It can be seen as slight bowing of the edges (0.5" over 9ft), but the screen border on my 120" 2.35:1 Carada screen absorbs it so you cannot tell. It's a non-issue even at shorter throws with proper masking.

Fair enough. I actually *wasn't* consiering a anamorphic lense for this projector BUT based on the offset and the throw, I have a ceiling beam that will block the projected image unless I mount the projector at the minimum throw (which is in front of the beam). This makes the image just a bit to unacceptably small (82inch diag instead of my preferred 92 inch diag, on my 16x9 screen). Using the anamorphic lense, I could have the 2.35 stuff be as wide as it currently is on my screen, and have 16x9 stuff be smaller, which is okay.

(Ironic all of this: I started with a CH 2.35:1 screen with my first setup, but used a zoom and lense shift feature on the projector to transition between the two sizes.)

Hey all!
Just found out that my first batch is coming in within the next couple weeks. Pricing is set at $6999 list, so basically right smack in the middle of where the rumors were. :)

Wow. And Marantz is wanting 20K.

Is this 110" wide or diag?
For me, it is 110" diagonal.

Wing,

Can you tell us when we can expect to see some specs available on the Optoma website (or elsewhere for that matter)? Now that the vertical offset question has been resolved, it would be really helpful to know the location of the lens so I can figure out where and how I can mount this machine. For example, is the lens centrally located on the horizontal axis, or is it offset to one side? How far is it from the bottom of the case to the center of the lens? What are the overall dimensions of the unit? So many questions!! Oh yeah, one more, when can I have one? :D

Thanks!
Mike

I had this same question and just got off the phone with Optoma. They told me the dimensional specs are "pretty much the same" as the EP910. There is no horizontal offset, so the projector needs to be mounted off-center from the screen.

For me, it is 110" diagonal.

So how far will you be sitting from the screen? I.e., I'm wondering what viewing distance/screen diag ratio it is that is justifying a 1080p unit.

I had this same question and just got off the phone with Optoma. They told me the dimensional specs are "pretty much the same" as the EP910. There is no horizontal offset, so the projector needs to be mounted off-center from the screen.
In other words, the lens has to be exactly in the middle of the screen.

They're in Milpitas right now, delivery was ahead of schedule. I may still have to wait till Monday though, maybe not.
Woohoo the first DLP with automated Iris.

I am eager for reports from people using 110" diag and bigger with regard to brightness. I have a 123" diag. screen (1.3 gain), and I need to be sure that my next pj will be bright enough.

They're in Milpitas right now, delivery was ahead of schedule. I may still have to wait till Monday though, maybe not.
Woohoo the first DLP with automated Iris.

If it becomes possible to see one set up in Milpitas (they have a demo room, as I recall) please let us know. I see a long lunch hour in my future.

Thanks to all!

So how far will you be sitting from the screen?
I'm approximately 14 feet back, which gives me slightly more than a 30 degree viewing angle. Here is a link to a great calculator for determining viewing-distance issues including SMPTE and THX recommended distances: Viewing Distance Calculator (http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html)

I'm approximately 14 feet back, which gives me slightly more than a 30 degree viewing angle. Here is a link to a great calculator for determining viewing-distance issues including SMPTE and THX recommended distances: Viewing Distance Calculator (http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html)That is a good calculator. Just wanted to point out that some of these are for the back row of the theater. THX doesn't tell people where to sit, just that their choices should be at least as close as some number.

--Darin

So how far will you be sitting from the screen? I.e., I'm wondering what viewing distance/screen diag ratio it is that is justifying a 1080p unit.
I will be 11-12' back (have not measured it exactly), and have the option of getting closer.

Mike

I'm approximately 14 feet back, which gives me slightly more than a 30 degree viewing angle. Here is a link to a great calculator for determining viewing-distance issues including SMPTE and THX recommended distances: Viewing Distance Calculator (http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html)

Yes, I know this calculator well. Have always been confused when it says that MINIMUM SMPTE viewing angle is 30 deg; it can be any value larger? And then the THX 'recommended' viewing angle is 36 deg; this corresponds to the popular relation of viewing distance = 1.5 screen width. But this was for 720p; isn't it going to be 'recommended' to be quite a bit closer to obtain any benefit from 1080p?

I'm 'experimenting' with a projector and screen in my home right now--my first one ever!--and I'm finding that the MINIMUM screen size I would like, viewed from ~ 12.5 to 13 ft--is a 120" diag one, and perhaps another 6" larger. (The IMAX effect!) But I fully agree that this is all personal preference. It just seems that 1080p will not add much unless one likes to sit pretty close.

And then the THX 'recommended' viewing angle is 36 deg; this corresponds to the popular relation of viewing distance = 1.5 screen width. But this was for 720p; isn't it going to be 'recommended' to be quite a bit closer to obtain any benefit from 1080p?The THX recommendation and requirement are for the worst case seat in a commercial theater being built. For 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 (I don't remember the exact number) a theater cannot get THX certified if any seat is so far away that the screen takes up less than 26 degrees of the viewer's vision. They recommend that this worst case seat get 36 degrees. Meaning that the vast majority of seats will have the screen filling more of their vision than that. I've never seen anything indicating where the closest screen should be.

Also, for THX I'm pretty sure those numbers are for film.

--Darin

So there are two factors to consider in viewing distance. One is viewing angle but with 1080p projectors the other is how close can you sit before seeing pixels or the Screen-Door-Effect.

Just an initial impression, but 1080 pixels are 1/3 smaller than 720 pixels, so does that mean you could sit 1/3 closer without seeing the SDE?

It will be interesting to see if we move our seating areas closer with 1080p projectors.

So there are two factors to consider in viewing distance. One is viewing angle but with 1080p projectors the other is how close can you sit before seeing pixels or the Screen-Door-Effect.

Just an initial impression, but 1080 pixels are 1/3 smaller than 720 pixels, so does that mean you could sit 1/3 closer without seeing the SDE?

It will be interesting to see if we move our seating areas closer with 1080p projectors.

I thought that the relevant 1080/720 comparison was the 1.5 ratio of line spacing, so that SDE would be the same for 1080p if one sat at 2/3 the distance as for 720p. So if SDE allows one to sit at 1.5 screen widths for 720p, then one could sit at 1.0 SW for 1080p--IF YOU LIKE IT THAT CLOSE. (Or is 2.0 SW is your limit for 720p, then 1080p would allow you to move up to 1.33 SW.) In carrying out my present 'experiment' in FP, I find that 1.0 SW is too close for me (never thought I would say that!), but 1.4 or even 1.3 might be nice. So 1080p at these distances should be higher resolution than 720p at 1.5 SW.

Tom,

"Woohoo the first DLP with automated Iris."

Do you know if it's TI's implementation or Optoma's own?

Thanks

Optoma's own. They already had a head start with the Big Vizion, it has an automated Iris system. Though they use the wobbler (smooth screen) design with that system.

They're in Milpitas right now, delivery was ahead of schedule. I may still have to wait till Monday though, maybe not.
Woohoo the first DLP with automated Iris.


guitarman,

Does this mean 6000:1 CR with dynamic IRIS? Or the 6000:1 is fixed iris, and should get a lot more with automatic iris like 10000 to 15000:1?

At CES they were showing it on a 135" screen and it was plenty bright.

guitarman,

Does this mean 6000:1 CR with dynamic IRIS? Or the 6000:1 is fixed iris, and should get a lot more with automatic iris like 10000 to 15000:1?

You bring up a good point. The standard HT projectors all have some type of fixed Iris. So if the light sensing Iris is a full circle when wide open contrast should be off the charts.

At CES they were showing it on a 135" screen and it was plenty bright.

That's great. I wonder if there will be a big dropoff in light output after the bulb is broken in as with the Ruby.

Interesting. I just spoke to my uncle who is in Hong Kong and he mentioned that B&M dealers are getting ready to sell the HD81 in a couple weeks. Price is about 78,000 HKD, which works out to about 10k USD.

EDIT: Just noticed AVS's list price on the previous page. :)

Let's see if the TI reps continue to be as critical about "gimmicks" like auto-iris now that a DLP manufacturer will be using one in their premeire FP...

