Count me as another one to have scored a Pearl. It came yesterday, but I had some family activities to attend to and getting the ceiling mount (a story in itself) for it took a day. I've
managed to get it installed and watched some material and have some general impressions.
I'm coming from a H79 for reference so I'll make comparisons where appropriate. Also, I'm projecting on a 120" diagonal ST130 screen. Let me hit the highlights:

- I did notice the corners on a completely black screen are a little lighter, but if you aren't looking for it it is not noticeable. My advice, don't look for it :P
- the unit just looks really nice. I really like the way it looks in the room - a vanity thing, but all the same I really like it.
- took me awhile to get the projector squared up and adjusted on the screen. Sometimes when hitting the lens shift feature in rapid sequence the lens shift would go all the way to the end of its range. Kind of annoying. I found the H79 easier to install, but maybe I just got lucky.
- measured about 500 lumens calibrated using Avia. Calibrating white level was ddifficult because I ccouldn't crush whites no matter how high I turned up the contrast. When calibrating the H79 I used white crush to find my contrast setting. I'd say the brightness is about the same between the two projectors. Not sure why my brightness is lower than others are getting. I am using a lot of lens shift so that may affect the reading. I'm about 14 feet from the screen so, I'd say I'm close to maximum zoom, but not all the way there.
- the bulb smelled a little funny for the first couple of hours. kind of odd, but I think it has gone away now with 5 hours on the bulb.. I didn't experience this with either of my 2 previous projectors. Anyone else notice this?
- I seem to have a pretty uniform white field. I was worried about this with some of the screen shots I saw, but I ccouldn'tsee any problems here.
- The convergence issues others have captures in screen shot don't seem to be too bad for me. I think I'm a little off (like .5 pixels) with red. It was hard to tell because the crosshairs using avia looked like they had an outline on horizontal lines. When I turned sharpness down to 0 it got much better.
- the fan noise in high mode is quieter that the H79 in high mode, but it is still audible in very quite scenes in movies. Not distracting but it is there.
- menus are very well organized and I like how responsive the projector is to the remote. Both these items are head and shoulders above the H79.

Now onto viewing. I sit about 14 feet back from the screen, so just over 1.5 screen widths, and the aadded resolution was visible to me. Also, while the measured lumen values from my H79 and Pearl are close, the Pearl just looks brighter. I believe this is due to the added on/off contrast the Pearl has. The DI works very well I assume because I can't even notice it is running. Shadow detail is way beyond what my H79 had to offer. While I'd say the absolute back level of the H79 was deeper by a little, dark scenes seem more defined with the Pearl.

I watched Seabiscuit on HD-DVD with my wife tonight and we were both very impressed. Of all the things I've viewed on the Pearl so far, this was absolutely the best. It was stunning and there pere places in it where you really get that "window effect" people talk about. Colors were vibrantand punchy and the image was very 3 dimensional. This was hands down the best movie experience I've had in my house. In fact, it is very hard to explain, but while it didn't have the sharpness of DLPs, it still had more detailed. I guess I understand the "more film like" moniker thrown around here now. Yup, more film like.

SD TV - what can you say. On a 120" screen its going to look pretty bad.

HDTV though a HD-Tivo (Directv). I see more artifacts in the broadcasts than I used to. I've flipped through some ESPN college football and it looks good, but not fantastic like my HD-DVD experience. For some reason, the colors look a little washed out I think. Its too early for me to pass judgement here because when I first powered up Coach Carter was on Showtime and that looked really good, but the college football on ESPN tonight just looks ok. Maybe its the broadcast. I'll do more "research" tomorrow with NFL ticket. - tough life let me tell you.

Overall, I love the projector. I was getting worried after placing the order as I read others reports on convergence issues and color uniformity problems, but the projector is just amazing when fed a good source. I am really excited about the potential of the projector after watching Seabiscuit. My wife was skeptical she would see any difference and she actually said the picture was really amazing and the difference was obvious. Definitely made me feel better after having the "honey, I know I told you my last projector would last me a couple of years, but..." conversation. I'm a little suprised I'm not getting a little more light out of it, based on others reports, but it is still bright enough.

I guess the most important thing I could say is that I have no buyers remorse whatsoever! It feels like a good investment. I hope this helps give another view on the Pearl to potential buyers out there.

HDTV though a HD-Tivo (Directv). I see more artifacts in the broadcasts than I used to. I've flipped through some ESPN college football and it looks good, but not fantastic like my HD-DVD experience. For some reason, the colors look a little washed out I think. Its too early for me to pass judgement here because when I first powered up Coach Carter was on Showtime and that looked really good, but the college football on ESPN tonight just looks ok. Maybe its the broadcast. I'll do more "research" tomorrow with NFL ticket. - tough life let me tell you.


Direct-TV does not broadcast HDTV in its full resolution. They are running some sort of down-rezzed nonsense that the guys in the satellite box forum call HD-Lite. This could be the cause of what you're seeing.

BTW, thanks for your post. I have to keep telling myself not to pull the trigger until I've seen a full review on a post-production unit, but it's getting harder and harder to wait.

- measured about 500 lumens calibrated using Avia.

Is this in bright mode?

William asked me not to reveal what I paid as I think he gave me a special deal as it was my 2nd projector he'd calibrated. Maybe not. I don't really know. We did not haggle as the results were sooooo good.

So I need to honor his ask.

That said...

I know what he charged me the first time and I've heard others talk about their prices. If he'd charged me that I would have considerd it an absolute bargain. I have no real understanding what he does. However, I am fortunate to live close to William and he showed me a before and after comparison and it was jaw dropping for me. I paid +/-$7k for my JVC SX 21 and his efforts transformed the projector from it's original state. H esaid that mine was the 2nd JVC SX21 he did and the PJ proudly wears it's William Phelps calibration badge and to this day looks great.

I simply cannot recommend his work too highly.

I will be very keen to see the reaction to his initial Ruby dabblings!

Rob

How much does a WM transformation cost? :)

Is this in bright mode?

Yes, it was in bright mode.

I was responding to someone who asked about dlp's. You may not like them, but a great many people prefer them. No need to get defensive, there's room for all. I will certainly looking at the Pearl, the new JVC, as well as the new 1080p dlp's that come out within the next 6 months.


Nah, I respect DLP, I just like joking around.

Directv looks awful on Sundays. The HD games on Sunday ticket are really a disgrace. Definitely not the Pearl's fault.

One other odd thing I noticed about the pearl. When I have no source coming into the pearl the display grid when adjusting focus and zoom is very sharp and looks to be about 1 pixel in width. When I have a source into my HDMI and then bring up the adjustments the grid looks a little different. Especially around the edges. Almost blurry. Maybe the video processing is applied to the grid when there is a source on the active input. I'll look again later and try disabling the video processing.

Nothing really earth shattering, just odd.

So after calibrating and watching DVDs, SD and HD, I've decided to return the pearl. The picture was very good but my main concern was how dim it was in my room. I had to really try to block external light (reiminded me of my w400 days) and realized that this projector is for a competely dark room. So I'm going to get a new lamp for the HS10 and sit it out for a while for a brighter projector. I guess I've grown used to the brightness of the HS10 and can over look some of its imperfections until something comes along that really suits my application.

So after calibrating and watching DVDs, SD and HD, I've decided to return the pearl. The picture was very good but my main concern was how dim it was in my room. I had to really try to block external light (reiminded me of my w400 days) and realized that this projector is for a competely dark room. So I'm going to get a new lamp for the HS10 and sit it out for a while for a brighter projector. I guess I've grown used to the brightness of the HS10 and can over look some of its imperfections until something comes along that really suits my application.
What settings do you use on the Pearl?
Do you use the cinema filter on the HS10?
Does iris off make a big brightness difference compared to the HS10?

I am going to have to pull my old HS10 out of mothballs and compare!

So after calibrating and watching DVDs, SD and HD, I've decided to return the pearl. The picture was very good but my main concern was how dim it was in my room. I had to really try to block external light (reiminded me of my w400 days) and realized that this projector is for a competely dark room. So I'm going to get a new lamp for the HS10 and sit it out for a while for a brighter projector. I guess I've grown used to the brightness of the HS10 and can over look some of its imperfections until something comes along that really suits my application.

Judging from the pics of your HS10, it is about as far away from properly calibrated as one can possibly get.

If you are willing to live with a bit of "Torch Mode" on the Pearl, and willing to crank open the IRIS, I would bet you could get it substantially brighter.

There are at least a couple of hundred more lumens at your disposal.

However, if you're watching in a room with ambient light, I think you'll want a light canon. And clearly, this projector does not fit that bill.

Is it possible for someone to take a picture of this light spill around the edges of the screen. I have never seen this and am wondering how big of an issue is this?

I thought about running it on "high" and the Iris off but part of the reason I got the pearl was for that great contract the Iris provides. Secondly, I have always run my HS10 in "cinema dark" (low) and notice the brightness getting too low around 700 hours for a lamp thats supposed to last 3000. So I figured that I'd be changing the lamp more frequently with the Pearl. I highly doubt that it would be bright enough after 500 hours since it seems so dim to begin with. I realize the HS10 is out of calibration probably due to the fact that I removed the filter. Once I get a new lamp I'll tweak it agian and have to 'deal' with the low contrast but I'm happy to do that for now. And if I can't live with the HS10, I can always shop again. If I find the time this week I may give the Peal one more try and get someone else's opinon before sending it back.

Toe, I think it would be difficult to take a pic of the light spill. On my unit it's very faint but extends a good 6" from the frame. It's really not an issue in my opinion.

JAMMAN,

Were you able to get any readings on your lumen output? I'm curious to see if your light output is similar to mine. We've heard some really different numbers for lumen output of the Pearl at maximum zoom. Everything from 700 down to 500. Maybe our settings for video are vastly different, who knows?

I get the impression that a lot of people are trying to see if the projector has the light output for them, so if you can get any measurements that may be helpful. BTW, thanks for all your posts and information you've shared. The screenshots and comaprisons have been very helpful.

So after calibrating and watching DVDs, SD and HD, I've decided to return the pearl. The picture was very good but my main concern was how dim it was in my room. I had to really try to block external light (reiminded me of my w400 days) and realized that this projector is for a competely dark room. So I'm going to get a new lamp for the HS10 and sit it out for a while for a brighter projector. I guess I've grown used to the brightness of the HS10 and can over look some of its imperfections until something comes along that really suits my application.

Count me as another one to have scored a Pearl.


Welcome to the club and congrats!

So after calibrating and watching DVDs, SD and HD, I've decided to return the pearl. The picture was very good but my main concern was how dim it was in my room. I had to really try to block external light (reiminded me of my w400 days) and realized that this projector is for a competely dark room. So I'm going to get a new lamp for the HS10 and sit it out for a while for a brighter projector. I guess I've grown used to the brightness of the HS10 and can over look some of its imperfections until something comes along that really suits my application.

If you liked the projector and wanted it brighter why not look at a new screen. A Silver Star will make this thing look Plasma bright. I am with you on the "like additional brightness". Check out Tryg review of white, silver, grey and see the difference a screen can make. Just a suggestion

Is it possible for someone to take a picture of this light spill around the edges of the screen. I have never seen this and am wondering how big of an issue is this?


I have zero light spillage and I don't think Andrew has it either. I will be interested in hearing from more people about if they have spillage, my guess is it will be very minimal.

Oh and as for the comment about my 6 hours on the Pearl, I had been traveling and now I am home watching football with 28 hours on it.

movieguy2001, I didn't get any measurements since I don't have a light meter (can they be found cheap?) I'm curious what the difference between the pearl and HS10 would be.

djzelos, thanks for the screen change suggestion. I'll have to look into it but I'm not really looking to speed a few K more for a screen at this point. The projector blew my HT budget for a while. Doesn't the viewing angle start to get narrower with high powered screens?

Jim

I thought about running it on "high" and the Iris off but part of the reason I got the pearl was for that great contract the Iris provides. Secondly, I have always run my HS10 in "cinema dark" (low) and notice the brightness getting too low around 700 hours for a lamp thats supposed to last 3000.
I wanted to get your impression of the difference between iris auto and iris off.

From the cine4home review the Pearl in low lamp mode iris off/auto will be 390 to 470 lumens depending on throw distance. That is around the same as the HS10 in cinema mode! Iris off at 2,200:1 will still give a 4 x contrast over the HS10 at < 600:1 with the cinema filter!

Iris on will be 50% less light than off/auto and should be avoided in your situation!

Now that there a few more Pearl owners out there, can we get an update on the color uniformity problem? How many are expeririencing this problem and to what degree?

This was the most interesting and striking part. I've owned several UHP bulb based projectors, and the skin tones on the Pearl are extremely similar to them. The Ruby's colors are indeed more vibrant. I wonder why the differences were so great here... is it simply due to the more saturated primaries, or is it due to the spectral differences in the bulb, or some combination of the two? RCP should be able to help here, and I look forward to seeing how Erik's tweaking goes.

Anyway, overall, I believe the Pearl is a big winner for Sony, and I suspect that people will be very happy with it. I certainly would be (if I didn't already own a Ruby ;)).
What would you buy now? What if the price for Ruby and Pearl would be the same?

So after calibrating and watching DVDs, SD and HD, I've decided to return the pearl. The picture was very good but my main concern was how dim it was in my room. I had to really try to block external light (reiminded me of my w400 days) and realized that this projector is for a competely dark room. So I'm going to get a new lamp for the HS10 and sit it out for a while for a brighter projector. I guess I've grown used to the brightness of the HS10 and can over look some of its imperfections until something comes along that really suits my application.