:D

p.s. Haven't read the whole thread yet. Any confirmation that the PJ will do 3-2 reversal/IVT for deinterlacing 1080i60 film-source?

p.s. Haven't read the whole thread yet. Any confirmation that the PJ will do 3-2 reversal/IVT for deinterlacing 1080i60 film-source?
Yes: it uses the latest version of the Gennum chip (the GF9351) to deinterlace 1080i film and video sources.

Will the VP box be upgrade compatible w/firmware or otherwise

They're ready to have me pick one up. I'll try to get down there today but for sure tomorrow. Review no later than Friday.

Just an idea do we want to start a new thread with your review?

"They're ready to have me pick one up. I'll try to get down there today but for sure tomorrow. Review no later than Friday"

__________________
Tom/guitarman


GREAT work Tom. We are really looking forward till Friday :)

Just an idea do we want to start a new thread with your review?
I think this is a good idea. Let's start fresh with a thread based on the actual production unit. After 1367 posts, I think it is time.

I'll start a seperate old review and screenshots thread.

ok if anything just put a link to it here on this thread. We dont wish to miss it...!!!

Thanks in advance for your efforts.

Ok,

I just met Joe Linn. He lives about 5 miles from me and he stopped over and we believe that we have finalized the calculator. Thanks to Joe we have added the capability to input your own offset and the calculator will give you all of the new dimensions and angles. We have also added the distance from the screen, based upon your offset, where seating will be at a 90 degree angle with the screen.

Because of the forum discussions regarding the 2.35 format we decided to eliminate that part of the calculator.

Please let either of us know if there are any errors.

I believe this should be the final version of the calculator.

Thanks

Joe

I have a 7 foot ceiling so it is going to be a really tight fit for the HD81 to work.

I have an idea that I would like to get some feedback on. When I first began research into building my home theater I wanted to have a rear projection setup. I did quite a bit of research regarding single and double reflection. It seemed very plausable that I could have implemented a 100" wide image using 2 mirrors 3 feet apart. Anyways, I digress a little bit.

My question is, could we not do a single reflection from the HD81 to a mirror and then from the mirror to the screen? Would not the complete offset requirement be between the HD81 and the mirror? And in that fashion eliminate the offset requirement altogether for the screen?

The HD81 could be in my joists pointing straight down into a mirror that reflects to the screen.

Some thoughts?

Joe

"I'll start a seperate old review and screenshots thread."

Just go ahead and start a new one, it doesn't cost that much more :)

Yes: it uses the latest version of the Gennum chip (the GF9351) to deinterlace 1080i film and video sources.
This is the same chip used in the $20,000 Marantz VP11-S1. For some very positive comments about the abilities of this chip, check out this review of the Marantz by Greg Rogers (a frequent contributor to the AVS Forum)(Marantz Review (http://www.widescreenreview.com/112er01.pdf)). Basically, the Gennum gets raves for the difficult 1080i to 1080p deinterlacing for video and film. This bodes well for anyone with an HD-DVD player (note in the side-bar that Mr. Rogers was less than impressed with the Blu-ray debut).

Ok,

I just met Joe Linn. He lives about 5 miles from me and he stopped over and we believe that we have finalized the calculator. Thanks to Joe we have added the capability to input your own offset and the calculator will give you all of the new dimensions and angles. We have also added the distance from the screen, based upon your offset, where seating will be at a 90 degree angle with the screen.

Because of the forum discussions regarding the 2.35 format we decided to eliminate that part of the calculator.

Please let either of us know if there are any errors.

I believe this should be the final version of the calculator.

Thanks

Joe

I cannot download this file : HD81ScreenCalc.zip (4.4 KB, 15 views)

Can others?

Is ther an alternative link to a web site or FTP?

Thanks!

ok if anything just put a link to it here on this thread. We dont wish to miss it...!!!

Thanks in advance for your efforts.

Yes, please link to it in this thread!

I cannot download this file : HD81ScreenCalc.zip (4.4 KB, 15 views)

Can others?

Is ther an alternative link to a web site or FTP?

Thanks!

You have to right-mouse cick it and choose save...

Joe

This is the same chip used in the $20,000 Marantz VP11-S1. For some very positive comments about the abilities of this chip, check out this review of the Marantz by Greg Rogers (a frequent contributor to the AVS Forum)(Marantz Review). Basically, the Gennum gets raves for the difficult 1080i to 1080p deinterlacing for video and film. This bodes well for anyone with an HD-DVD player (note in the side-bar that Mr. Rogers was less than impressed with the Blu-ray debut).

Great news. I'm glad to see that proper frame reconstruction is starting to work it's way into 1080 deinterlacing for film. We've been doing it for years at the 480 level... 1080 deserves no less!!

I have a small room. Does anyone know if this projector can handle a throw distance of 2,5 meters (8,2')? Also, with this distance, I intend to have a 72" (diagonal) image. Will it do?
Thanks

Does anyone know if this projector can handle a throw distance of 2,5 meters (8,2')? Also, with this distance, I intend to have a 72" (diagonal) image. Will it do?
The calculator you can download from post no. 1370 will answer all of these questions.

You have to right-mouse cick it and choose save...

Joe

My PC was Java challenged for a bit there, but, it works now.

Thanks!

Fair enough. I actually *wasn't* consiering a anamorphic lense for this projector BUT based on the offset and the throw, I have a ceiling beam that will block the projected image unless I mount the projector at the minimum throw (which is in front of the beam). This makes the image just a bit to unacceptably small (82inch diag instead of my preferred 92 inch diag, on my 16x9 screen). Using the anamorphic lense, I could have the 2.35 stuff be as wide as it currently is on my screen, and have 16x9 stuff be smaller, which is okay.

(Ironic all of this: I started with a CH 2.35:1 screen with my first setup, but used a zoom and lense shift feature on the projector to transition between the two sizes.)

Using the screen tilt and projector angle trick I may be able to mount the projector to the ceiling beam that was forcing me to put the projector too close to the screen... what's a universal mount (that will work with the HD81) that will allow for such a projector tilt and still keep the projector as close to the ceiling as possible?

The chief RPA and RPM mounts are ~2" thick and allow for tilt. AVS carries them.

See:
http://www.chiefmfg.com/store/results/projector/?product_category_id=1059

Ok I have the HD81 ceiling mounted, my ceilings are exactly 7.11" tall. I'm using a 106" diag screen 14' away from the projector. Using a chief mount puts the center PJ lens 6" from the ceiling. Squared up no keystone needed and the video on the screen starts at 22" up from the floor. Works good for me, puts my eyes 1/3 up from the bottom of the image.

The first thing I'm testing is how the IRIS funtions. First off you won't detect a brightness compression. Optoma went away from aggressive in the design because they knew people could see the brightness changed (compression) too easily. So the Iris goes to where it needs to but goes there very slowly. The 17 steps option works very well for giving slightly different darkness or brightness levels. It comes factory set a 8 and Wing prefers 11. I agree 11 creates a nice contrasty image and tames down the brightness which is very high in wide opened Iris. I'll test how high when pitch black set in tonight.

This is a very generous purchase buy. One large box comes with the PJ, Gennum Scaler, plenty of cords to get you started. There's even a RF recevier with a long cord for users that have the scaler box far away. The scaler's remote control lights up a bright blue and lettering is easily read with lots of direct hot buttons. Direct buttons for advanced coloring/gamma changes.
Like ISF/day-night, Iris, bright mode, Edge enhance, gamma, Color vivid, BW extension, Color vivid I understand is a spin off of brilliant color but not so aggressive.

Tomorrow for all the technical data, cya then. :)

Oh should I say the pictures look stunning? You know they do :)

Tom, what pjs, other than the Optoma line, have you seen lately so you can draw a comparison with? Have you ever seen the Ruby? I’m eyeing the Pearl, however; I won’t count out the HD81 + scaler if price differential gets very close between the two…

I saw the Ruby at Frys and they didn't do it justice. Too large a screen, coloring looking good. Faces maybe looked smooth/soft it's a spin off of the technology. The DLP is very crisp like other clear imaged DLPs, but this one has tiny tiny pixels. About the size of a pinhead on my screen.

The first thing I'm testing is how the IRIS funtions. First off you won't detect a brightness compression. Optoma went away from aggressive in the design because they knew people could see the brightness changed (compression) too easily. So the Iris goes to where it needs to but goes there very slowly. The 17 steps option works very well for giving slightly different darkness or brightness levels. It comes factory set a 8 and Wing prefers 11. I agree 11 creates a nice contrasty image and tames down the brightness which is very high in wide opened Iris. I'll test how high when pitch black set in tonight.


Tom, what do you mean by "goes there very slowly"? Is the HD81 auto iris function gamma corrected (like Ruby) or does it change the brightness levels -> meaning that it just opens/closes the iris depending on the scene without adjusting gamma and therefor ("slowly") changes the overall brightness of objects? Brightness change has nothing to do with brightness compression - in fact it is exactly the opposite. Brightness compression describes a loss in highlight/shadow details due to (aggressive) gamma correction in auto iris mode. When the overall "brightness changes" in auto iris mode due to the lack of gamma correction there cannot be any "brightness compression".

On another subject - how does the Optoma handle 24p input? Which 24Hz input signals are supported (24p, 24psf, 48p)? Does it allow for a 3:2 pulldown removal with 480i/1080i 60Hz input - therefor providing a judderfree 24p/48p native mode?

Thank you Tom.

Tom, please provide a description of the quality of the lens? How does it compare to your 7100 regarding corner to corner sharpness and chromatic abbreviation !

Tom,
So you actually have the projector now? I would think this would merit a new thread with all the anticipation over this projector. Sounds like the offset is totally different than what was given in earlier posts in this thread? If that is the case then there sure was a lot of waste of time for people that were worrying on how to set this up and make it work.

Sounds like the offset is totally different than what was given in earlier posts in this thread?

I agree. It sounds like the bottom of his screen is 4 inches higher than a 36.5% offset.

Tom,

How far down from your ceiling is the top of the image?

Joe

Maybe some of the engineers Tzungilin, Wing will chime in on what they chose as technical ideas vs others.

On the compression I was going by what GregR posted at WSR for The New Hope scene where the engine fire is seen in the opening of the movie. As the ship passes and shows you the engine's, the engine light level stays the same and contrast is high. The ship passes very fast so there's not time for the Iris to effect the engine light. Greg said this scene showed a drop in detail becuase the Iris was aggressive it compressed the brightness in the fire of the engines.

Wing said the offset is 36%.

On the compression I was going by what GregR posted at WSR for The New Hope scene where the engine fire is seen in the opening of the movie.


Can you please post a link to this GregR post at WSR, I'm not sure what you are referring to so I have no frame of reference. :confused: Thank you. :cool:

- Jeff

Tom, please provide a description of the quality of the lens? How does it compare to your 7100 regarding corner to corner sharpness and chromatic abbreviation !

Based on the EP910 that this new machine is adapted from, I'm interested to see the lens quality too!

http://www.projectorcentral.com/optoma_ep910.htm

WSR you have to be a subscriber. I really didn't read much into it, looks like he was saying the Iris while trying to darken the blacks at the same time lowered the white causing loss of detail.

Tom you are eating up all the attention you will be getting this weekend ain't you. .:rolleyes: Your PM will be full in a heartbeat. When you get a chance get some screen shots please. Thanks in advance.

Dale

WSR you have to be a subscriber. I really didn't read much into it, looks like he was saying the Iris while trying to darken the blacks at the same time lowered the white causing loss of detail.

Was he referring to the HD81?

He was reviewing the Ruby.

He was reviewing the Ruby.

Ah, now it all makes sense. Thanks!

WSR you have to be a subscriber. I really didn't read much into it, looks like he was saying the Iris while trying to darken the blacks at the same time lowered the white causing loss of detail.Do you have (or can you get) the "Schindler's List" DVD. There is a scene in there that somebody posted which would be good for testing this effect. I'm sure somebody can think of a scene from a different movie to try if the "Star Wars" one wasn't enough.

--Darin

I agree. It sounds like the bottom of his screen is 4 inches higher than a 36.5% offset.

Tom,

How far down from your ceiling is the top of the image?

Joe

22" down for the top of the video.

Do you have (or can you get) the "Schindler's List" DVD. There is a scene in there that somebody posted which would be good for testing this effect. I'm sure somebody can think of a scene from a different movie to try if the "Star Wars" one wasn't enough.

--Darin

1500 DVDs and that's one I don't have. Maybe too depressing, I have lots of movies like It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World. No help here though

Any other suggestions

22" down for the top of the video.

That means that the offset is less than 36.5%. By about 3 inches for your size screen.

Joe

PS Got mine coming!! About 2 weeks away :D

22" down for the top of the video.

It appears that offset is more like 30.7% or so -- screen is 52" high, top of the image is 22" from the ceiling, center of lens is 6" from the ceiling. That leaves 16" of offset for 52" high screen (30.7%).

That is actually closer to original offset posted by TzungLin (I believe he quoted 27%). Is it time to update the calculator ?

"Brightness change has nothing to do with brightness compression "

If there's something in a scene that's 100 IRE and the iris is working, its brightness will be reduced/compressed.

I should say I'm at max zoom with my setup also. Wing said the auto and Iris off will match up with the maximin open Iris setting with 100IRE.

"Brightness change has nothing to do with brightness compression "

If there's something in a scene that's 100 IRE and the iris is working, its brightness will be reduced/compressed.
Not true. This just adds to guitarman's confusing and inaccurate explaination of brightness compression.

The reality is that all dynamic iris system must also include some dynamic processing to maintain correct video levels. Without said image processing, everything becomes darker which is useless! The image processing actually does the opposite of what guitarman and you describe, the brightness of bright objects is increased as the iris closes down. In a small number of scenes the processing runs out of headroom as it tries to increase white levels, clipping or "compressing" what would normally be several gradations of white into the brightest level.

The above has nothing to do with the rate of action of the iris. If guitarman is correct in describing the Hd81 as a slow iris that will cause its own set of issues! The original HS51 had a relatively slow iris that some complained one could see the picture slowly getting brighter/darker! The HS51A/HS60 increased the iris reaction speed. The Ruby is even faster, and likely the best compromise. The Panny 900 is the fastest, but some may see a strobing effect.

Wing said the auto and Iris off will match up with the maximin open Iris setting with 100IRE.That makes sense. Do you know if the 6000:1 is in auto iris mode, or what the CR is supposed to be with it?
Not true. This just adds to guitarman's confusing and inaccurate explaination of brightness compression.

The reality is that all dynamic iris system must also include some dynamic processing to maintain correct video levels. Without said image processing, everything becomes darker which is useless! The image processing actually does the opposite of what guitarman and you describe, the brightness of bright objects is increased as the iris closes down. In a small number of scenes the processing runs out of headroom as it tries to increase white levels, clipping or "compressing" what would normally be several gradations of white into the brightest level.Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I'm with Noah on this one. Maybe he and I are using brightness for ft-lamberts and you are using it for the gamma curve. Whoever called the black level control the Brightness originally messed a lot of people up.

You probably know this, but I'll mention it anyway in case the above doesn't explain the disagreement. As the iris closes down there isn't much room for 100 IRE things to get back to their original levels. 50 IRE things may never get compressed 1/5 * 5/1 = 1. But 100 IRE things are another story because unless they could have been a lot brighter with the iris open (like Contrast set low), then if the iris is closed down halfway even cranking the gamma curve won't get to the same ft-lamberts. This is one reason that dual modulation systems are partially science and partially art, IMO.

--Darin

That makes sense. Do you know if the 6000:1 is in auto iris mode, or what the CR is supposed to be with it?
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I'm with Noah on this one. Maybe he and I are using brightness for ft-lamberts and you are using it for the gamma curve. Whoever called the black level control the Brightness originally messed a lot of people up.

You probably know this, but I'll mention it anyway in case the above doesn't explain the disagreement. As the iris closes down there isn't much room for 100 IRE things to get back to their original levels. 50 IRE things may never get compressed 1/5 * 5/1 = 1. But 100 IRE things are another story because unless they could have been a lot brighter with the iris open (like Contrast set low), then if the iris is closed down halfway even cranking the gamma curve won't get to the same ft-lamberts. This is one reason that dual modulation systems are partially science and partially art, IMO.