Wow. I've actually been finding that I need to keep the lamp on LOW and the manual iris at minimum, in order to keep the brightness under control. Now, mind you, I'm using a 92inch da lite high power screen -- mostly because I want little room intereference so the narrow viewing cone really helps -- so that's a factor, but even on a "normal" gain screen, I'd guess it's plenty bright for me in a blacked out room.

In fact, if I find a used retractible Firehawk in my size, I'll probably go for that, since the ambient light rejection is good, the gain is lower, and I love the gray backing to even further lower the black floor. I'm near maximum throw, right now, which is good for a Firehawk, and should be giving me the dimmest picture possible (if I'm reading the results others have posted correctly) so my impressions are way at the other end of the scale in terms of how bright this projector is.

I would think the high power would be to bright on a 92" screen with the lumens this projector is throwing which it sounds like it is if you are wanting to go to a firehawk which would be a better match at 92" I would think.

I would think the high power would be to bright on a 92" screen with the lumens this projector is throwing which it sounds like it is if you are wanting to go to a firehawk which would be a better match at 92" I would think.

Yep.

Two complications ensue:

1) Being a rental, ceiling mounting is problematic in my home. So I don't have an ideal Firehawk configuration, though the projector is essentially "shelf mounted" about a foot above viewers' heads, so it's not horrible geometry.

2) I overspent my budget by $500 getting the Pearl, so even a used Firehawk is a pricey proposition right now ;)

So my ironic solution may be to get a ND filter! At least until the bulb's brightness falls off a bit.

Note too that I only watch movies, in the dark. People that watch TV, especially sports, in ambient light will have a totally different perspective.

Thanks for the thoughts Nathan as I was thinking of a HP at 92" for the Pearl in my fully light controlled room, but decided a ST130 would be a better fit and would still be plenty bright.

I am sure a filter would work great, and I understand the whole budget thing as I am trying to stretch mine to get the Pearl and screen into my house :confused:

Congrads on the Pearl though, I will probably be joining the club soon.

I'm not sure where to go with this. I'm guessing that in the end, the biggest complaint about the Pearl will be dimness, same as the Ruby which is not surprising. This is not to say it wil be a problem for everyone, or even most people, but it will probably be the biggest issue it has.

I also do not have a light-controlled room. At night it's dark, but the walls and ceiling are white-beige, and a bit of ambient street light comes in through the bay window. Of course, during the day forget it.

I currently have a 60" SXRD RP which I think is terrific, and is watchable even during the day. I want to overlay the screen where the TV is. I would definitely prefer to stay in the SXRD technology, but the constant issue of adequte lumens is something I will have a tough time coming to grips with in the Pearl.

Also, I don't want to be a slave to the setup, having to always pull down shades, sit in a "cone", etc. When I do serious viewing, I would, but for casual viewing, I don't want to be encumbered that way.

I'm going to wait another month or so to see more feedback and see how much the light issue becomes for the Pearl. FWIW, I don't think a light cannon is the only alternative. The Optoma HD81 has 1400 speced lumens, and caliibrated may be noticeably brighter than the Pearl. But then the HD81 has it's own set of issues.

Thanks everyone for posting your thoughts.

Jeff, I could certainly be wrong, but I think the 'viewing cone' of a Dalite HighPower is actually wider than that of a rptv. So if you find it adequate with your Sony RP, you might want to try a HP screen.

I have zero light spillage and I don't think Andrew has it either. I will be interested in hearing from more people about if they have spillage, my guess is it will be very minimal.

Oh and as for the comment about my 6 hours on the Pearl, I had been traveling and now I am home watching football with 28 hours on it.

Although only in a temporary setup, I've noticed no objectionable light spill.

And I've had mine (#4 in the country) since last Thursday, and only about 2 hours on it. I don't want the bulb to get too settled before I invert the PJ for it's final home....

Jeff, I could certainly be wrong, but I think the 'viewing cone' of a Dalite HighPower is actually wider than that of a rptv. So if you find it adequate with your Sony RP, you might want to try a HP screen.

Or a Silver Star, the HP is a good choice but like Tryg (the screen expert) told me the Silver Star is choice 1, HP 2. Either way you can't go wrong and it solves the brightness problem.

Or a Silver Star, the HP is a good choice but like Tryg (the screen expert) told me the Silver Star is choice 1, HP 2. Either way you can't go wrong and it solves the brightness problem.

Be aware, however, that the Silverstar has issues of its own. This includes a sheen that is noticed in brighter scenes, which gives a gritty textured look. Some people are bothered by it (me) others are not. But it is definitely there.

No Carada for the Pearl???

I could certainly be wrong, but I think the 'viewing cone' of a Dalite HighPower is actually wider than that of a rptv. So if you find it adequate with your Sony RP, you might want to try a HP screen.

Thanks for the info.

Or a Silver Star, the HP is a good choice but like Tryg (the screen expert) told me the Silver Star is choice 1, HP 2. Either way you can't go wrong and it solves the brightness problem.

The SS is as bright (at least) as the HP, and has a wider viewing cone, but because of the latter property it is rather poor in dealing with any ambient light. I.e., the narrower viewing cone of the HP tends to exclude ambient light from the side. If you have a total light-controlled room, then the SS might be better (except for the surface sheen that Rob mentions). But if ambient light is an issue, the HP is probably a better candidate; and it is reported to have no surface texture or 'sheen' issues.

Now that there a few more Pearl owners out there, can we get an update on the color uniformity problem?This seems to be an endemic problem with the Sony SXRD. Even the $30,000 Qualia had some white field uniformity issues.

For some reason JVC's LCoS PJs don't seem to suffer from this.

This seems to be an endemic problem with the Sony SXRD. Even the $30,000 Qualia had some white field uniformity issues.

For some reason JVC's LCoS PJs don't seem to suffer from this.

This is one of the main reasons I'm waiting for the JVC.

This seems to be an endemic problem with the Sony SXRD. Even the $30,000 Qualia had some white field uniformity issues.

For some reason JVC's LCoS PJs don't seem to suffer from this.

Although the Qualia is high priced, it's first-generation SXRD from Sony. The Pearl is thrid generation. I'd actually expect the Pearl's panels (and associated drive electronics) to be better in this regard, even though it's 6x less expensive...

The JVC wont be perfect either. There is not perfect unit.

This seems to be an endemic problem with the Sony SXRD. Even the $30,000 Qualia had some white field uniformity issues.

For some reason JVC's LCoS PJs don't seem to suffer from this.

In the JVC thread, Tsites (who I believe works for JVC) indicated that Sony went with thinner LCOS panels than JVC. This allows the Sony to have faster response times, but makes it more difficult to compensate for color continuity over a wide thermal range. JVC's panels have slower response times, but are more stable over a wider thermal range. That's how I understood it anyway.

Now, I admit that I am way outside of my comfort zone with what I'm about to say, but it seems to me that if Sony really wants to do away with these shading isues, they will need some sort of dynamic temperature adjustment, or else they'll need to increase thickness, or somehow make the panels more stable. I'm just guessing that if you calibrate the shading of the unit at the temperature that it will be at when fully warmed up in your environment, it will help. But I think that's about all that can be done for now.

This seems to be an endemic problem with the Sony SXRD. Even the $30,000 Qualia had some white field uniformity issues.

For some reason JVC's LCoS PJs don't seem to suffer from this.
Do you have any hard evidence to support those statements as far as FP are concerned? IIRC None of the the major reviews of the Q04 or Ruby came to those conclusions.

WM seems to do great job "optomizing" JVCs, with white field uniformity improvements the major improvement cited by owners!

To put things into perspective as far as "white field uniformaity issues":
DLP better than LCOS better than LCD better than CRT!

Do you have any hard evidence to support those statements as far as FP are concerned? IIRC None of the the major reviews of the Q04 or Ruby came to those conclusions.

WM seems to do great job "optomizing" JVCs, with white field uniformity improvements the major improvement cited by owners!

To put things into perspective as far as "white field uniformaity issues":
DLP better than LCOS better than LCD better than CRT!

I just read a post over the weekend where Tom from JVC gave an explanation for this. I remember it being Sony is using a thinner membrane or something on its panels. He explained that while it makes color uniformity a little more difficult it improves MTF.

Just curious but i find purple in the blacks in these pearl screenshots to be a little bothersome. :( Is this normal ?

I just read a post over the weekend where Tom from JVC gave an explanation for this. I remember it being Sony is using a thinner membrane or something on its panels. He explained that while it makes color uniformity a little more difficult it improves MTF.

MTF? Manual Transmission Fluid? You guys are killing me with the acronyms.

Doh! I'm so weak.

I would not be a good spy. I already caved and bought one this morning when I saw it for a great price, AFTER I had just told myself I would wait a few months.

MMMmmm I can not wait for the 1080p patch and HD-DVD player for the Xbox 360.

As Alan Gouger says JVC has a different optimization to their liquid layer thickness.
The JVC white field uniformity can also be due to a pretty good tuning in process of the panels. Tom Stites mentioned that JVC has a process for this at the factory but that it is not as sophisticated as the one William Phelps is using.

wm
If you read this please comment if you plan to support Pearl with your optimization.

No Carada for the Pearl???

My Pearl should be here on Thursday, and my 100" Carada BW will arrive shortly after. I'm surprised there has been no mention of this combo; it seems like it should produce a killer image with tons of "pop" and maximize the CR of the Pearl.

I'll be sure to let you all know how it looks! :D

MTF? Manual Transmission Fluid? You guys are killing me with the acronyms.

Modular Transfer Function.

Gary

My Pearl should be here on Thursday, and my 100" Carada BW will arrive shortly after. I'm surprised there has been no mention of this combo; it seems like it should produce a killer image with tons of "pop" and maximize the CR of the Pearl.

I'll be sure to let you all know how it looks! :D

Cool beans. I currently have a Carada BW 100" with my Mits HC3000U projector. I have a Pearl on order which should be in around 10/6. I am looking forward to your impressions. The Carada screens are excellent products.

Just curious but i find purple in the blacks in these pearl screenshots to be a little bothersome. :( Is this normal ?Try mode 2 autoiris as it afforded very good blacks on the demo Pearl at CEDIA and then try this thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=726531

Dan

Just curious but i find purple in the blacks in these pearl screenshots to be a little bothersome. :( Is this normal ?

Get someone to calibrate your projector. A proper grayscale calibration will resolve this problem (if there is a problem).

Originally Posted by HoustonHoyaFan
Do you have any hard evidence to support those statements as far as FP are concerned? IIRC None of the the major reviews of the Q04 or Ruby came to those conclusions.

Regarding the 004 SXRD $30,000 Qualia Front Projector

"The color temperature uniformity varied by 375K in Iris 2, 400K in Iris 1, and 514K in Iris Off mode. The color temperature was redder on the left side of the screen than in the center, by about 320K to 450K depending on the contrast mode."

- Greg Rogers, Issue 86 Widescreen Review

"Their other concern is a little color shift from the left side of the screen (a little too much red) to the right (too little). I hadn't noticed this before, and I still don't see it on most real program material (though I can spot it on a full-screen white or gray test pattern)."

- Thomas Norton, May, 2004 Issue of UltimateAV

My Pearl should be here on Thursday, and my 100" Carada BW will arrive shortly after. I'm surprised there has been no mention of this combo; it seems like it should produce a killer image with tons of "pop" and maximize the CR of the Pearl.

I'll be sure to let you all know how it looks! :D

Great i also have a 110in bw Carada.I would like to hear how the Pearl looks on it also.Thanks Budda

does the manual say if the pearl accepts 48hz through the hdmi input ? (from a HTPC for example)
or anyone tested it yet ? thx

Regarding the 004 SXRD $30,000 Qualia Front Projector

"The color temperature uniformity varied by 375K in Iris 2, 400K in Iris 1, and 514K in Iris Off mode. The color temperature was redder on the left side of the screen than in the center, by about 320K to 450K depending on the contrast mode."

- Greg Rogers, Issue 86 Widescreen Review

"Their other concern is a little color shift from the left side of the screen (a little too much red) to the right (too little). I hadn't noticed this before, and I still don't see it on most real program material (though I can spot it on a full-screen white or gray test pattern)."

- Thomas Norton, May, 2004 Issue of UltimateAVI wonder if both those Qualias were shelf mounted when reviewed. The Pearl at CEDIA was ceiling mounted with red on the right and blue-green on the left.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8456004&&#post8456004

Dan

For those that have the Pearl, how does it look with 720p sources?

My Pearl should be here on Thursday, and my 100" Carada BW will arrive shortly after. I'm surprised there has been no mention of this combo; it seems like it should produce a killer image with tons of "pop" and maximize the CR of the Pearl.

I'll be sure to let you all know how it looks! :D


Add another to the list of those awaiting your impressions of the Pearl with this screen.

For me it's between the Carada BW, the SS, and the HP.

Add another to the list of those awaiting your impressions of the Pearl with this screen.

For me it's between the Carada BW, the SS, and the HP.

I currently have a Carada 106" BW screeb that I think will go very well with the Pearl, if I decide to get one. I had thouhgt about the High Power, but since I will be ceiling mounting, I think I would loose any additional gain of the screen.

I bought a 96 inch Carada BW. I do not own a Pearl, but I will own a projector with similar characteristics, whether it's a Pearl, the JVC HD-New, or the Mits HC5000. I knew that I wanted a white screen with an ultra-wide viewing angle, decent gain, and accurate color reproduction. The Carada BW passed all of my calculations. Now all I need is a projector and I'll be able to tell you if I'm happy with my decision. :D

For those that have the Pearl, how does it look with 720p sources?

I watched Desperate Housewives last night on ABC. I think it was in 720P. The picture quality was definitely less than other 1080i channels. I just finished watching Heroes on NBC and the picture just had this incredible 'snap' and clarity that Housewives was lacking.

Duane

For those that have the Pearl, how does it look with 720p sources?