--Darin


Darin, as I understand his post thats exactly what HoustonHoyaFan meant. As I described above "Brightness Compression" is an artifact of gamma correction and NOT of an auto iris per se. An auto iris implementation without using gamma correction results in an artifact called "brightness pumping" - a change in brightness due to the auto iris closing down/opening up without "correcting"/adapting the correlated gamma curve.

The tension is killing me...

...You probably know this, but I'll mention it anyway in case the above doesn't explain the disagreement. As the iris closes down there isn't much room for 100 IRE things to get back to their original levels. 50 IRE things may never get compressed 1/5 * 5/1 = 1. But 100 IRE things are another story...
--Darin
I agree with your premise, but that the fact that the overall FtL is reduced by the iris in not BC. If we take any fixed iris implementation, say a Sharp 12k, and measure the light level of "100 IRE things" iris on vs iris off. The iris off levels will be measurably brighter, yet we don't call that situation BC!

BC sems to be coined by gregr of WSR to describe cases where things below 100IRE gets their video levels increased to the same level as the video levels at 100 IRE, andhaving no headroom to increase the 100IRE levels, thus loosing gradation, or clipping. The lights on the walls in a New Hope is an example he gave.

A more important concern for this thread is that if the iris is slower than the HS51, it will have the "pumping" artifact some people describe.

Tom, can you give us the projector's final dimensions and its weight?it's very important for me and my setup.
Thanks in advance

HoustonHoyaFan
Epson Tw600 has a slow acting auto-iris. It takes a long time to reach the deepest black it is capable off. With a slow iris the brightness pumping is eliminated. It is pretty much a fact that the iris in HD81 has 17 positions available, right? The auto-iris program Optoma has settled on might resemble the choice by Epson for tw600.
I have not read about any major complaints about the auto-iris in tw600.

guitarman
Can you take two measurements for brightness.

A Theater lumen
D65 calibrated, no BrilliantColor and no white peaking

B Sports lumen
Medium BrilliantColor , white peaking and calibrated for brightness

I have a 7 foot ceiling so it is going to be a really tight fit for the HD81 to work.

I have an idea that I would like to get some feedback on. When I first began research into building my home theater I wanted to have a rear projection setup. I did quite a bit of research regarding single and double reflection. It seemed very plausable that I could have implemented a 100" wide image using 2 mirrors 3 feet apart. Anyways, I digress a little bit.

My question is, could we not do a single reflection from the HD81 to a mirror and then from the mirror to the screen? Would not the complete offset requirement be between the HD81 and the mirror? And in that fashion eliminate the offset requirement altogether for the screen?

The HD81 could be in my joists pointing straight down into a mirror that reflects to the screen.

Some thoughts?

Joe

Ok, I know we are all excited waiting for results from Tom and I also know that it is probably tacky to bump my own message, but I would really like some thoughts from some of the folks on this thread that are way smarter than me. Doesn't anyone have any thoughts about the mirror idea?

Joe

"That makes sense. Do you know if the 6000:1 is in auto iris mode, or what the CR is supposed to be with it?"

Iris off bright mode I got 27.75Ftcandles

Iris auto, sensor 4' from PJ lens CR is 5950.1

This is just max tuning contrast and brightness, no grayscale tuning yet. Factory grayscale check showed blue 10% high red & green close to 6500k.

27.75ftc is the highest number my light meter's ever showed at my screen distance 14'. H79 was around 16ftc, HD72 with it's white segment was 20.50ftc max.

Here's another thing to consider, Optoma has incorporated the bulb bright/econo into the auto iris setting. When the Iris in more open in bright scenes the PJ's in bright mode, when the scenes are dark the PJ's in econo mode.

The use of Vivid Color or BW extension didn't effect the CR readings which I thought it would. The 6000.1 stayed about the same.

Ok, I know we are all excited waiting for results from Tom and I also know that it is probably tacky to bump my own message, but I would really like some thoughts from some of the folks on this thread that are way smarter than me. Doesn't anyone have any thoughts about the mirror idea?

Joe

OK, I'll take a crack at it -

1. Not sure how the projector will like being pointed straight down.
2. You'll have to deal with scan reversal which may not be a feature of the projector.
3. You'll need to use a first surface mirror to reflect the image.
4. Could significantly complicate your setup.

Hope this helps.

Barry

Tom,

When do we get to hear some impressions of the projector? If you are working on a longer review, it would still be great to even hear a few passing comments!

Thanks.

Joe

Iris off bright mode I got 27.75Ftcandles

Iris auto, sensor 4' from PJ lens CR is 5950.1

This is just max tuning contrast and brightness, no grayscale tuning yet. Factory grayscale check showed blue 10% high red & green close to 6500k.

27.75ftc is the highest number my light meter's ever showed at my screen distance 14'. H79 was around 16ftc, HD72 with it's white segment was 20.50ftc max.

...

Exactly the type of info I was looking (and hoping) for. I would also like to see these measurements for brightness after grayscale calibration.

It appears that offset is more like 30.7% or so -- screen is 52" high, top of the image is 22" from the ceiling, center of lens is 6" from the ceiling. That leaves 16" of offset for 52" high screen (30.7%).

That is actually closer to original offset posted by TzungLin (I believe he quoted 27%). Is it time to update the calculator ?

More thoughts on offset issue -- I think the reason we see offset around 30% is because Tom has mounted PJ at 1.8 of the throw range. I doubt that HD81 has constant offset, therefore if you mount PJ at shortest throw possible (1.8) you'll get smaller offset compared to mounting at 2.2 throw range -- I would guess one would get 36% offset at 2.2 throw range.

This is good news for people with low ceiling (or those nasty beams going through the middle of the HT) -- this is very easy to incorporate in HD81 calculator.

Thanks, Davie.

Tom,

When do we get to hear some impressions of the projector? If you are working on a longer review, it would still be great to even hear a few passing comments!

Thanks.

Joe

I like the projector scaler box combination. There's a ton of things to do with the projector control box. Pretty sure I can alter the color points, control the edges for fillm look or super sharp, many gamma levels, it could take months to control and understand all the features. I'm spending most my time viewing the PJ in Auto Iris mode looking for troubles, mostly everything looks normal. At times I see shadowing and brightness and it's hard to detect if it's just the way the video is supposed to be or if the Iris is doing what it's supposed to do.

Basically dark and mid dark scenes look great with a great black level and bright and super bright scenes look extremely bright.

I took a few screen shots.


http://www.cigarbest.com/sales/hd81cr.jpg

http://www.cigarbest.com/sales/hd81limit1.jpg
http://www.cigarbest.com/sales/hd81limit2.jpg
http://www.cigarbest.com/sales/hd81limit3.jpg

http://www.cigarbest.com/sales/hd81sin1.jpg
http://www.cigarbest.com/sales/hd81sin2.jpg

You can see the bright scenes are quite bright and when you go to the dark movie Sin City black looks quite black with good ANSI also.

Out of those screenshots, this one is the best!

http://www.cigarbest.com/sales/hd81cr.jpg

Thanks Tom. :)

Dale

That's a pretty high black level though. That's with the sensor 4' from the lens which s/b more accurate. When I moved the sensor back to the screen the black level was 0.008, CR went down though to about 5200.1

How about some shots with 1080 material, not that we could see a difference in the screen shots, but it would be interesting.

Also, with all the installation issues, how about some shots of your ceiling mount and screen.

Thanks.

If the 5965:1 is the iris auto CR, what is the iris off CR?

The auto-iris program Optoma has settled on might resemble the choice by Epson for tw600.
I have not read about any major complaints about the auto-iris in tw600.
I dislike it pretty much. It's simply not efficient in creating a high contrast impression.

Joe,

"As I described above "Brightness Compression" is an artifact of gamma correction and NOT of an auto iris per se. An auto iris implementation without using gamma correction results in an artifact called "brightness pumping" - a change in"

A mirror would work; I was thinking of firing it at an angle toward a mirror on the ceiling; the "virtual" pj is then located above the ceiling.

Sent you a pm.