It looks good. But then again, my H79 was just as good and threw a brighter image..........It's the 1080 stuff that the Pearl was built for.

Regarding the 004 SXRD $30,000 Qualia Front Projector

"The color temperature uniformity varied by 375K in Iris 2, 400K in Iris 1, and 514K in Iris Off mode. The color temperature was redder on the left side of the screen than in the center, by about 320K to 450K depending on the contrast mode."

- Greg Rogers, Issue 86 Widescreen Review

"Their other concern is a little color shift from the left side of the screen (a little too much red) to the right (too little). I hadn't noticed this before, and I still don't see it on most real program material (though I can spot it on a full-screen white or gray test pattern)."

- Thomas Norton, May, 2004 Issue of UltimateAV
Reviews of likely the same pre-prod Q04 proves leads you to the conclusion that SXRD have uniformity issuse

Which pj is this. :)

Brightness uniformity on a white-field
test pattern was exceptional. In the highest
contrast, minimum iris aperture mode, the
brightness varied by 15 percent or less at
the sides, top, or bottom of the screen.
Brightness varied by 5 percent or less in
the maximum aperture mode. The color
temperature uniformity varied by 350K in
the minimum aperture mode, and 265K in
the maximum aperture mode.
350K variance=issues?

In the High Brightness mode, the brightness
varied by just 8 percent or less at the
top, bottom, or sides of the screen, and the
color temperature varied by less than 185K
compared to the center of the screen. In the
High Contrast mode, the brightness varied
by only 1 percent at the top and bottom of
the screen, and dropped by about 20 percent
at the sides. The color temperature
varied by only 35K or less at the top and
bottom of the screen, but 665K at one side.
665K= issues?

With the iris set for 12 fL as described
earlier, the brightness uniformity on a white
field test pattern varied by a maximum of
31-percent at the sides and 9-percent at the
top and bottom of the screen.

31% brightness at the sides=issues?

Brightness uniformity on a white-field test pattern varied by no more than 12-percent at the sides, top, or bottom of the screen in the High Brightness mode but dropped by 21 percent at the screen edge in the High Contrast mode. The color temperature uniformity was within 50K in the High Brightness mode, but varied by about +220K, -180K at the screen sides in the High Contrast mode

21% drop at sides=issues
The full Q04 quote :)

Brightness uniformity on a white-field test pattern in the highest contrast mode (Iris 2) varied by 8 percent or less at the sides, top, or bottom of the screen, 12 percent in the medium contrast mode (Iris 1), and 15 percent in the lowest contrast mode (Iris Off). The color temperature uniformity varied by 375K in Iris 2, 400K in Iris 1, and 514K in Iris Off mode. The color temperature was redder on the left side of the screen than in the center, by about 320K to 450K depending on the contrast mode.
Panel convergence and the lack of chromatic aberration in the lens were exceptional. There was less color fringing at the sides and corners of the screen than I had seen on any fixed-pixel projector

I currently have a Carada 106" BW screeb that I think will go very well with the Pearl, if I decide to get one. I had thouhgt about the High Power, but since I will be ceiling mounting, I think I would loose any additional gain of the screen.

I bought a 96 inch Carada BW. I do not own a Pearl, but I will own a projector with similar characteristics, whether it's a Pearl, the JVC HD-New, or the Mits HC5000. I knew that I wanted a white screen with an ultra-wide viewing angle, decent gain, and accurate color reproduction. The Carada BW passed all of my calculations. Now all I need is a projector and I'll be able to tell you if I'm happy with my decision. :D


Thanks for the comments guys.

I'm starting to lean towards the Carada BW. I’ve pretty much decided to go with a Pearl, so my only decision at this point, is do I go cinemascope or 16:9.

I am assuming that if I go with a cinemascope screen then I’ll have to purchase a VP. I’m basing this on Panamorph’s site that lists the Ruby as not having a compatible internal scaling mode. So I would guess this to be true for the Pearl as well.

HoustonHoyaFan:

I am more concerned about the lack of color uniformity that is apparently endemic to this design, because it is easily visible to the naked eye. Brightness uniformity is basically a non-issue. CRT projectors have much worse brightness uniformity.

I'll leave rabbinical students and medieval theologians the task of parsing your response to the published conclusions you said didn't exist for any hidden meaning.

As Alan Gouger says JVC has a different optimization to their liquid layer thickness.
The JVC white field uniformity can also be due to a pretty good tuning in process of the panels. Tom Stites mentioned that JVC has a process for this at the factory but that it is not as sophisticated as the one William Phelps is using.

wm
If you read this please comment if you plan to support Pearl with your optimization.

Too soon to say for sure. I will see what I can do with it. Should know better in a few weeks.

William

Reviews of likely the same pre-prod Q04 proves leads you to the conclusion that SXRD have uniformity issuse

Which pj is this. :)



Every SXRD product up to the this point has had some problems with this to one degree or another. This includes early reports on the Pearl.

Modular Transfer Function.

Gary

Close. Modulation Transfer Function.

For the OP: it's a measure if the ability of the projector to resolve detail at a frequency. Higher MTF=better (generally). This is not a spec you'll get from manfacturers though.

HoustonHoyaFan:

I am more concerned about the lack of color uniformity that is apparently endemic to this design.
The WSR reviews do not support your conclusion.

Q04 color variance 375K
Yamaha 1300 variance 350K
Sharp 2000 variance 35K but 665K on one side

Are you "concerned about the lack of color uniformity that is apparently endemic " in the Yamaha 1300 or the Sharp 2000? :) :)

The WSR reviews do not support your conclusion.

Q04 color variance 375K
Yamaha 1300 variance 350K
Sharp 2000 variance 35K but 665K on one side

Are you "concerned about the lack of color uniformity that is apparently endemic " in the Yamaha 1300 or the Sharp 2000? :) :)

Not every single SXRD unit ever made (or reviewed) suffers from noticeable color discontinuity. But all of the SXRD lines of products that I have followed (most noticeably the XBR1 RPTVS, the Ruby, and the Pearl) have had some problems, although to what degree I am not prepared to formulate a thesis. And I know from experience that there is no definitive answer to be had. People claim that the Qualia 006 RPTV did not have any problems, which leads me to believe that a super-high QC regimine might be able to solve the problem.

For a long time, the guys in the RPTV forum have been speculating about the cause of these issues, and for the first time I think I have heard an explanation that fits with all of the evidence. Apparently, the thinner layer that Sony selected to improve response time makes it more difficult to calibrate 3D gamma for accuracy across a wide thermal range. Small variances in thickness between units could cause problems to manifest themselves to a greater or lesser degree, leaving some projectors perfect and others (like the one at Cedia) a mess. It also explains the Sony Service bulletin that was issued last year regarding the XBR1 RPTVs which basically stated that the "green blob" problem was temperature dependent. For a while there was speculation that Sony used some unproven parts in the optical path, and that these parts were causing the problem, but that explanation no longer works for me because I can't believe that Sony would continue to make the same mistake on later units/models. The "thin layer" explanation also explains why Sony swaps out the optical block on effected RPTVs -- it's because the problem is in the SXRD panels themselves, and replacing the OB may be the only solution. Certainly Sony thinks it's the only solution, or I doubt they would result to such an expensive repair.

If you want evidence of SXRD's continued struggle with color continuity, just browse through last year's XBR1 thread in the RPTV Forum. And take note of the countless pictures that bear a striking resemblance to the pictures taken of the messed up Pearl at Cedia this year.

My Pearl shoud arrive today or tomorrow.

My question is.

I have been running a DVI device for the past three years. My DVI Cable is ran through the attic.

Are there any issues by just using an HDMI/DVI adapter on both ends of the cable (easy) or should I just run a new HDMI cable (PITA). Will the DVI cable act like a regular HDMI when you use an adapter on both ends?

Thanks

Apparently, the thinner layer that Sony selected to improve response time makes it more difficult to calibrate 3D gamma for accuracy across a wide thermal range. .
I asked a friend who is a LCD engineer (HTPS flat panels) not affiliated with Sony or JVC, about tsites statement. His response was "competitor marketing nonsense. There are at least 5 areas which would impact uniformity starting with the drive mechanics"

I know that that your statement is based on the JVC marketing line posted by a JVC marketing manager about the Sony SXRD panels. Of course the JVC panels are twice as slow, which has its own set of challanges. :)

Are the SXRDs more prone to color uniformity issues than other digital devices. Open to debate.

Can any color uniformity issues be fixed/improved by hand using the 3D gamma service menu options.

Can any Pearl color uniformity issues be fixed/improved by WM tool. Hopefully

FWIW I don't have any uniformity issues with my Ruby!

I asked a friend who is a LCD engineer (HTPS flat panels) not affiliated with Sony or JVC, about tsites statement. His response was "competitor marketing nonsense....

Well, it could be competitor marketing nonsense. I am certainly not knowledgeable enough to say, so I'll give ya that one.

But it's the first explanation I've heard that I can fit easily into the puzzle left by all the posts I've read over the last year or so. Even Tsites acknowledges that the thin layer was not the *only* thing that could effect uniformity, so I guess the question is whether or not: a) Sony uses a thinner layer, and b) the thinner layer makes it more difficult to calibrate across a wide thermal range.

If either of these two statements is false, then I guess we have ourselves a Red Herring here. If they are both true, then we have a compelling explanation.

My Pearl shoud arrive today or tomorrow.

My question is.

I have been running a DVI device for the past three years. My DVI Cable is ran through the attic.

Are there any issues by just using an HDMI/DVI adapter on both ends of the cable (easy) or should I just run a new HDMI cable (PITA). Will the DVI cable act like a regular HDMI when you use an adapter on both ends?

Thanks

I tried both a direct HDMI-HDMI connection from my Toshiba A1 to the Pearl, and then a Toshiba->HDMI->DVI switch [Outlaw 970 pre-pro] DVI->HDMI on the Pearl, and got the same results with both. I'd guess that your existing cabling should be okay. To convince yourself, maybe pick up a HDMI cable that you can swap in (don't run it through the attic, just run it across the room) to do an a/b test, run some test patterns and some real content, and see.

so I guess the question is whether or not: a) Sony uses a thinner layer, and b) the thinner layer makes it more difficult to calibrate across a wide thermal range.
Sony does use a thin layer. That was one of the advances touted by Sony when they announced SxRD in 2003. The main benefit is speed! IMO this difference has been very clear in past comparisons between the Q04 and HD2K. The HD2K tends to "smooth" out artifacts and details, likely because of its slower response time. The Q04 is mercilessly accurate in showing details and artifacts in the source.

Point b is a marketing 1/8 "truth". The thinner the layer the more critical the thickness consistancy.

FYI, Sony's original SxRD press release,
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press_Archive/200302/03-008E/

Point b is a marketing 1/8 "truth". The thinner the layer the more critical the thickness consistancy.


I suppose my non-expert opinion should be taken with a grain of salt, but I wonder if consistancy is the thing that separates the problemed units from the good ones.

Sounds like the comparison of the Pearl with the new JCV (when it finally comes out) is going to be extemely interesting. HHF said above that the earlier JVC HD2K tended to 'smooth' out artifacts and details, while most reports from CEDIA said that the new JVC they saw was 'sharper' than the Sony's. This comparison will certainly be important when it is possible to make.

I suppose my non-expert opinion should be taken with a grain of salt, but I wonder if consistancy is the thing that separates the problemed units from the good ones.
If the "bad" ones can be adjusted with manual/WM auto shading, then the issue may be a production line compromise. If they can't be adjusted they should be rejected by owners!

HHF said above that the earlier JVC HD2K tended to 'smooth' out artifacts and details, while most reports from CEDIA said that the new JVD they saw was 'sharper' than the Sony's. This comparison will certainly be important when it is possible to make."Sharper" while "smoothing" out motion details/artifacts are not incompatible benefits. :)

If the JVC lives up to its CEDIA impressions, and meets its specs of 800 lumens/10,000:1 CR/350:1 ANSI CR, it will replace the Ruby in my theater room!

The JVC HD2K per WSR was 500 lumens/2,200:1 on/off/60:1 ANSI CR.

"Sharper" while "smoothing" out motion details/artifacts are not incompatible benefits. :)

If the JVC lives up to its CEDIA impressions, and meets its specs of 800 lumens/10,000:1 CR/350:1 ANSI CR, it will replace the Ruby in my theater room!

The JVC HD2K per WSR was 500 lumens/2,200:1 on/off/60:1 ANSI CR.

Good point, and thanks for the WSR info.

My wife wants to get this thing to replace our old projector immediately.

You just had to rub it in, didn't you Jeff :p

You just had to rub it in, didn't you Jeff :p

Hey, I'll be the first to say it: I'm the luckiest guy alive when it comes to spousal tolerance for home theater equipment, among other things.

Sold my first projector today. Imagine that...it was a Pearl :)

I'm thinking I need to get one myself. Even if it doesn't work with my throw!

Hey, I'll be the first to say it: I'm the luckiest guy alive when it comes to spousal tolerance for home theater equipment, among other things.

Dunno about that Jeff. I think we're at least tied. My spouse is allowing me to staple black velvet to the walls because "it will make blacks better." When I suggested movie posters, she voted for Bullit and Raiders of the Lost Arc. :=)

Sold my first projector today. Imagine that...it was a Pearl :)

I'm thinking I need to get one myself. Even if it doesn't work with my throw!

Too funny.

Dunno about that Jeff. I think we're at least tied. My spouse is allowing me to staple black velvet to the walls because "it will make blacks better."

That's pretty impressive. Now, if you tell me that it was her idea, the crown is yours. Otherwise, I agree that a tie is in order.