How about some shots with 1080 material, not that we could see a difference in the screen shots, but it would be interesting.

Also, with all the installation issues, how about some shots of your ceiling mount and screen.

Thanks.

Here I just took these a second ago.

http://www.cigarbest.com/sales/hd81.jpg
Crude quick setup with chief mount and you can see the top of the scaler below. This is the same spot I install the HT1000. The screen is a 120" 4.3 HP material.

http://www.cigarbest.com/sales/hd81wow1.jpg
Here you can see the level of the image vs the ceiling, the very top of the electric screen case is flush with the ceiling. Image just makes it above my center channel with sits up on a fireplaces brick finishing ledge. HDTV shot but daytime shots never look good, my room is pretty well lit up now.

Joe,

"As I described above "Brightness Compression" is an artifact of gamma correction and NOT of an auto iris per se. An auto iris implementation without using gamma correction results in an artifact called "brightness pumping" - a change in"

A mirror would work; I was thinking of firing it at an angle toward a mirror on the ceiling; the "virtual" pj is then located above the ceiling.

Sent you a pm.


All this talk about brightness compression? I didn't follow the Ruby thread at all so I never heard what they settled on re BC description. From reading the WSR it just looked like greg was saying ANSI was effected, whites lost detail. Sri if I'm behind the discussion. Anyway Noah you can see the HD81 in Optoma's showroom they have it hooked up with a Tosh HDA1. It's there for guests to see and will probably be there until the next best thing comes along. What's next? :)

Here's another thing to consider, Optoma has incorporated the bulb bright/econo into the auto iris setting. When the Iris in more open in bright scenes the PJ's in bright mode, when the scenes are dark the PJ's in econo mode.
Have you notice if the changes in bulb brightness also alter the fan speed; i.e. the fan speed changes when the projector goes from bright to econo and econo to bright?

Also, did you get a chance to measure its CR without DI? I'm sure there are many potential buyers who would like to try it without the DI.

...
BC sems to be coined by gregr of WSR to describe cases where things below 100IRE gets their video levels increased to the same level as the video levels at 100 IRE, andhaving no headroom to increase the 100IRE levels, thus loosing gradation, or clipping. The lights on the walls in a New Hope is an example he gave.
...


Semantic nitpick, but I think it's important as Greg was fairly clear about this as well, in that brightness compression is NOT a clipping artifact where levels are actually being lost in the signal or the reproduction. Rather, they are instead being compressed together, such that the detail they may originally have represented that may have been visibile, is now represented over a relatively smaller range which reduces the visibility of the detail.

So, the "losing gradation" is a compression of the levels, thus Brightness Compression, and not at all a clipping artifact, even though brightness compression may cause a loss of detail visibility at the high end of the % scale that may appear similar to clipping. Clipping wipes out the levels completely, while compression just smushes them together so they're not as visible as distinct anymore.

I agree with your premise, but that the fact that the overall FtL is reduced by the iris in not BC. If we take any fixed iris implementation, say a Sharp 12k, and measure the light level of "100 IRE things" iris on vs iris off. The iris off levels will be measurably brighter, yet we don't call that situation BC!And there is a very good reason for that. If we take a fixed gamma (say 2.5 or 2.2) and stick to that, then as soon as we know the 100 IRE ft-lamberts level, we know the correct ft-lamberts for every other IRE. That is true in either fixed iris mode. But this is different. With a dynamic iris you cannot have every IRE (mostly applying to non-zero) stay at its "correct" level without two issues. One is what TheLion mentioned, pumping. The other is that with the second half of dual modulation (the gamma changes) you do not get an increase in simultaneous CR in dark scenes, one of the main benefits of a dynamic iris.

Consider an image that is all black except for a small ramp from 0 IRE to 100 IRE in the center of the image. If you choose between different iris modes with the Sharp 12k, one will be dimmer, but each will have a natural gamma curve. But with an auto iris system the 50 IRE in the ramp has a defined level based on the iris being all the way open. If the ft-lamberts for 50 IRE objects while the iris is open doesn't match the level while the iris is closed down then there are cases where you might see pumping (looking like fast flicker or slow flicker). But closing the iris down doesn't allow you to keep 50 IRE, 90 IRE, and 100 IRE at their original levels. There has to be an error put in there somewhere compared to where those levels were supposed to be in order to account for the lower peak light through the projector.

An alternative is to leave the iris all the way open for that image with the small 0 to 100 IRE ramp on black, but now if the image goes between that and a blackout the background will flicker unless the CR is high enough for a person not to see that. Like a case with small headlights in the distance being the only bright thing in a super dark scene and being turned on or off.

There are a lot of factors that need to go into a good dynamic iris design to make it work well and not be a distraction.

--Darin

Out of those screenshots, this one is the best!

(image deleted)


Not if colorimetry is sacrificed for that contrast ratio.

What does the gray scale look like with that CR?

All this talk about brightness compression? I didn't follow the Ruby thread at all so I never heard what they settled on re BC description. From reading the WSR it just looked like greg was saying ANSI was effected, whites lost detail. Sri if I'm behind the discussion. Anyway Noah you can see the HD81 in Optoma's showroom they have it hooked up with a Tosh HDA1. It's there for guests to see and will probably be there until the next best thing comes along. What's next? :)

Tom, is it just me or do you really sound not very enthusiastic about the HD81??? Reading between the lines of your posts I cannot help but to get the impression that you are less than impressed with the HD81 and that it is not able to match your/our high expectation for some reason. Please tell us the whole ugly and unbiased truth. Or am I completely wrong about it?

Not if colorimetry is sacrificed for that contrast ratio.

What does the gray scale look like with that CR?

Obviously. Which is why I am hoping that Tom will re-do these measurements (brightness and contrast) after grayscale calibration.

Have you notice if the changes in bulb brightness also alter the fan speed; i.e. the fan speed changes when the projector goes from bright to econo and econo to bright?

Also, did you get a chance to measure its CR without DI? I'm sure there are many potential buyers who would like to try it without the DI.


Not so much the brightness change but the fan sound. If it's dead quiet in the room the bright mode fan sound is quite noticable. I did a CR run with Iris off and got just 3000.1. Not fully tuned yet, I'll try some more tonight.

I think I would have preferred it if you could seperate the bulb function from the Auto Iris, or at least have the option. Maybe they could firmware it in.

Tom, is it just me or do you really sound not very enthusiastic about the HD81??? Reading between the lines of your posts I cannot help but to get the impression that you are less than impressed with the HD81 and that it is not able to match your/our high expectation for some reason. Please tell us the whole ugly and unbiased truth. Or am I completely wrong about it?

CR with the auto iris I thought would be allot higher. But HDTV is easy to see can look much better than my 720p machine, that I like. Plus there's the extra 10ftc over my DC3 machine, a good piece of brightness to keep in your back pocket.

you can see the HD81 in Optoma's showroom they have it hooked up with a Tosh HDA1. It's there for guests to see

Can one just walk in off the street and take a look? What are the hours?

maybe theres a few settings being overlooked that can increase contrast? what happend to the 12000 spec being thrown around?

You could tell the receptionist you're there to get a demo the the new projector, she should get somebody. You could ask for Wing or David Tuttle who is a marketing director.

12000.1? I figured the machine could get what the Ruby states for CR 15000.1 with an auto iris. I don't think there's a magic trick I can come up with, maybe squeak out a slightly lower black reading will help a little, we'll see.

Tom:

Only if you can lower the black level without decreasing the white level as well.

It's the ratio you're measuring after all ;)

Is it possible the iris isn't engaging, as that's about the same CR spec as the Marantz, which can just about hit 6K:1 ignoring gray scale.

Cheers,

Tom:
Is it possible the iris isn't engaging, as that's about the same CR spec as the Marantz, which can just about hit 6K:1 ignoring gray scale.

Cheers,
He wrote a few posts back

I did a CR run with Iris off and got just 3000.1

It was working, I'll fire up the Accupel next time and run a ton of grayscale tests to find the 2.2 gamma. Last night I used the Panasonic S97 and old Avia and just did one grayscale test, gamma here was high 2.52.

Tom:

Only if you can lower the black level without decreasing the white level as well.

It's the ratio you're measuring after all ;)

Is it possible the iris isn't engaging, as that's about the same CR spec as the Marantz, which can just about hit 6K:1 ignoring gray scale.

Cheers,

Tom, please measure CR at different fixed iris settings (like step 11 as good compromise between brightness and contrast, and most importantly with the iris fully closed (step 17) for a maximum contrast setting)!

I agree that 6000:1 On/Off contrast with AutoIris and lamp modulation is VERY dissappointing indeed! Good LCD projectors get that kind of contrast in AutoIris mode.

About the lamp modulation - you are saying that there is no way to turn that off with AutoIris Mode engaged??? I think it is totally unacceptable that the fan noise is going loud everytime a bright scene is on screen. I experienced that once with the HD72 - it is REALLY annoying to say the least...

So AutoIris is basically a non-option with this lamp issue for me. Tom, please measure CR at iris steps 11 and 17 (max. contrast) and compare these numbers with the one you got from your 7100. CR readings alone don't tell us the whole truth because there are lots of factors that influence your measurements. But if you put the numbers in context with the ones you get from your 7100 using the same method we all gain objective data.

- Also any comment about the lens quality (especially in comparison with your 7100) would be appreciated.

- Beside all numbers - what is your subjective impression about the HD81? How does it compare to the 7100?

Thank you very much for your efforts!

Tom, is it just me or do you really sound not very enthusiastic about the HD81??? Reading between the lines of your posts I cannot help but to get the impression that you are less than impressed with the HD81 and that it is not able to match your/our high expectation for some reason. Please tell us the whole ugly and unbiased truth. Or am I completely wrong about it?

When Tom is enthusiastic he gets accused of over - hyping Optoma's projectors due to his special relationship. Give him a chance to play with the machine over the weekend and figure out all its features. I'll put my 2 cents in here after I see it next Wed. ( thanks Tom ) and at least be able to compare it to my H79 that I've been watching quite a bit lately ( I'm catching up on the first 2 years of 24 )!!! Although every time I go over to Tom's place to see a new video projector it winds up costing me thousands of dollars....................... :eek:

The fan yeah I was just talking with Wing about it. They could seperate the functions with a firmware but if they do it would be a while. Mainly allot would complain about it, now there only option is to use a fixed setting.

Pixel uniformity is very good, slightly better in the dead center but still clear at the far edges, the tone around the pixel is light in color so it's very hard to see the screen door on this projector.

If I could trade the HD81 for my HD7100 I would do it in a heartbeat. It's the HDTV that sold me, especially good HDTV like on INHD or Lenno etc.

Tom, about the lens again. How does it compare to your 7100 regarding sharpness and chromatic abbreviation?

Tom,
Have you tried it with Toshiba HD DVD? Some Optoma projectors reportedly have HDMI compatibility issues.

Tom,
Have you tried it with Toshiba HD DVD? Some Optoma projectors reportedly have HDMI compatibility issues.

It was the HD-DVD player issue and Toshiba firmware 1.4 fixed that - at least with my Optoma HD72.

Tom, about the lens again. How does it compare to your 7100 regarding sharpness and chromatic abbreviation?

I think the 7100 has a better lens, best I've seen. The Toshiba works fine with the HD81 I saw it on display at the factory. It's understandable because even though the Tosh wouldn't work well with the HD7100 by itself it would work perfectly when you added the scaler box to the HD7100.

More thoughts on offset issue -- I think the reason we see offset around 30% is because Tom has mounted PJ at 1.8 of the throw range. I doubt that HD81 has constant offset, therefore if you mount PJ at shortest throw possible (1.8) you'll get smaller offset compared to mounting at 2.2 throw range -- I would guess one would get 36% offset at 2.2 throw range.

This is good news for people with low ceiling (or those nasty beams going through the middle of the HT) -- this is very easy to incorporate in HD81 calculator.

Thanks, Davie.

Yes, but can anyone verify this? And if so, what is the offset at each throw setting?

Joe

Joe,

"As I described above "Brightness Compression" is an artifact of gamma correction and NOT of an auto iris per se. An auto iris implementation without using gamma correction results in an artifact called "brightness pumping" - a change in"

A mirror would work; I was thinking of firing it at an angle toward a mirror on the ceiling; the "virtual" pj is then located above the ceiling.

Sent you a pm.

Hi Noah,

Good to hear from you again. Got your PM. You ahve a really good memory. :)

I will have my projector in about 2 weeks. I will also have my SMX screen up by then and will be able to play with a number of scenarios. Although, if the actual offset at 1.8 throw is only 30 inches I think that I have a solution for my 7 foot ceiling. And possible with no tilt at all :eek:

Joe

OK, I'll take a crack at it -

1. Not sure how the projector will like being pointed straight down.
2. You'll have to deal with scan reversal which may not be a feature of the projector.
3. You'll need to use a first surface mirror to reflect the image.
4. Could significantly complicate your setup.

Hope this helps.

Barry

Thanks Barry :)

I guess I will just have to try it. I see no reason taht I could not find a solution that would work. But hearing that the offset is 30 inches at 1.8 throw may solve my problem.

Joe

I think the 7100 has a better lens, best I've seen. The Toshiba works fine with the HD81 I saw it on display at the factory. It's understandable because even though the Tosh wouldn't work well with the HD7100 by itself it would work perfectly when you added the scaler box to the HD7100.

Thanks.

Do you know if Optoma would have an upgrade program?

They do have an upgrade deal, usually you won't find it equitable. You could ask customer service.

Yes, but can anyone verify this? And if so, what is the offset at each throw setting?

Joe

Joe, unless they have lens shift there is really no other way this can work -- further you mount the PJ will result in higher offset (in percentage of screen height, offset angle will remain the same).

From data provided by Tom (16" offset from 168" throw) we can calculate that offset is 5.44 degrees -- based on this data you can calculate offset percentage based on throw range.

Example (106" diagonal screen / 92.5" wide / 52" high) :

1.8 range = 168" (throw) * tan(5.44) = 16" offset (or 30.8%)
2.2 range = 203.5" (throw) * tan(5.44) = 19.38 " offset ( or 37.3%)

*tan(5.44)=0.952

Please note that I do not have this PJ and calculated it purely based on Tom's data.

HTH, Davie.

Tom,

I am thinking of buying a electrical 105" diag screen with a 1.5 gain. Is that gain a good choice for the hd81? i can darken my room to graveyard darkness :)

They do have an upgrade deal, usually you won't find it equitable. You could ask customer service.

Oh nooooooooo. If Optoma even has an upgrade program that's going to make some of us start thinking down that road. Hey my bulb has 500 hours on it: time to upgrade. :p

It's great that the projector is now close to introduction and we'll have some good information to chat about here soon. Thanks guitarman. :cool:

1080p okay what's all the fuss about? I still love the H78DC3.

I did a CR run with Iris off and got just 3000.1. Not fully tuned yet, I'll try some more tonight.
Considering that you got more than 4K with the 7100, and that Marantz was able to get ~6K with this chip, it would seem something is not quite right. Was that with the Iris totally open (I assume you can close and open the Iris)? If yes, then it would be interesting to see the CR with the Iris totally closed (you seem to have ample lumens available).

With regards to the DI, it seems like they have gone the conservative route (it only doubles the CR, but assume you can change the settings). I think for many of us this would be a strong plus because it should reduce the artifacts while helping improve the native CR.

Thanks for all the insight.

Caught a demo of this projector today in an AV exhibition here in Singapore. The distributor here managed to obtain 3 units for sale for slightly below US$9k. Unfortunately they only hooked up a regular upscaling DVD player to it so it was not possible to see how this pj performed with a native Highdef source material. Although the projected upscaled DVD image looked okay, I did notice a faint black outline running along the perimeter on the inner side of the projected image. When I asked the sales guy about this, he was also not aware what is causing this outline but he did mention that this outline also shows up on their HD72 unit.

Tom,

I am thinking of buying a electrical 105" diag screen with a 1.5 gain. Is that gain a good choice for the hd81? i can darken my room to graveyard darkness :)
A screen with that rough size and gain should give you about 37 foot lamberts. Plenty bright.