When I suggested movie posters, she voted for Bullit and Raiders of the Lost Arc. :=)

Great choices. Bullit is still among my all time favorites, although as a MoPar fan, I've always rooted for the Dodge Charger.

Sold my first projector today. Imagine that...it was a Pearl :)

I'm thinking I need to get one myself. Even if it doesn't work with my throw!


Congrats...You will make an awesome AVS employee! Just don't have too much fun.

Ok I apologize if this has been answered before but I don't have 8 hours to read every single post to please don't eat me alive. This is also a very noob question.

I am waiting for one of these projectors and I have some very dumb questions since I've never had a projector before.

I have approxiamately 120 inches wide, and 68 inches high on a wall to work with. That's 138" Diagnol for 16:9.

I don't plan on buying a fancy screen so I figured I would paint some of this Goo systems stuff on the wall. If there is a better cost effective solution then please suggest something. I think I have about a $500 for whatever screen material I'm going to use.

Please take into account this goo stuff while I ask this contrast/brightness/distance question.

I have a light controlled environment, I can make it nearly pitch black if I want.

Here's the thing, is that unreleastically to big? I don't have a problem going down to 100" diagnol but I'm not sure of the pro's or cons.

Also, if I run at 100" diagnol, how far back should I place the projector? Knowing that I can have the room completlely dark, I could afford to place the projector some ways back in order to increase contrast ratio.

According to this review: http://cine4home.com/reviews/projectors/SonyVPLVW50/VPLVW50Review.htm they say moving the projector farther back (if you can) will improve contrast ratio at the expense of brightness. I would like a happy medium, if not leaning a little more towards contrast, since my room can be completely dark on demand.

So I would like a pretty bright picture, and I'de like to lean more towards contrast, so does anyone have any opinions on diagnol screen size and how far back I should place this thing?

And here is the stupidest question of all... what about some kind of mount for my ceiling? Where would I even order one? I tried the (cough) big local stores but they were pretty worthless.

-James

Well, I have an answer and a suggestion that might help with a couple of your issues.

Answer. You can buy a ceiling mount from the folks right here at AVS. I ordered mine from Jason along with the projector.

Suggestion. Ask about the price of a DaLite HighPower Pulldown in an appropriate size for the pearl. The price might not be that far out of your budget???

Best Regards,
Doug

Sold my first projector today.I want to hear what you have to say when the customer is committed to getting a DLP. :)

Dan

What style power plug does the pearl have? I want to have a nice long cable handy.

I want to hear what you have to say when the customer is committed to getting a DLP. :)

Dan

Or a nice, dim, gray screen. :=)

That's pretty impressive. Now, if you tell me that it was her idea, the crown is yours. Otherwise, I agree that a tie is in order.



Great choices. Bullit is still among my all time favorites, although as a MoPar fan, I've always rooted for the Dodge Charger.

You got me -- the black velvet idea was mine, but she didn't even blink when I suggested it. We'll call it a draw. ;)

The chase in Bullit is still absolutely the best car chase I've ever seen on film, or expect to see on film. That just couldn't be done today. I've heard a production rumor that that Mustang was simply outclassed in handling and brakes, but I have no comment, since I know that the best car ever made was the E30 M3. :D

Hi all,

Big time newbie here. I've never had a projector before, but have recently decided (after lots of research) to get the Pearl. I was hoping for some suggestions on the best way to set it up. The dimensions of my room are 11'3" X 19'4" with a ceiling height of 7'9". I have complete light control as it is the basement with no windows. Also, I plan on painting the walls and ceiling dark colors. I have 2 young labradors, so I'd like to keep the projector high enough that they couldn't reach it. The main seating will be 2 lazyboys directly in front of the screen. I would prefer to set up the projetor on one of the walls (since I would need to remove a ceiling fan for a ceiling mount), but would be willing to do a ceiling mount if it would result in a better picture. My main questions are as follows:

Is 19 Feet to far of a throw distance?
What is the ideal throw distance?
What would be the ideal screen and screen size for my setup(I understand this is dependent on the placement of the projector)?

Any answers would be greatly appreciated and please free to offer up any other suggestions.

Thanks,
David

I have approxiamately 120 inches wide, and 68 inches high on a wall to work with. That's 138" Diagnol for 16:9.

I think I have about a $500 for whatever screen material I'm going to use.

I have a light controlled environment, I can make it nearly pitch black if I want.

Here's the thing, is that unreleastically to big? I don't have a problem going down to 100" diagnol but I'm not sure of the pro's or cons.

Also, if I run at 100" diagnol, how far back should I place the projector? Knowing that I can have the room completlely dark, I could afford to place the projector some ways back in order to increase contrast ratio.

According to this review: http://cine4home.com/reviews/projectors/SonyVPLVW50/VPLVW50Review.htm they say moving the projector farther back (if you can) will improve contrast ratio at the expense of brightness. I would like a happy medium, if not leaning a little more towards contrast, since my room can be completely dark on demand.

So I would like a pretty bright picture, and I'de like to lean more towards contrast, so does anyone have any opinions on diagnol screen size and how far back I should place this thing?

And here is the stupidest question of all... what about some kind of mount for my ceiling? Where would I even order one? I tried the (cough) big local stores but they were pretty worthless.

-JamesRoom length? Let's say it's about 17 ft. long.

One hundred twenty inches wide is pretty big at 56 sq. ft. but if you accept the 700 lumen figure and assuming a 2.8 gain you get 35 ft-lumens that'd drop to 17 at the bulb half-brightness point. The 700 lumens would require you to install a Pearl at closest distance and max zoom in for greatest brightness. The distance from screen to pj would be about 14 ft. with the pj installed right above and behind the viewers position which you must do with the High Power to maintain high gain. Would that much goo cost $500 and provide a 3 gain?

I'd get a High Power 65 x 116 - 133" diagonal, or maybe just a bit smaller - explicitly keeping your given allocated $500 in mind I recommend you call AVS for a price quote. Again, I'd then mount the pj at just above the viewers' head level at maybe 16 ft. from the screen, with the rows right in front of the pj. I believe that pj placement would put you sort of in the middle of the zoom/throw range and you'd get the results cine4home indicates.

These pj-screen distances are estimates from having gone over this a few times for my own prospective setup. They assume the Ruby's throw and zoom characterists are like the Pearls. You should double check them.

Dan

Dunno about that Jeff. I think we're at least tied. My spouse is allowing me to staple black velvet to the walls because "it will make blacks better." When I suggested movie posters, she voted for Bullit and Raiders of the Lost Arc. :=)

She's a big geometry fan, huh? ;)

Well, I have an answer and a suggestion that might help with a couple of your issues.

Answer. You can buy a ceiling mount from the folks right here at AVS. I ordered mine from Jason along with the projector.

Suggestion. Ask about the price of a DaLite HighPower Pulldown in an appropriate size for the pearl. The price might not be that far out of your budget???

Best Regards,
Doug

Ummm... a pull down? I have a dedicated wall. No need for that I don't think.

I wonder if this Goo Digital Grey Lite stuff would work so I could still leave the lights on when I want to.

Has anyone used a grey screen in nearly dark conditions? Is it better to go with white? I wonder how the grey will look in a completely dark room.

It claims a 1.4 reflection rate but who knows if that's accurate.

Still wondering if 120 inches (wide) is to large for this projector...

-James

She's a big geometry fan, huh? ;)

LOL. That one took me a minute.

She's a big geometry fan, huh? ;)

That's a laugh-out-loud post. I'll leave my typo for all to appreciate.

gremmy, velvetpoet, drapp1952, SOWK, and others:
Thank you all for you helpful posts. I really appreciate the info you've given me...it makes spending $5K a little easier. :)

buy yourself a Marquee 9500LC with a moome card for the encrypted stuff and you will be amazed! (I assure you!!!)

It will last much longer and there will be now bulb buying every few thousand hours...not to mention how much better contrast and other PQ stuff would be

Martin

Ummm... a pull down? I have a dedicated wall. No need for that I don't think.

....

-James

Reason I suggested it is that it used to be the cheapest way to buy a screen. I don't know if it still is that way or why it ever was that way.

When I bought my pull down a few years ago, the pull down high power was cheaper than the screen material.

I am sure that many have gotten good results with goo.

You can search and probably get better answers about that in the screens area of the forum.

Best Regards,
Doug

Room length? Let's say it's about 17 ft. long.

One hundred twenty inches wide is pretty big at 56 sq. ft. but if you accept the 700 lumen figure and assuming a 2.8 gain you get 35 ft-lumens that'd drop to 17 at the bulb half-brightness point. The 700 lumens would require you to install a Pearl at closest distance and max zoom in for greatest brightness. The distance from screen to pj would be about 14 ft. with the pj installed right above and behind the viewers position which you must do with the High Power to maintain high gain. Would that much goo cost $500 and provide a 3 gain?

I'd get a High Power 65 x 116 - 133" diagonal, or maybe just a bit smaller - explicitly keeping your given allocated $500 in mind I recommend you call AVS for a price quote. Again, I'd then mount the pj at just above the viewers' head level at maybe 16 ft. from the screen, with the rows right in front of the pj. I believe that pj placement would put you sort of in the middle of the zoom/throw range and you'd get the results cine4home indicates.

These pj-screen distances are estimates from having gone over this a few times for my own prospective setup. They assume the Ruby's throw and zoom characterists are like the Pearls. You should double check them.

Dan

Fabulouse information. Maybe you could elaborate on something for me.

The light grey goo claims a gain of 1.4, you said "if you accept the 700 lumen figure and assuming a 2.8 gain you get 35 ft-lumens that'd drop to 17 at the bulb half-brightness point." Ok it's way over my head, I apologize.

When you say 2.8 gain... are you talking about the screen? Am I really going to need that much gain in a light controlled environment? Just curious... I like what I'm reading on the Da-Lite website so far, nice price range.

My room is about 26 or more feet long, and about 16 feet wide. Lots of room to go back.

So far, from people have said about grey screens, I thought I might do well at 16 ft., nearly dark, with a gain of 1.3 from that goo.

16ft. would put it about a foot or two behind my primary viewing area, which I guess would be ideal.

I'll look into the high power screen.

And about these grey screens... is that mostly for non light controlled rooms, or does that work equally well from someone like me who has a dark room but has a larger screen size in mind than typical?


-James

Don't they do digital covergence fixing? If so, then 1/2 pixel is the MAXIMUM that anyone should ever see (because if its 3/4 pixel, they should shift by 1 pixel, reducing it to 1/4).


1/2 pixel isnt bad at all. Shouldnt be noticeable from 10-15 feet.

The light grey goo claims a gain of 1.4

When you say 2.8 gain... are you talking about the screen? Am I really going to need that much gain in a light controlled environment?

My room is about 26 or more feet long, and about 16 feet wide. Lots of room to go back.

16ft. would put it about a foot or two behind my primary viewing area, which I guess would be ideal.

I'll look into the high power screen.

And about these grey screens... is that mostly for non light controlled rooms, or does that work equally well from someone like me who has a dark room but has a larger screen size in mind than typical?First, an important point: the High Power is retroflective meaning it reflects light given to it back in the same direction from which is came instead of just scattering that light about the room. The downside of this is that viewers off to the side, or more off the projector-screen axis, don't get as much light as they would with a unity gain white screen. Second, 2.8 to 3 gain is what the High Power will give if the light source is just right above your head and (just about always) behind you. (It's hard to imagine a sane setup that includes the projector installed just above the viewer's head height and in front of the viewer. A Pearl sitting on a coffee table in front of the viewer is more likely but look at the table below very carefully to see what happens.) Here's a table of viewing angle and associated gain with the High Power:

Off axis (The angle between your eyes and the projector) --- Gain
0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.1
5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.5
10 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.05
15 (coffee table installation?)------------------------------------------------ 1.4
20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- .95
25 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- .8
30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- just above .7
35 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- just below .7
40 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- .65
45 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- just above .6
50 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - .6
55 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- .58
60 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - .57

Moral of this table: Do not use the High Power if you have a high ceiling and plan on installing the Pearl or any other <1000 lumen advertised pj hugged to the ceiling.

You do not want to go back too far with the Pearl unless you want contrast over brightness given how those attributes change with zoom used. The Pearl needs to be as close to the screen as possible with the zoom fully maxed to give the brightest image possible of some 700+ lumens at around 10000 CR with autoiris. Check out Jason Turk's review to get more exact numbers.

So, you'd have to have the Pearl on a shelf or hung from a long ceiling mount in order for it to be right behind the viewers and just above head height. Note that some home theater owners don't like the idea of viewers standing up and having their shadow disturbing the projected image on the screen with this setup. I feel this is a small pain for high gain.

Which gets us to your question of whether you'll need 2.8 gain. The Pearl will end up putting out somewhere around 300 lumens at end of bulb life if you use a minimum zoom. Little can be done about a too-dim projector except the use of a higher gain screen or concentrating light by shrinking your image by moving the pj closer to the screen and then moving your chairs closer if you want to maintain your field of view. If you find a pj with an iris too bright you can reduce the aperature of the iris to make it dimmer. You might resort to a dimming neutral density filter. One of the few disadvantages to a bright image is that all the warts of bad sources: pixelation, macroblocking, bad edge enhancement, etc. etc., will be more evident. But, again, you can always make it dimmer.

You don't need a gray screen with the Pearl, IMO, although Stewart and Sony have joined to make their Firehawk SST that can be had for thousands of dollars. They say it is specially made for SXRDs such as the Pearl to provide a really good picture. They say it has some kind of special coating to maximize the benefits of 1080p. The Pearl and the Firehawk SST combo did look very good at CEDIA. But, until proven otherwise, and IMHO, unless you have an environment that will result in a fair amount of extraneous light getting back to the screen, that FH SST will not be worth it. To ramble on about your more typical gray screens and to summarize and simplify, they are generally lower gain and that obviously translates into a less bright overall image. A less bright overall image means less light to your eyes but also less to reflect off light-colored couches and walls and floor and ceiling in your room which then means less light to get back into darker parts of the image on the screen. End result: blacks on the screen look less gray. Grey screens were devised in large part to assist projectors with low contrast and mediocre black levels. The Pearl is not one of those. There is no reason to use anything but a white screen in a light controlled non-reflective environment with a high contrast projector.