I took a few screen shots.

Ahhh man! Go get Swordfish with Halle and show us something good :D.

I think the 7100 has a better lens, best I've seen. The Toshiba works fine with the HD81 I saw it on display at the factory. It's understandable because even though the Tosh wouldn't work well with the HD7100 by itself it would work perfectly when you added the scaler box to the HD7100.

Tom, can we expect a comprehensive review on the HD81 from you (including a comparison with your 7100) or do you want us to continue asking specific questions?

About the lens again - especially with an 1080p projector one of the most important factors: I'm very suprised with your comment about the 7100 having superiour lens. I have seen the Optoma EP910 (which is supposed to have the same lens/optical path as the HD81) on several occasions during direct shootouts with the 7100. I can assure you that its lens was easily on par with the 720p unit. I'm puzzled that Optoma uses an inferiour lens on its statement product. Also its missing lens shift and long throw should give it a serious optical advantage in theory...

maybe the lense is just as sharp but doesnt show as clearly with 1080p as 720p?

Nothings settled yet re CR I need more night testing different Iris modes and bright mode vs econo. I did get the CR up to 3700.1 with the Iris closed down after I CF tuned with the closed IRIS setting in econo mode. Funny thing when I set the Iris to auto the CR went up very high.
http://www.cigarbest.com/sales/hd81tunedcr1.jpg

This was tested with the sensor back at the screen area where I tuned it, so the accuracy could be off. Black level went from 0.008 to 0.006.

Who knows it may go higher when I check it with the sensor 4' from the PJ lens.

When I tested at the screen last time before tuning I got 5000.1 and moving the sensor close to the PJ lens produced a higher number, the 5965.1 range.

Maybe the 3700.1 Iris closed will go up also when I re-test.

It could be the projector's struggling with high contrast because it's so darn bright. 27ftcandles from a sensor 14' away is an enormous amount of light.

Jeffong, Projectors have a small black border around the pixels, it could be they didn't zoom the image correctly and you were seeing the border frame.

"I have seen the Optoma EP910 (which is supposed to have the same lens/optical path as the HD81) on several occasions during direct shootouts with the 7100. I can assure you that its lens was easily on par with the 720p unit."

Good that helps me. Reason my eye told me the HD7100's lens could be better is the area around each pixel has a clear dark border. I think what's going on is the H81 is way way brighter so the pixel borders have taken on a light tone, less contrasty look. Both do show the pixels clearly, just in a different way.

"Reason my eye told me the HD7100's lens could be better is the area around each pixel has a clear dark border. I think what's going on is the H81 is way way brighter so the pixel borders have taken on a light tone, less contrasty look. Both do show the pixels clearly, just in a different way. "

thats what i meant by saying 1080p might not be showing it as clearly as 720p

Tom,

I don't recall, did you get a CA813 lightmeter? I don't think I would use Colorfacts for contrast ratios in the range we are talking about here. What sensor are you using for CR?

--Darin

Same meter I've had the Ex-tech which has held up pretty good comparing to Greg Rodgers light numbers re the H79 review. I just use it for lumens at the screen though. Funny thing the CR readings from colorfacts with the Tri-chromat also match Greg's tested numbers. Maybe just a coincidence

I could try the light meter only at a close distance.

What kind of numbers do you get from the Ruby with it's Auto Iris? Does it compare to Gregs readings?

Tom,

Which Chief mount do you have in the picture above?

Also, do you know how far off center the lens is?

Thanks!


-Dave

Considering that you got more than 4K with the 7100, and that Marantz was able to get ~6K with this chip, it would seem something is not quite right.
The Marantz is no where close to 6K:1. It is just barely 4000:1.

It could be the projector's struggling with high contrast because it's so darn bright. 27ftcandles from a sensor 14' away is an enormous amount of light.


What is this equivalent in lumens?

That's 920lumens for my screen size 106" diag 1.0gain

Tom,

Which Chief mount do you have in the picture above?

Also, do you know how far off center the lens is?

Thanks!


-Dave

:) that's a Seleco HT200 Chief mount, I DIY plates to match up with different projectors. I'd prefer the Chief Universal, no waiting for them to make the RPA match.

The center lens will be 4" off to the center of your Chief mount.

That's 920lumens for my screen size 106" diag 1.0gain

WOW, that is bright--great!

The Marantz is no where close to 6K:1. It is just barely 4000:1.

Hey Greg, any chance you will be reviewing the HD81 any time soon?

Hey Greg, any chance you will be reviewing the HD81 any time soon?
I've tried to get one for my next review but it doesn't look like they will be available by then.

So, provided Tom's numbers don't change, then the contrast of the hd81 is in the same ballpark as the marantz, without dynamic iris, but somewhat higher lumen output. Is that correct? Greg, you were pretty impressed with the optics of the Marantz, correct? Tom, sounds like you are happy with hd81 optics, but not thrilled? How is the CA?

Thanks

Scott

"I have seen the Optoma EP910 (which is supposed to have the same lens/optical path as the HD81) on several occasions during direct shootouts with the 7100. I can assure you that its lens was easily on par with the 720p unit."

Good that helps me. Reason my eye told me the HD7100's lens could be better is the area around each pixel has a clear dark border. I think what's going on is the H81 is way way brighter so the pixel borders have taken on a light tone, less contrasty look. Both do show the pixels clearly, just in a different way.

Tom, now we are getting somewhere. It seems to me that the enormous light output of the HD81 is a bit of a liability. It decreases CR - it seems to me that you can hardly achieve an acceptable black level at high brightness mode even with the iris closed fully down. You certainly have a point about the screendoor/sharpness - high brightness will "wash out" the screendoor effect a bit, at the same time it will decrease CR while increasing black level -> therefor the screendoor effect ("clear dark pixel border") will be less obvious. The more obvious point is that you cannot directly compare screendoor of a 720p unit to a 1080p unit to judge the sharpness of the lens.

Things to check in order to judge the quality of a lens: bring up the projector on-screen menu. Take a look at some text/menu points with small letters. Are the edges of the letters clearly defined or are you seeing some kind of pixel/color bleeding? Check for both: text in the middle of the screen (generally sharper) and at the borders/corners! Is there a significant difference in definition going from the center to the corners of the screen? How bad would you rate the chromatic abbreviation (-> are there any red/green/blue outlines at the edges of the letters?) caused by the lens - again checking the center and the corners of the screen? Best test signal other than the on-screen menu would be a PC DVI/HDMI input at 1920*1080 with 1:1 pixel mapping.

Please allow for some other questions:

- You mentioned 920 lumen output - is that with D65 calibration/high brightness mode/iris off/open? What kind of CR are you getting at that max. brightness?

- How would you rate color saturation and naturalness in comparison with your 7100? Very bright projectors usually make sacrifices with their color space - especially green often looks somewhat pale and yellowish (eg. Infocus).


Thank you!

I've tried to get one for my next review but it doesn't look like they will be available by then.

Greg, do you care to share any info what your next projector review will be - or is that still highly classified? Looking forward to it!

Greg, do you care to share any info what your next projector review will be - or is that still highly classified? Looking forward to it!
I honestly don't know for sure at the moment. It is going to be whichever 1080p projector arrives at my door next and passes an initial screening (there are a couple of possibilities - which I won't say until I know which will be next).

Does anyone know roughly when this pj will be available and how much it will cost in US$?

I honestly don't know for sure at the moment. It is going to be whichever 1080p projector arrives at my door next and passes an initial screening (there are a couple of possibilities - which I won't say until I know which will be next).

I am guessing that a Benq 6200 successor would not pass an initial screening.:)

Ericglo

I honestly don't know for sure at the moment. It is going to be whichever 1080p projector arrives at my door next and passes an initial screening (there are a couple of possibilities - which I won't say until I know which will be next).

What do you mean by "pass an initial screening"?

The Marantz is no where close to 6K:1. It is just barely 4000:1.
Now that you mention it, I seem to remember someone stating that 6k:1 was for an uncalibrated unit.

Tom, the corrected number seems to jive nicely with the numbers you are getting without DI. But, one would guess that even with a conservative DI, you should be able to achieve at least around 8k:1, considering the LCD's and LCOS are achieving around 3X increase in their CRs #s. An 8k:1 CR without artifacts would be a very nice number (especially with a bright projector).