Dan

buy yourself a Marquee 9500LC with a moome card for the encrypted stuff and you will be amazed! (I assure you!!!)

It will last much longer and there will be now bulb buying every few thousand hours...not to mention how much better contrast and other PQ stuff would be

Martin

We are talking about a transition to get us through the next five years to the next technology (SED ?) with 100,000 CR.

I can buy a 9500LC ($10,000) with new tubes. CR - 30,000, lumens - 350.

-or-

I can buy a Pearl ($4300 including extra lamp). CR - 10,000, lumens - 700.

IMO a perfect 'fade to black' is not worth $5700 and 50% lower lumens.

You forgot the monst important thing too, the size of the beast involved. At least if my mount fails on the digital my head hurts a lot. With the marquee you die instantly.

Dan,
Would you consider the Carada Brilliant White screen to be a good match for the pearl?

Dan,
Would you consider the Carada Brilliant White screen to be a good match for the pearl?

The Carada BW is very similar to the ST130 -- just a hair dimmer, but otherwise just as accurate in the reproduction of colors. If your screen size is under 100 inches, to me the BW is an excellent choice for a totally light controlled environment with dark colored walls.

I can buy a 9500LC ($10,000) with new tubes. CR - 30,000, lumens - 350.


The On/Off CR of a properly set up 9500LC is on the order of 8000 or so, and it's ANSI CR is quite low.

Let's get real. A single LED in the back of your theater, 20 feet from the screen, can illuminate the screen enough to lower the CR to something like 3000. I don't remember the numbers any more but I've actually measured this.

Extreme CR numbers seem to be the "holy grail" around here and there is *so* much more to making a great picture! This reminds me of the hype about progressive scan...

Not to mention us apartment dwellers appreciate the ease of placeing a digital projector.

God bless lens shift.

The On/Off CR of a properly set up 9500LC is on the order of 8000 or so, and it's ANSI CR is quite low.

Let's get real. A single LED in the back of your theater, 20 feet from the screen, can illuminate the screen enough to lower the CR to something like 3000. I don't remember the numbers any more but I've actually measured this.

Extreme CR numbers seem to be the "holy grail" around here and there is *so* much more to making a great picture! This reminds me of the hype about progressive scan...

I would appreciate it if you could give us a rank order list of those factors you consider most important in making a great picture. Many of us don't live close enough to large cities to evaluate several projectors, and often even if we do they aren't set up properly. What things should we be looking for in reviews to indicate certain projectors are worth taking a closer look at?

First, an important point: the High Power is retroflective meaning it reflects light given to it back in the same direction from which is came instead of just scattering that light about the room. The downside of this is that viewers off to the side, or more off the projector-screen axis, don't get as much light as they would with a unity gain white screen. Second, 2.8 to 3 gain is what the High Power will give if the light source is just right above your head and (just about always) behind you. (It's hard to imagine a sane setup that includes the projector installed just above the viewer's head height and in front of the viewer. A Pearl sitting on a coffee table in front of the viewer is more likely but look at the table below very carefully to see what happens.) Here's a table of viewing angle and associated gain with the High Power:

Off axis (The angle between your eyes and the projector) --- Gain
0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.1
5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.5
10 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.05
15 (coffee table installation?)------------------------------------------------ 1.4
20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- .95
25 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- .8
30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- just above .7
35 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- just below .7
40 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- .65
45 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- just above .6
50 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - .6
55 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- .58
60 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - .57

Moral of this table: Do not use the High Power if you have a high ceiling and plan on installing the Pearl or any other <1000 lumen advertised pj hugged to the ceiling.

You do not want to go back too far with the Pearl unless you want contrast over brightness given how those attributes change with zoom used. The Pearl needs to be as close to the screen as possible with the zoom fully maxed to give the brightest image possible of some 700+ lumens at around 10000 CR with autoiris. Check out Jason Turk's review to get more exact numbers.

So, you'd have to have the Pearl on a shelf or hung from a long ceiling mount in order for it to be right behind the viewers and just above head height. Note that some home theater owners don't like the idea of viewers standing up and having their shadow disturbing the projected image on the screen with this setup. I feel this is a small pain for high gain.

Which gets us to your question of whether you'll need 2.8 gain. The Pearl will end up putting out somewhere around 300 lumens at end of bulb life if you use a minimum zoom. Little can be done about a too-dim projector except the use of a higher gain screen or concentrating light by shrinking your image by moving the pj closer to the screen and then moving your chairs closer if you want to maintain your field of view. If you find a pj with an iris too bright you can reduce the aperature of the iris to make it dimmer. You might resort to a dimming neutral density filter. One of the few disadvantages to a bright image is that all the warts of bad sources: pixelation, macroblocking, bad edge enhancement, etc. etc., will be more evident. But, again, you can always make it dimmer.

You don't need a gray screen with the Pearl, IMO, although Stewart and Sony have joined to make their Firehawk SST that can be had for thousands of dollars. They say it is specially made for SXRDs such as the Pearl to provide a really good picture. They say it has some kind of special coating to maximize the benefits of 1080p. The Pearl and the Firehawk SST combo did look very good at CEDIA. But, until proven otherwise, and IMHO, unless you have an environment that will result in a fair amount of extraneous light getting back to the screen, that FH SST will not be worth it. To ramble on about your more typical gray screens and to summarize and simplify, they are generally lower gain and that obviously translates into a less bright overall image. A less bright overall image means less light to your eyes but also less to reflect off light-colored couches and walls and floor and ceiling in your room which then means less light to get back into darker parts of the image on the screen. End result: blacks on the screen look less gray. Grey screens were devised in large part to assist projectors with low contrast and mediocre black levels. The Pearl is not one of those. There is no reason to use anything but a white screen in a light controlled non-reflective environment with a high contrast projector.

Dan

Dan, I just wanted to chime in and say thank you for taking the time to put these thoughts and concepts out there for us. It is a brilliant post and addresses most of the screen questions I had surrounding my anticipated purchase of this projector.

Can someone give me the link to Jason Turk's review of the Pearl mentioned by DRAPP? Thanks.

First, an important point: the High Power is retroflective meaning it reflects light given to it back in the same direction from which is came instead of just scattering that light about the room. The downside of this is that viewers off to the side, or more off the projector-screen axis, don't get as much light as they would with a unity gain white screen. Second, 2.8 to 3 gain is what the High Power will give if the light source is just right above your head and (just about always) behind you. (It's hard to imagine a sane setup that includes the projector installed just above the viewer's head height and in front of the viewer. A Pearl sitting on a coffee table in front of the viewer is more likely but look at the table below very carefully to see what happens.) Here's a table of viewing angle and associated gain with the High Power:

Off axis (The angle between your eyes and the projector) --- Gain
0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.1
5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.5
10 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.05
15 (coffee table installation?)------------------------------------------------ 1.4
20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- .95
25 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- .8
30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- just above .7
35 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- just below .7
40 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- .65
45 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- just above .6
50 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - .6
55 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- .58
60 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - .57

Moral of this table: Do not use the High Power if you have a high ceiling and plan on installing the Pearl or any other <1000 lumen advertised pj hugged to the ceiling.

You do not want to go back too far with the Pearl unless you want contrast over brightness given how those attributes change with zoom used. The Pearl needs to be as close to the screen as possible with the zoom fully maxed to give the brightest image possible of some 700+ lumens at around 10000 CR with autoiris. Check out Jason Turk's review to get more exact numbers.

So, you'd have to have the Pearl on a shelf or hung from a long ceiling mount in order for it to be right behind the viewers and just above head height. Note that some home theater owners don't like the idea of viewers standing up and having their shadow disturbing the projected image on the screen with this setup. I feel this is a small pain for high gain.

Which gets us to your question of whether you'll need 2.8 gain. The Pearl will end up putting out somewhere around 300 lumens at end of bulb life if you use a minimum zoom. Little can be done about a too-dim projector except the use of a higher gain screen or concentrating light by shrinking your image by moving the pj closer to the screen and then moving your chairs closer if you want to maintain your field of view. If you find a pj with an iris too bright you can reduce the aperature of the iris to make it dimmer. You might resort to a dimming neutral density filter. One of the few disadvantages to a bright image is that all the warts of bad sources: pixelation, macroblocking, bad edge enhancement, etc. etc., will be more evident. But, again, you can always make it dimmer.

You don't need a gray screen with the Pearl, IMO, although Stewart and Sony have joined to make their Firehawk SST that can be had for thousands of dollars. They say it is specially made for SXRDs such as the Pearl to provide a really good picture. They say it has some kind of special coating to maximize the benefits of 1080p. The Pearl and the Firehawk SST combo did look very good at CEDIA. But, until proven otherwise, and IMHO, unless you have an environment that will result in a fair amount of extraneous light getting back to the screen, that FH SST will not be worth it. To ramble on about your more typical gray screens and to summarize and simplify, they are generally lower gain and that obviously translates into a less bright overall image. A less bright overall image means less light to your eyes but also less to reflect off light-colored couches and walls and floor and ceiling in your room which then means less light to get back into darker parts of the image on the screen. End result: blacks on the screen look less gray. Grey screens were devised in large part to assist projectors with low contrast and mediocre black levels. The Pearl is not one of those. There is no reason to use anything but a white screen in a light controlled non-reflective environment with a high contrast projector.

Dan

God I'm impressed.

I was looking at the Da-Light Model C (or comparible fixed frame model), with the Spectra Vision 1.5. It claims a wider viewing angle than the High Power, so I assume more reflective at an agle. I Thought maybe this would give me more even brightness and contrast accross the screen at slight angles, say the left and right side of a large 3 person counch. Currently the couch is about 13 feet "front of couch to wall". So I imagine that puts my eyes around 14 or so feet to the wall. It can easily be moved forward or backwards of course depending on the final mounting of the projector. Trying to find the right compromise here. 20-30 degrees viewing offset could be realistic in my room, with some viewers having to be relegated to the floor and off to the side depending on the number of them :p

It says the Video Spectra™ 1.5 has a viewing angle of 35 degrees with a gain of 1.5. So I was hoping to get a bit better brightness and contrast at 30 degress than with the High Power. I hoped 1.5 gain would be enough, in a light controlled environment, with the projector 16 feet back, lense to screen...

By light controlled, I mean almost pitch black, or the lights dimmed 50% for video game playing.

I could move the projector to 15 feet (instead of 17) and maybe that's a good idea, I read that contrast could be improved by moving it back, but since the constrast level is already so good, maybe there is no reason to move it back so far. 15 feet would put it just slightly behind my head. My Ceiling is baout 7.5 feet high.

phew...

What do you think of this Video Spectra 1.5 in this configuration? I'm wondering if this screen, with the projector at 15 feet, wouldn't give me good results. But of course you will probably have some more great information :)

Again, some really good information. I hope others are benifiting from this query.

Can someone give me the link to Jason Turk's review of the Pearl mentioned by DRAPP? Thanks.

He mentioned the Pearl briefly in his 'Day 1 report from CEDIA', but I don't think has done his full review of it yet.

He mentioned the Pearl briefly in his 'Day 1 report from CEDIA', but I don't think has done his full review of it yet.

The only review I've seen so far was at:

http://cine4home.com/reviews/projectors/SonyVPLVW50/VPLVW50Review.htm

It was enough to convince me to be in this thread :p

Currently I use a 50" Samsung RPTV with a claimed static contrast of 3000:1 with the newer color wheel that improves greys (I think).

I got spoiled by the constrast of this thing, all things being relative, so I'm hoping that the Pearl being my first rear projector that it will blow my samsung out of the water. Well it's pretty likely it will if all the hype and specs are true.

I can't afford the best, but to improve on what I have would be nice.

-James

Hello All,

I need some help from the experts here. I recently purchased a 46 inch XBR2 Bravia from a local retailer for about 1000 below retail and I really enjoy the set. All this talk about the pearl though has me wondering if I shouldn't upgrade to that. My situation is as follows:

Light Controlled Den, slight ambient light during the day.
Possibly moving from my home to a condo or townhouse.
Would be using it as a primary display for TV, gaming and movies.

Do you think it would work for me, or should I keep my Bravia? TIA.

I would appreciate it if you could give us a rank order list of those factors you consider most important in making a great picture. Many of us don't live close enough to large cities to evaluate several projectors, and often even if we do they aren't set up properly. What things should we be looking for in reviews to indicate certain projectors are worth taking a closer look at?

In my opinion, order of importance,

1) Good blacks
2) Contrasty image
3) Correct saturation (but slightly under is better than slightly over)
4) Accurate colorimetry
5) Picture resolution

First, an important point: the High Power is retroflective meaning it reflects light given to it back in the same direction from which is came instead of just scattering that light about the room. The downside of this is that viewers off to the side, or more off the projector-screen axis, don't get as much light as they would with a unity gain white screen. Second, 2.8 to 3 gain is what the High Power will give if the light source is just right above your head and (just about always) behind you. (It's hard to imagine a sane setup that includes the projector installed just above the viewer's head height and in front of the viewer. A Pearl sitting on a coffee table in front of the viewer is more likely but look at the table below very carefully to see what happens.) Here's a table of viewing angle and associated gain with the High Power:

Off axis (The angle between your eyes and the projector) --- Gain
0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.1
5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.5
10 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.05
15 (coffee table installation?)------------------------------------------------ 1.4
20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- .95
25 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- .8
30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- just above .7
35 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- just below .7
40 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- .65
45 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- just above .6
50 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - .6
55 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- .58
60 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - .57

Moral of this table: Do not use the High Power if you have a high ceiling and plan on installing the Pearl or any other <1000 lumen advertised pj hugged to the ceiling.

You do not want to go back too far with the Pearl unless you want contrast over brightness given how those attributes change with zoom used. The Pearl needs to be as close to the screen as possible with the zoom fully maxed to give the brightest image possible of some 700+ lumens at around 10000 CR with autoiris. Check out Jason Turk's review to get more exact numbers.

So, you'd have to have the Pearl on a shelf or hung from a long ceiling mount in order for it to be right behind the viewers and just above head height. Note that some home theater owners don't like the idea of viewers standing up and having their shadow disturbing the projected image on the screen with this setup. I feel this is a small pain for high gain.

Which gets us to your question of whether you'll need 2.8 gain. The Pearl will end up putting out somewhere around 300 lumens at end of bulb life if you use a minimum zoom. Little can be done about a too-dim projector except the use of a higher gain screen or concentrating light by shrinking your image by moving the pj closer to the screen and then moving your chairs closer if you want to maintain your field of view. If you find a pj with an iris too bright you can reduce the aperature of the iris to make it dimmer. You might resort to a dimming neutral density filter. One of the few disadvantages to a bright image is that all the warts of bad sources: pixelation, macroblocking, bad edge enhancement, etc. etc., will be more evident. But, again, you can always make it dimmer.

You don't need a gray screen with the Pearl, IMO, although Stewart and Sony have joined to make their Firehawk SST that can be had for thousands of dollars. They say it is specially made for SXRDs such as the Pearl to provide a really good picture. They say it has some kind of special coating to maximize the benefits of 1080p. The Pearl and the Firehawk SST combo did look very good at CEDIA. But, until proven otherwise, and IMHO, unless you have an environment that will result in a fair amount of extraneous light getting back to the screen, that FH SST will not be worth it. To ramble on about your more typical gray screens and to summarize and simplify, they are generally lower gain and that obviously translates into a less bright overall image. A less bright overall image means less light to your eyes but also less to reflect off light-colored couches and walls and floor and ceiling in your room which then means less light to get back into darker parts of the image on the screen. End result: blacks on the screen look less gray. Grey screens were devised in large part to assist projectors with low contrast and mediocre black levels. The Pearl is not one of those. There is no reason to use anything but a white screen in a light controlled non-reflective environment with a high contrast projector.

Dan

Lots of good information here... but where did this data come from / how was it measured? I assumed that since da-light listed a 25 deg. viewing angle for this screen, it was 25 degress for about half gain (or 1.4). Is that not correct?

I chose between a StudioTek 130 and a High Power. I am at very short throw and can do a low mount (59" IIRC; it is just above and behind my head). I chose the high power because, in my understanding, the StudioTek will tend to hotspot at very short throw (the Stewart guy said that, actually). Ambient light is a non-issue in this space.

Hello All,

I need some help from the experts here. I recently purchased a 46 inch XBR2 Bravia from a local retailer for about 1000 below retail and I really enjoy the set. All this talk about the pearl though has me wondering if I shouldn't upgrade to that. My situation is as follows:

Light Controlled Den, slight ambient light during the day.
Possibly moving from my home to a condo or townhouse.
Would be using it as a primary display for TV, gaming and movies.

Do you think it would work for me, or should I keep my Bravia? TIA.


Well, if you have the space, bigger is usually better. That said, based solely on early reviews and specs, the Pearl might not be bright enough to make you happy if you have (or want) some ambient light in the room. You might want to consider something like the new Panny AX100 (review (http://www.projectorreviews.com/Manufacturers/panasonic/PT-AX100U/index.asp) ). It's not 1080p, but it's a lot brighter than the Pearl - which will probably mean more to you with some ambient light around than resolution does. Plus, it's only $2k. Just a thought...

Best of luck.

-tony

Tbacos, thanks for the feedback!

Does anyone have any recommendations yet on a ceiling mount for the Pearl? The Sony factory piece seems very expensive. Thanks .

I have an amazing ceiling mount courtesy of Home Depot and some tools

Screw the PJ into a Piece of wood
attach the piece of wood to four long 3 foot rods
attach rods to a mirror piece of wood on the cieling

Total flexibility
About $40
Ugly as hell - works like a dream :-)

Rob

I took some measurements in my theater and wonder if the Pearl will be a drop-in replacement for my current projector.

The screen is 110" diagonal with the top of the screen 7'7"" off the floor
The current projector is mounted to a "box" that hangs from the ceiling about 11' from the screen. The bottom of the "box" is 9' 4" off the floor.

I suppose I can mount the Pearl about 5" further back on the box and it should be the correct distance from the screen. Is there any mounting hardware included with the Pearl or do I still need to shop around for a bracket?

John

Does anyone have any recommendations yet on a ceiling mount for the Pearl? The Sony factory piece seems very expensive. Thanks .

I didn't know what to order so I went ahead and ordered an Omni PMD-1 Universal Projector Mount rated for 30lbs., adjustable 12" to 18".

Under $150, I figured what's the worst that could happen... Don't answer that. if worse comes to worse I can buy something better.

I am not recommending this mount and I may suffer for purchasing it, but there was one site that was recommended it as an accessory with the Pearl so I figured I'de give it a shot.

For those of you who bought the pearl. How far is your HDMI cable run from the projector to your source? What's the max cable length? Can I use an HDMI switcher if I have more than 2 HDMI sources. Which HDMI switcher you using? Thanks.

-twelly

35 feet, here, from my switch to the projector. Devices into the switch are separated from it by 6 foot cables. I'm using a Outlaw pre-pro which has a DVI switch, which could introduce problems but doesn't seem to. Bottom line: What you read elsewhere on this forum about cable lengths and switches will apply to your use of the Pearl: Its HDMI functionality appears to operate well. So you are likely to find lots of great info by searching for "HDMI switch".

I have 20' HDMI run to my HS20 (pearl tomorrow, yay!), no problems there but I have 2 HDMI runs at 50' to a plasma in the living room and I will say from experience that cheap cables make the pq quality suffer! I ended with RAM cables which was a night and day difference from the cheap monoprice cables.

Mike

night and day difference

Looked like? Except when a cable run is so long and/or of such cheap cable that there are sparklies in the signal (or worse) I've yet to be able to see anything subtly different between HDMI and DVI cables. Is that works/doesn't work difference the night/day difference you are talking about?

I have 20' HDMI run to my HS20 (pearl tomorrow, yay!), no problems there but I have 2 HDMI runs at 50' to a plasma in the living room and I will say from experience that cheap cables make the pq quality suffer! I ended with RAM cables which was a night and day difference from the cheap monoprice cables.

Mike

For the longer runs, the guage of the cable becomes very important. RAM sells only 25 guage AFAIK and only up to 30 feet. Monoprice has a 22 guage cable and in a fifty footer.

If the cable is insufficient, there will either be no signal or sparklies in the image. There will be no subjective differences between HDMI/DVI cables.

I have 20' HDMI run to my HS20 (pearl tomorrow, yay!), no problems there but I have 2 HDMI runs at 50' to a plasma in the living room and I will say from experience that cheap cables make the pq quality suffer! I ended with RAM cables which was a night and day difference from the cheap monoprice cables.

Mike

The monoprice 50' HDMI cable works perfectly. I have a RAM also. No difference between the two - other than the RAM cost twice as much.

The monoprice 50' HDMI cable works perfectly. I have a RAM also. No difference between the two - other than the RAM cost twice as much.

Does the RAM come in a 22g version? It makes it appear that they only offer 25g on their website. Anyway, assuming they are both 22g, I'd certainly agree.

My cables where made to 50' lenght with RAM's custom order. When I bought the MonoPrice cables they did not advertise on the forum and their cables where 28 gauge, not 22 gauge.

The main difference was lack of color, the picture looked dindgy. It was a HUGE difference between the RAM and MonoPrice. Component actually looked better than the cheap HDMI.

Mike

For the longer runs, the guage of the cable becomes very important. RAM sells only 25 guage AFAIK and only up to 30 feet. Monoprice has a 22 guage cable and in a fifty footer.

If the cable is insufficient, there will either be no signal or sparklies in the image. There will be no subjective differences between HDMI/DVI cables.

Lots of good information here... but where did this data come from / how was it measured? I assumed that since da-light listed a 25 deg. viewing angle for this screen, it was 25 degress for about half gain (or 1.4). Is that not correct?

I chose between a StudioTek 130 and a High Power. I am at very short throw and can do a low mount (59" IIRC; it is just above and behind my head). I chose the high power because, in my understanding, the StudioTek will tend to hotspot at very short throw (the Stewart guy said that, actually). Ambient light is a non-issue in this space.That table comes from data not generated by me, but from a thread in which, IIRC, darinp posted and was generated from someone he knew. I don't know that the data has been questioned but it more or less matches my personal experience.

I tell you the following just to give an idea of how these figures translate to observed brightness and real-life quandries. In my setup where I sit on a couch (15 ft away from the 116" wide screen) that holds three people, brightness is best at center but still good for anyone on the couch and drops off just a bit for those immediately below and in front of the couch on love sac-like chairs. If I stand up right in front of the couch I see a perceptible brightness dropoff and standing immediately beside the couch the image begins to look flat and dim. I really disliked having a ceiling mounted BenQ 8700 with the High Power because I'd notice a really bright picture just while standing, just before I sat down when it'd then go perceptibly dimmer. (So, I used the pj tilt / screen countertilt method with the BenQ right behind my viewing position. It worked but it was kind of annoying to have to do and I didn't have a rigidly framed High Power so it sagged just a little bit and the unusual looking setup led to questions from guests and sometimes derisive comments from family, and so on... :rolleyes: Now you know why I like lens-shift featured pjs so much.) This brightness cone is a real issue if your audience will be dispersed throughout your viewing area and if they are discerning viewers. Guests haven't complained but do see the differences when pointed out.

You'll see all this for yourself when you get the High Power. It sounds like you've got the setup for maximum brightness.

Dan

Hmmm. Yes, these observations mesh with my experience, as well.

(Which is why, since my Pearl is brighter than my previous projector, I'm looking to get rid of my 92inch diag 16x9 retractible and either cheap out by trading it with someone who has a da-lite pulldown screen with the gray base, or sell it and put the money towards buying a used retractible firehawk of the same size.)

the main difference was lack of color

No sparklies or HDCP errors, nothing to indicate a conventional data problem? Just some feature that was changing the digital data to wash out the color?

I good hdmi cable is all thats needed. i have had no problem with the monoprice cable. they have a $50 50 foot cable and a $96 50 foot cable. The $96 is huge and puts out a great image. i am not sure why you would get sparkles unless your component is not putting out a strong enough signal to push through the 50foot cable.
Todd

I cannot explain the reasons why with any kind of accuracy. My thoughts come down to the cable construction or lack there of i.e. shielding, twisting, impedance, who knows.
This is a connector not with 2 conductors but with 19 that handle different data. Some color information in the video signal was being discarded with the 28awg Monoprice, brightness (luma) information also.


Example:
http://www.hcm.hitachi.com/electronic_round_cable/images/HDMI_cable.jpg
^^Good Construction above^^

http://webbuilder2.asiannet.com/ftp/1348/hii_scsic.gif
^^Generic Construction^^ not to say this was the early style cable used from MonoPrice

Back on Topic please.
Mike


No sparklies or HDCP errors, nothing to indicate a conventional data problem? Just some feature that was changing the digital data to wash out the color?

i got the 22gauge monoprice 50 foot hdmi cable. it is huge. you really have to make a big hole to run that baby through the wall.

No sparklies or HDCP errors, nothing to indicate a conventional data problem? Just some feature that was changing the digital data to wash out the color?


One theory I have is that the magic data pixes were changing the 1s and 0s without actually changing packet headers and horking the connection. Another theory is that the 1's were having trouble fitting through the narrower gauage cable, while the 0's just rolled right through. But that's just a theory. ;)

Seriously though, this a digital connection. If you have a picture without obvious dropouts, you have the whole picture. If there are data drop outs, you will start losing chunks of image, such as partial, and even whole frames. It's not the same as a YPbPr analog connection where the image can degrade.

Example:
http://www.hcm.hitachi.com/electronic_round_cable/images/HDMI_cable.jpg
^^Good Construction above^^

Looks like Hitachi (above) and MonoPrice may be using a very similar design, based on the diagrams on the MonoPrice site (http://www.monoprice.com/drawing/HDMI24TC.pdf).

That table comes from data not generated by me, but from a thread in which, IIRC, darinp posted and was generated from someone he knew. I don't know that the data has been questioned but it more or less matches my personal experience.

I tell you the following just to give an idea of how these figures translate to observed brightness and real-life quandries. In my setup where I sit on a couch (15 ft away from the 116" wide screen) that holds three people, brightness is best at center but still good for anyone on the couch and drops off just a bit for those immediately below and in front of the couch on love sac-like chairs. If I stand up right in front of the couch I see a perceptible brightness dropoff and standing immediately beside the couch the image begins to look flat and dim. I really disliked having a ceiling mounted BenQ 8700 with the High Power because I'd notice a really bright picture just while standing, just before I sat down when it'd then go perceptibly dimmer. (So, I used the pj tilt / screen countertilt method with the BenQ right behind my viewing position. It worked but it was kind of annoying to have to do and I didn't have a rigidly framed High Power so it sagged just a little bit and the unusual looking setup led to questions from guests and sometimes derisive comments from family, and so on... :rolleyes: Now you know why I like lens-shift featured pjs so much.) This brightness cone is a real issue if your audience will be dispersed throughout your viewing area and if they are discerning viewers. Guests haven't complained but do see the differences when pointed out.