What kind of numbers do you get from the Ruby with it's Auto Iris? Does it compare to Gregs readings?

IIRC Darin measured about 16000:1 in auto iris mode, and nearly 30,000:1 with some service menu tweaks to the auto iris settings which I use on my Ruby.

Does anyone know roughly when this pj will be available and how much it will cost in US$?

Two of three weeks and the US should see around 200 units. Price you'll mostly see is $6999. You won't be seeing it logged on online dealer website's you'll hv to contact you're favorite dealers. Like AVS for one

Two of three weeks and the US should see around 200 units. Price you'll mostly see is $6999. You won't be seeing it logged on online dealer website's you'll hv to contact you're favorite dealers. Like AVS for one
A few questions Tom,

How does the overall picture score from 1 to 10, where 10 is the highest? :)

Has it a good movie like feel to it?

How good is the scaler, is 576p upscaled to 1080p ok and almost like feeding it native 1080p? (i mean, blu ray and hd dvd are miles away here in europe so my denon 3910 will have to do first)

Is a h81 only interesting for hd material or is dvd also better than let's say a h72?

Thanks! :)

A few questions Tom,

How does the overall picture score from 1 to 10, where 10 is the highest? :)

Has it a good film like feel to it?

How good is the scaler, is 576p upscaled to 1080p ok and almost like feeding it native 1080p? (i mean, blu ray and hd dvd are miles away here in europe so my denon 3910 will have to do first)

Thanks! :)

The European HD81 will have a special PAL modification, I was told.
That is way we will have to wait another month to get it here.

It seems to me that the enormous light output of the HD81 is a bit of a liability. It decreases CR - it seems to me that you can hardly achieve an acceptable black level at high brightness mode even with the iris closed fully down. You certainly have a point about the screendoor/sharpness - high brightness will "wash out" the screendoor effect a bit, at the same time it will decrease CR while increasing black level -> therefor the screendoor effect ("clear dark pixel border") will be less obvious.

The DarkChip3 DLP used in the HD81 has reduced the spacing between the mirrors to reduce the screen door effect. It has a 95% pixel fill ratio. The new chip has also gotten rid of the dark dot in the middle of each pixel where the mirror is joined to the hinge. I suspect that the reduced screen door effect is a result of the improved chip, not an indication of poor contrast ratio. A contrast ratio of 6000:1 sounds quite acceptable to me. It will be quite a step up from my current projector. I look forward to the improved contrast ratio and reduced screen door effect.

Joe

I didn't break out the equipment last night my wife and I watched V/vendetta on the hD81. Looked good, some serious bass as they blew up the Parliament. I have an H77 upgrade and tuning to do don't know if I'll have time to retry some CR tests. Tzunglin gave me some pointers in a PM.

What do you mean by "pass an initial screening"?
I won't waste time reviewing a projector (or any other product) that produces unacceptable image quality.

I won't waste time reviewing a projector (or any other product) that produces unacceptable image quality.

Oh boy, now you have opened a can of worms! Let's see, what projectors has Greg Rogers not reviewed!?!?

;)

Oh boy, now you have opened a can of worms! Let's see, what projectors has Greg Rogers not reviewed!?!?

;)
As you would expect many projectors are not submitted for review, so you would need a list of those that are submitted. And I'm not telling what those are. :)

I won't waste time reviewing a projector (or any other product) that produces unacceptable image quality.I won't pretend to understand the economics of the audio/video press, but I am perplexed by this apparently widespread policy.

On the assumption that the target audience for such reviews is the consumers who purchase and use these products and not the companies who manufacture, distribute, and sell them, we would be served equally as well by reading that a product performs poorly as we would by reading that it performs well.

When the audio/video press limits coverage to only a pre-selected pool of products guaranteed in advance to receive a positive review, consumers are poorly served.

Tom.........

Just curious did Tzunglin mention what type of signal is best to feed the scaler?

Say you have an HD-Tivo is it best to set it to 480i or 1080i?

What about a DVD player?

Thanks Steve

He was telling about the color controls. I reset my comcast box and Pany S97 to 1080i to match up. Things look great, I know for sure my saved DVD Deadwood shows look allot better on the 1080p machine.

Re 480i SDTV, my Comcast box has an override for 480i vs 480p for standard TV. So I can get 1080i and 480i signals out to get the best out of the scaler box.

I won't pretend to understand the economics of the audio/video press, but I am perplexed by this apparently widespread policy.

On the assumption that the target audience for such reviews is the consumers who purchase and use these products and not the companies who manufacture, distribute, and sell them, we would be served equally as well by reading that a product performs poorly as we would by reading that it performs well.

When the audio/video press limits coverage to only a pre-selected pool of products guaranteed in advance to receive a positive review, consumers are poorly served.

It would seem to serve another unmentioned purpose as well. It lumps those companies who don't submit their products for review in with the products which aren't worthy of being reviewed. That would seem a good motivation for companies to submit their products for review, since GregR isn't distinguishing between those who submitted unacceptable products for review and those who didn't submit at all. The motivation is to get out of that ambiguous grouping, which leads to more review products, thus further perpetuating the review industry.

I won't pretend to understand the economics of the audio/video press, but I am perplexed by this apparently widespread policy.

On the assumption that the target audience for such reviews is the consumers who purchase and use these products and not the companies who manufacture, distribute, and sell them, we would be served equally as well by reading that a product performs poorly as we would by reading that it performs well.

When the audio/video press limits coverage to only a pre-selected pool of products guaranteed in advance to receive a positive review, consumers are poorly served.
It is my intent to provide readers with as much useful information as possible (both positive and negative) about products that are worth considering for purchase (in my opinion, of course). However, I can't evaluate all products, either from a time aspect or an availability aspect, so the products that I review may not be the only products worth considering. But I try to obtain products that have significant new technology, and those that are aimed at pushing forward the state-of-the-art. If you think my reviews are all positive, the manufacturers don't agree with you. Look at how many of the manufacturer's specifications are not met in my reviews, or how many design problems are discussed. I respect those that are willing to have their products evaluated.

It is not my intent, nor is it remotely possible, for me to evaluate all products and provide a "consider/do not consider" list. So if I reject a product and don't review it, I'm not going to single it out from others that I never saw, but may be equally poor. I'm certainly not going to waste 2-3 weeks testing, evaluating, and writing about a product that has obvious, and unacceptable qualities. That time is much better spent (for everyone) testing and evaluating products that have enough merit to be considered for purchase. Please consider my reviews as (hopefully) detailed positive and negative information that you wouldn't have otherwise had about products that may be worthy of consideration, and not by omission or any other way, a method to screen out poor products.

So Greg what do you think about this slow moving Iris? Wing says they did this because otherwise it could become distracting.

I couldn't use the Accupel for CR testing because the Accupel with Colorfacts moved too swiftly. No time for the Iris to react.

I won't pretend to understand the economics of the audio/video press, but I am perplexed by this apparently widespread policy.

On the assumption that the target audience for such reviews is the consumers who purchase and use these products and not the companies who manufacture, distribute, and sell them, we would be served equally as well by reading that a product performs poorly as we would by reading that it performs well.

When the audio/video press limits coverage to only a pre-selected pool of products guaranteed in advance to receive a positive review, consumers are poorly served.

With all the reviews and all the products out there, I'm personally glad that those products that are clearly not ready for prime time don't get many column inches. Heck, even with those that do get reviewed, there are often enough caveats mixed into the praises that I am able to whittle my audition list down to a managable size. Do I end up missing some good stuff because it's not reviewed? Perhaps, though with the proliferation of the internet, it's hard to imagine not finding at least some informal impressions of all new products, online, somewhere.

So Greg what do you think about this slow moving Iris? Wing says they did this because otherwise it could become distracting.

I couldn't use the Accupel for CR testing because the Accupel with Colorfacts moved too swiftly. No time for the Iris to react.
I don't want to speculate about the iris until the HD-81 arrives.

Why use Colorfacts to control the AccuPel when taking contrast measurements? The remote control works really well. :)

Ah, I got use to the automated system. thx