You'll see all this for yourself when you get the High Power. It sounds like you've got the setup for maximum brightness.

Dan

Is this the source of the graph?
At first I thought it was from dalite themselves, but maybe it's audiogeneral's own measurements.
http://www.audiogeneral.com/DaLite/gain_charts.html

i got the 22gauge monoprice 50 foot hdmi cable. it is huge. you really have to make a big hole to run that baby through the wall.

You'll be glad you have that fat cable when/if you ever try to run a 1080p signal. :) Even then it might not work over a 50 ft run, but I for one am crossing my fingers and hoping.

I am talking about the original offering from MP, that was 28awg. If cable construction does not make a difference then why does MP offer three different gauges for 25' i.e. 22awg, 24awg, and 26awg? Also why even bother with copper, tin, siver, or gold since digital is digital?

Bottom line, digital or not, I seen a big difference in pq and cannot explain the phenomena, I will not use those cables in my system again, especially after fishing it through the conduit only to remove it. I have one central A/V closet that feeds the whole house. Now I check any cable before its final install.

I am happy with my overpriced cables and equipment.

Mike

Looks like Hitachi (above) and MonoPrice may be using a very similar design, based on the diagrams on the MonoPrice site (http://www.monoprice.com/drawing/HDMI24TC.pdf).

I am talking about the original offering from MP, that was 28awg. If cable construction does not make a difference then why does MP offer three different gauges for 25' i.e. 22awg, 24awg, and 26awg? Also why even bother with copper, tin, siver, or gold since digital is digital?

Bottom line, digital or not, I seen a big difference in pq and cannot explain the phenomena, I will not use those cables in my system again, especially after fishing it through the conduit only to remove it. I have one central A/V closet that feeds the whole house. Now I check any cable before its final install.

I am happy with my overpriced cables and equipment.

Mike

The important thing is that you're happy!

If you have cables or connections of insufficient quality, you can get data dropouts. My only original point was that data dropouts from digital data are very noticable. For example, folks with the new optical disc players found that the handshake would sometimes not complete successfully with cheaper cables. You're just not going to see subtle image degradation if the connection is insufficient.

Hey, I bought the nice monoprice HDMI cable, not the cheapo ones. :=)

Howdy folks. I've been lurking here for a while and, based largely on the review at
cine4home I bought one. I just sparked it up tonight with a plain old composite source and I must say that I was not thrilled with the upconversion - slightly improved by turning de-interlacing off but not great. I should note that my comcast cable tv source may be lacking. Has anyone had similar lack of happiness with composite video? I'll tweak the thing out and calibrate it when I get a chance this week.
Also I make a living as a video engineer and projectionist so hit me with any questions. If you've seen any ESPN sportscenter show I did all the projection on that set (18 Barcos) I just got back from OLN (now VS) setting up the 2 projectors behind the anchors of their NHL studio.
sorry for rambling. I'll be back with lumen measurements and colorimetry. Color out of the box looks very good though.
I

Composite? What VGA wasn't available? You work in video and you are expecting a HD projector to provide excellent results via composite?

Why would anyone connect a cable box via composite? Shoot, people here are freaked if they can't do it via HDMI and are "downgraded" to mere component.

If you are only or primarily going to use a source connected via composite, I would imagine a TV from the corner store is the best friend to mate to.

As a mere consumer, I'm not clear why a video engineer would even consider such a setup.

I just sparked it up tonight with a plain old composite source and I must say that I was not thrilled with the upconversion - slightly improved by turning de-interlacing off but not great.

I watched one DVD on my Pearl and immediately knew you don't want to use anything less than HD and even some of that looks less than watchable. Move up to HD and don't ever look back.

Duane

Some DVDs look very good. Definitely, when using a SD source, it's best to use component cable, or s-video, rather than composite.

Definitely shines most with HD, for sure.

But the story with SD cable is: one cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear. Some CRTs are better at masking some problems in bad SD sources than the Pearl, for sure. But bad SD still looks bad, on any device.

Just to be clear, I'm not planning on setting this up with composite I simply spent 10 minutes wiring in a signal to check it out. Composite was what was handy.

While I'm thinking of it, does anyone have a favorite vender or manufacturer for HDMI cable ? I need the best stuff because my run is 40 feet. I've bought it from Gefen for work but I'm looking for somewhere cheaper.

try the best 50ft hdmi cable that monoprice.com has in stock/available. it may work fine. i've had good luck with their 35 ft hdmi cables (two runs) so long as i stick with the lowest guage/largest size.

Just to be clear, I'm not planning on setting this up with composite I simply spent 10 minutes wiring in a signal to check it out. Composite was what was handy.I was a little concerned. I shudder thinking of folks unwittingly using composite as their only input.

Dan

While I'm thinking of it, does anyone have a favorite vender or manufacturer for HDMI cable ? I need the best stuff because my run is 40 feet. I've bought it from Gefen for work but I'm looking for somewhere cheaper.
Philmore makes a 50' cable, with amplifier, for about half what Gefen charges.

Howdy folks. I've been lurking here for a while and, based largely on the review at
cine4home I bought one. I just sparked it up tonight with a plain old composite source and I must say that I was not thrilled with the upconversion - slightly improved by turning de-interlacing off but not great. I should note that my comcast cable tv source may be lacking. Has anyone had similar lack of happiness with composite video? I'll tweak the thing out and calibrate it when I get a chance this week.
Also I make a living as a video engineer and projectionist so hit me with any questions. If you've seen any ESPN sportscenter show I did all the projection on that set (18 Barcos) I just got back from OLN (now VS) setting up the 2 projectors behind the anchors of their NHL studio.
sorry for rambling. I'll be back with lumen measurements and colorimetry. Color out of the box looks very good though.
I


LOL... is this serious post? "SD TV through composte" :) The pearl is good but it can't perform miracles. Feed it HD through component and then check back.

I just have another couple of questions on HDMI cables.

1) Is it useful to run two cables? I suppose it helps avoid adding a switcher later.
2) How important is it to use the maximum thickness cable in a 35 ft run? The 24AWG looks thick enough to me.

John

Not sure which Pearl thread to post this in, but I'll give it a shot here.

I currently own a DWIN TV3e projector and am interested in the Pearl as I seem to be replacing my DWIN bulbs twice a year. At $450 a pop, the madness has to stop! The bulb recently went out and am putting off replacing the bulb as I think I'm going to upgrade and save the $450.

On to the real question. The Pearl would replace the DWIN at 16 feet from the screen. The screen is a Stewart StudioTek 130 and is 110". I saw the calculator on a previous post, but it was for the Ruby and not the pearl. According to the measurements, it says I would get 11 fLs out of that setup. It also states that "Recommended higher brightness. Reduce image size or increase screen gain."I have no idea what the ideal fL should be in a dedicated room with complete light control. Will the Pearl be enough at that distance? And is the StudioTek 130 acceptable to use with the Pearl? Maybe that's why my bulbs keep going out. I did have to up the brightness a bit, but it was calibrated correctly.

I just love the look of the SXRD sets that Sony is putting out. I have the 50" SXRD in my living room and think the picture is phenominal. I'm really wanting that look in my HT room.

Thanks for your help. I'm ready to get my theater room back up and functional! :D

On to the real question. The Pearl would replace the DWIN at 16 feet from the screen. The screen is a Stewart StudioTek 130 and is 110". I saw the calculator on a previous post, but it was for the Ruby and not the pearl. According to the measurements, it says I would get 11 fLs out of that setup.

I get over 20 ftl, using 36 sqft (110" diagonal, 16:9), 600 lumens (low estimate), and 1.3 gain. (600 * 1.3 / 36)

Marc

I just have another couple of questions on HDMI cables.

1) Is it useful to run two cables? I suppose it helps avoid adding a switcher later.
2) How important is it to use the maximum thickness cable in a 35 ft run? The 24AWG looks thick enough to me.

John

Even if you are only going to use one HDMI cable now, you'll be glad you have an extra in the future. Easier to do it now than later.

As long as you chose a good quality cable, 35ft should be fine. Avoid cheap and generic cables as you will run into all sorts of signal issues.

Good luck.

I just sparked it up tonight with a plain old composite source and I must say that I was not thrilled with the upconversion - slightly improved by turning de-interlacing off but not great. I should note that my comcast cable tv source may be lacking. Has anyone had similar lack of happiness with composite video?
I

These days, most display devices do not scale composite and s-video sources very well, heck some of them don't even do so well with component. If your video source does not match the native resolution of the display, you will fair much better with an outboard scaler. In your case if composite is your only source send the signal to a scaler capable of upconverting to 1080P output.

I just have another couple of questions on HDMI cables.

1) Is it useful to run two cables? I suppose it helps avoid adding a switcher later.
2) How important is it to use the maximum thickness cable in a 35 ft run? The 24AWG looks thick enough to me.

John

I'm using one of these from monoprice:


2742 Certified HDMI Cable male to male (24AWG) - 33ft (Gold-Plated and Supports 1080p)

and it works like a charm. It's being driven on the source end by a Pioneer VSX-84TXSi and feeding a Sony Pearl. I state this because many times it's the source HDMI driver chips that have issues...

I get over 20 ftl, using 36 sqft (110" diagonal, 16:9), 600 lumens (low estimate), and 1.3 gain. (600 * 1.3 / 36)

Marc

Marc, is that a good ftl reading? I need to read up on ftls and what the "norm" should be. The number I got was from the projector central calculator where it did the math based on my measurements and the Ruby (was told in another thread that it would be similar).

Thanks!

I am assuming high lamp, by the way. 20+ ftl is excellent for film, but some people want more... There aren't any right answers.

Marc

This is a double post from the poll thread, but I thought some people might be interesed in my observations, especially around inverse telecine.

I verified inverse telecine with test patterns. In film mode, the Pearl will do an inverse telecine of film source 3:2 video. Snap in is too quick for me to see (i.e. instantaneous). I recall that I could actually see the snap-in time with the Anthem D2; this is faster (to my recollection). The Pearl does not appear to correctly handle unusual cadences (such as from wonky edits), and that might cause very brief visual artifacts with some source.

Inverse telecine is a terrific and awesome feature; it is probably the only reason I would buy a video processor as 99.9% of what I watch is film sourced. Oh yeah -- this makes p24 output of future HD DVD and BD players absolutely moot (with this projector). You get the exact same, pixel for pixel image with any inverse telecine.

The hardest part of getting this thing setup was assembling my da-lite high power, and custom modifiying the frame in multiple different ways to actually get it work. Drilling and sawing at your new frame and screen is exciting. Da-lite needs to work on their QC (rant off).

Back to the Pearl:

Pros:
-- Plenty bright in high mode on a 106" diag screen (92" wide).
-- Does a proper inverse telecine of film-source video. Translation: turns i60 video into proper p24 film and displays at 96hz.
-- Looks great.
-- Out of box calibration is actually ball park close, but I haven't had a chance to verify with a colorimeter. I dumped 'wide' color space, and adjust hue and color a tiny bit.
-- Dynamic iris is much less noticable than the Ruby. I don't see it pumping, nor do I see obvious white crush.
-- Overall -- looks very good -- not as good as the Marantz S11, but 85% as good, for 25% as much, and no rainbows. :=)
-- From memory, it would fully resolve the 1 pixel Luma bursts. Vertical Chroma burst was good, it was juuuuust starting to fail with the horizontal Chroma burst. This is very, very good, but also pretty much what I expected.

Cons:
-- Red is .75 pixels mis converged downwards, but blue is on.
-- Right is slightly pink, left slightly blue, but white field uniformity is still better than my CRT, but this is still quite noticably off. I'm hoping this will improve as the bulb stabalizes, and I have a chance to do a grayscale calibration.
-- Lens adjustments via the remote have a bizarre delay on them, that makes it really hard to adjust stuff sometimes. It's wacky and irritating.
-- In low bulb mode, I get a loud buzz in my speakers. I think the problem is my PE amplifier (82 TSX); I'm much less impressed with it's quality than the 53 TSX I used to have.

Overall, I'm very impressed. This projector is great bang for the buck, and superior to the Ruby in some ways (notably video processing and dynamic iris).

I must admit that I am somewhat surprised by all the positive comments the Pearl is receiving in terms of its video processing abilities vs the Ruby. I thought that given the 50% price reduction from the Ruby, the Pearl was going to have some corners cut somewhere, and I thought the electronics/video processing would be one of those corners that was cut. Glad to see that this was apparently not the case.

I am assuming high lamp, by the way. 20+ ftl is excellent for film, but some people want more... There aren't any right answers.

Marc

Is running in high lamp mode a bad thing over time for the bulb? Compared to low lamp mode (assuming there is such a thing, or "normal") what is the bulb life expectancy of both modes? If I'm going to blow through a bulb in 500 hours in high lamp mode, I might as well look elsewhere.

Thanks for all of your help Marc.

Just got my Pearl hooked up last night. All I can say is that it looks very good shining on a white sheet. I am waiting for Jason to come here this weekend to install my screen and mount the Pearl in its final resting place. I have to say that it is awesome. can't wait to see the finished setup.

Is running in high lamp mode a bad thing over time for the bulb? Compared to low lamp mode (assuming there is such a thing, or "normal") what is the bulb life expectancy of both modes? If I'm going to blow through a bulb in 500 hours in high lamp mode, I might as well look elsewhere.

Thanks for all of your help Marc.

Chris, why are you so concerned with bulb life?

;)

Is running in high lamp mode a bad thing over time for the bulb? Compared to low lamp mode (assuming there is such a thing, or "normal") what is the bulb life expectancy of both modes? If I'm going to blow through a bulb in 500 hours in high lamp mode, I might as well look elsewhere.

Thanks for all of your help Marc.


IIRC it's 3000 hours in low and 2000 hours in high.

Dazzer

This should probably be a topic for another thread, if it isn't already, but I recently read an article on Sam Runco and the projector he is using in his house. It has a 1200 watt arc lamp but he is running it at a lower power than it is rated for. He claimed that doing so not only increases the lamp life but also the color temp consistency over the lifespan, a problem we have all encountered with these consumer projectors.

I wonder if this applies to the UHP and XENON lamps we have in our projectors?

This should probably be a topic for another thread, if it isn't already, but I recently read an article on Sam Runco and the projector he is using in his house. It has a 1200 watt arc lamp but he is running it at a lower power than it is rated for. He claimed that doing so not only increases the lamp life but also the color temp consistency over the lifespan, a problem we have all encountered with these consumer projectors.

I wonder if this applies to the USP and XENON lamps we have in our projectors?

I would love to be able to run my Pearls lamp at something lower than the low setting. I'm using an ND2 filter, and would much rather dial down the lamp, instead. (Note, this is with a Hi Power 92 diag screen, so getting a 1.4 gain screen would be a great option, if I had a room with fewer reflective surfaces.)

I just ordered a Pearl from AVS (aren't they the greatest? :cool: ). I plan to project this onto a DIY 110" Diag Screen. I currently have an old but trusy Epson TW100 that I am trying to sell that now. I'm hoping that the image will be a lot brighter and sharper than the TW100. Hopefully I will get the unit sometime next week.

Also, I am new to lens shift. Does the Pearl support shifting the picture vertically in both directions. If so, how far can I shift the image up or down. I am hoping to mount it flush to the drop ceiling and shifting the picture down.

I don't think I'll be able to sleep until I get my new baby.:D

did any of you manage to test the 48hz out of hdmi ?
or for example 24p through a Lumagen HDQ Video-processor/Scaler ?

I tried 1080p24 thru a VP50 and it's pretty damn sweet:D I used a Sony 975V 480i HDMI DVD player as the transport.

did any of you manage to test the 48hz out of hdmi ?
or for example 24p through a Lumagen HDQ Video-processor/Scaler ?

I've been watching at 1080p24fps DVI out from my HTPC. It works well and is registered correctly by the TV as 1080p24.

Note that I see the same slight tearing across the bottom that another user noted, when viewing 24fps material from an outboard scaler.... so this may be a problem with the TV, not with the way my HTPC and his scaler are set up. Still doing some testing. Anyone else see this?

---

My video card cannot output 48hz easily, so I haven't tested that.

Yes, I've seen the tearing too. I just pause the movie, then restart and it seems to clear it up:)

Yes, I've seen the tearing too. I just pause the movie, then restart and it seems to clear it up:)

Watching Inside Man on DVD two days ago, the tearing was so frequent, I actually switch the HTPC to 60hz...

Last night, wathing "Thank you for smoking", the tearing was less frequent, so I just put up with it.

I'll have to try this solution, next time, but even in Thank you for Smoking I would have been pausing the movie every two minutes... are you seeing it that frequently?

No, the only time I saw it was when I was testing and I would chapter skip and it seemed to lose the frame cadence.

That may be why some tear more than others. It may depend on the quality of the edit.

You may need a scaler that locks the cadence better than an HTPC.

actually i'm thinking of pluging a lumagen hdq between my future EX1 and Pearl ;)
but the 1080p24 output is not enabled yet with the last firmware ... :(
but 1080p48 is working, that's why I'm asking if the Pearl can accept 1080p48 thru hdmi :)

Yes, I've seen the tearing too. I just pause the movie, then restart and it seems to clear it up:)
Are you implying that the tearing on 1080p24 is caused by the VP50, and not by the Pearl?

In my case, I briefly tested 1080p24 from a VP30, which is similar to the VP50, and I always saw tearing at about 5% from the bottom edge of the image. I was not able to determine if it was caused by the VP30 or by the Pearl, since I did not have any other display on hand that could accept 1080p24.

...but 1080p48 is working, that's why I'm asking if the Pearl can accept 1080p48 thru hdmi :)

Yes, it can accept 1080p48. I've tried it. For some reason it looked softer than 24 though:rolleyes:

Are you implying that the tearing on 1080p24 is caused by the VP50, and not by the Pearl?

In my case, I briefly tested 1080p24 from a VP30, which is similar to the VP50, and I always saw tearing at about 5% from the bottom edge of the image. I was not able to determine if it was caused by the VP30 or by the Pearl, since I did not have any other display on hand that could accept 1080p24.

I'm not implying anything and if I remember right it did it thru the Ruby too, so it may well be the DVDO's (Maybe I am implying it;)!!!). I tried it with a VP30 also and I think I remember the same result.

I was told by ABT yesterday that a new FW is close and that it addresses some 24Hz issues as well as some "other" surprises:D!!!

Yes, it can accept 1080p48. I've tried it. For some reason it looked softer than 24 though:rolleyes:

may I ask with what source ?

DVDO VP-50

I'm not implying anything and if I remember right it did it thru the Ruby too, so it may well be the DVDO's (Maybe I am implying it;)!!!). I tried it with a VP30 also and I think I remember the same result.
I thought the Ruby could not accept 1080p24. The one that I saw did not accept it, although it accepted 1080p48.

Do some Ruby units accept 1080p24? Do they have newer firmware perhaps?

I'm sorry. I guess I confused a few people including myself.:confused:

I was talking about 1080p48 when referring to the Ruby and both formats (24 & 48) when referring to the Pearl.

I think I remember seeing the tearing with both 24 and 48 Hz thru the DVDO's.

I was told by ABT yesterday that a new FW is close and that it addresses some 24Hz issues as well as some "other" surprises:D!!!

Is this a DVDO firmware upgrade, or a Sony firmware upgrade?

Interested in buying one of these, trying to find a place that would take in a trade on a minit HS51 with low hours... PM me if anyone knows of a decent place. Thanks!!!

Is this a DVDO firmware upgrade, or a Sony firmware upgrade?

ABT (Anchor Bay Technologies) makes the DVDO VP50.

On to the real question. The Pearl would replace the DWIN at 16 feet from the screen. The screen is a Stewart StudioTek 130 and is 110". I saw the calculator on a previous post, but it was for the Ruby and not the pearl. According to the measurements, it says I would get 11 fLs out of that setup. It also states that "Recommended higher brightness. Reduce image size or increase screen gain."I have no idea what the ideal fL should be in a dedicated room with complete light control.

16 fLs is minimum spec I beleive for theater houses but of course some come in less then that with 11-12 being some of the bad ones out there. However the better theaters get 20 to 22 fLs so I would say if you can get in the 16 to 22 fLs range you are in the ball park for as good as the movie theaters are putting out and should be more then happy with your setup.

A suggestion to the HTPC users: try setting the frame rate to 23.976 if you can (maybe using powerstrip, etc?).

Film rate is nominally ~23.976. In the course of two minutes if your frame rate is really exactly 24fps, you will lose 3 frames, or if your software is smart enough to figure out the frame rate difference it will skip during at least 3 frames in the two minute period. 3 frames at ~24fps is about a 125ms desync, which is slightly noticeable. This may not be the issue, but worth testing.

The spec for digital theater is 12fl, and film is 12 to 16FL - 16 being the FL without film in the gate, and 12 with. I believe most movie theaters have less than that as they dim the lamp to save electricity and prolong lamp life. In a totaly darkened room, 9fl is fine, though I have seen moves as low as 4FL which is surprisingly watchable.

For DLP I prefer around 9FL as it mutes artefacts (if they are there) and image noise. The brighter you go, the more noise becomes visible. Of course with HD that may be a moot point.

Gary

nVidia appears to have native support for this, and when one choose 24hz, it is actually the slightly slower rate that it uses.

Some good reading on foot-Lamberts here:
http://www.runco.com/csms.html

"The method of measurement known as foot-Lamberts, is a measurement related to the brightness of a particular image and is equal to 1 lumen per sq. foot of screen surface. A Spectral Radiometer is required to perform this measurement. The SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) specification for a film-type movie theater is a minimum of 16 foot-Lamberts of brightness.

As research by Lucasfilm Ltd’s, Theater Alignment Program has determined, movie theaters typically struggle or fail to achieve this brightness specification, even with the high wattage lamps in their film projectors. Since the screen size is generally much smaller for Home Theater™, it is possible to consistently achieve 16 foot-Lamberts and most of the time much higher brightness with Runco projectors. "

Some good reading on foot-Lamberts here:
http://www.runco.com/csms.html

"The method of measurement known as foot-Lamberts, is a measurement related to the brightness of a particular image and is equal to 1 lumen per sq. foot of screen surface. A Spectral Radiometer is required to perform this measurement. The SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) specification for a film-type movie theater is a minimum of 16 foot-Lamberts of brightness.

As research by Lucasfilm Ltd’s, Theater Alignment Program has determined, movie theaters typically struggle or fail to achieve this brightness specification, even with the high wattage lamps in their film projectors. Since the screen size is generally much smaller for Home Theater™, it is possible to consistently achieve 16 foot-Lamberts and most of the time much higher brightness with Runco projectors. "

IIRC, the spec for theater is 16 ft. lamberts with no film in the projector, and 12 ft. lamberts when projecting a whitefield through film.

That's what SMPTE specify - 16FL with an open gate, though the allowed range is 12 to 22. There are some physical problems with too much heat from a Xenon lamp with respect to film (it can damage it) and another reason why lower Fl is more the rule. Runco also state that 12fl is the target for digital theater on their website (mainly in the .pdf files)

http://www.runco.com/image/wsr_csms_story.pdf

The foot Lambert is a measurement used in commercial theatres. The SMPTE standard specifies 16 foot-Lamberts of brightness measured off the screen in a commercial theatre. This is taken without film in the projector, or open-gate—so it is a measurement of the lamp projecting through the lens directly onto the screen. The THX® Theater Alignment Program surveyed over 300 theatres in the U.S. and found the average fL measurement, even with no film, to be 11 foot-Lamberts with some as low as 7-8 foot-Lamberts, far from the recommended 16 foot-Lamberts. This may be because some theatre owners run the lamps at a lower wattage in order to conserve lamp life, while the opposite is often actually true.

Although it's possible to achieve higher FL in the home, it doesn't neccesarily mean we should (for the reasons I mentioned). Our sources aren't film and that gives us a different set of problems. Quite often people will use an ND filter to dim the image down to a more cinematic level.

Of course some people like a plasma-like image brightness and either don't notice or don't care about the artefacts it can highlight. Each to his own.

Gary

Although it's possible to achieve higher FL in the home, it doesn't neccesarily mean we should (for the reasons I mentioned). Our sources aren't film and that gives us a different set of problems. Quite often people will use an ND filter to dim the image down to a more cinematic level.

Of course some people like a plasma-like image brightness and either don't notice or don't care about the artefacts it can highlight. Each to his own.

Gary

I am a coming from a CRT (Barco 808s) and thus I am looking forward to the Pearl as I have read it has a CRT look to it and is not overly bright.... though I am sure it will have more punch then the 808s.

The Barco 808s is a very nice machine. You won't have any halo issues with the Sony of course, but there may be a few other issues with it that you may or may not notice (or care about), but as you know, no display is perfect so we pick one that is good for our individual needs. Currently it's probably the best value 1080 pj available and can get closer than most fixed pixel displays to emulating the CRT experience. That was true of the Ruby until the Pearl came along, and to think this pj is a little over half the price of the Ruby and with similar performance is amazing.

Gary

Is this a DVDO firmware upgrade, or a Sony firmware upgrade?

DVDO/Anchor Bay Technologies FW. Coming soon according to the person I talked with at DVDO:) They may even send me a copy early to play with:D!!!

"as you know, no display is perfect so we pick one that is good for our individual needs"

I want to set up stereo HD projection from a Mac Pro/nVidia board using two projectors and linear polarization. Presumably adapting from DVI to HDMI is not a problem, but I was wondering about polarization of light off the SXRD chips, and whether the light output would be sufficient (12' x 18' room) using the VW50? The price is certainly right, but...

Tim

Does anyone know what kind of scaler the Pearl uses?

I've ordered a Denon AVR-4806 receiver, which consequently can convert analog video into HDMI, but without upscaling. For example, 480i/1080i analog is converted for HDMI, but has no ability to upscale. There is an upgrade available for this receiver to upscale all video to 1080p by way of a Faroudja FLi-2310 chip.

Since the receiver goes as far as converting analog 480i/1080i to it's digital equivalent, I'm wondering if the receiver upgrade is even needed or if this Faroudja chip will do a better job of upscaling before sending it to the projector.

I would be curious about people sending 480i/1080i or anything non 1080p to the projector over HDMI and how good the upscaling was.

-James

1080i (1080i60) film-sourced material via HDMI into the projector is excellent. There is speculation backed up by some testing that this is the preferred way of getting HD content into the project, since it then displays it at 96hz, for judder-free presentation -- while the projector might NOT be doing that with 1080p60 material, which may be displayed at 1080p60 (60hz) with judder. It appears that 1080p24 is also shown at 96hz.

For 480i sources, or 1080i from video, rather than film, hopefully others can answer your question.

What scaler does the Pearl use? By all reports, it is a single chip proprietary Sony design-ed solution.

1080i (1080i60) film-sourced material via HDMI into the projector is excellent. There is speculation backed up by some testing that this is the preferred way of getting HD content into the project, since it then displays it at 96hz, for judder-free presentation -- while the projector might NOT be doing that with 1080p60 material, which may be displayed at 1080p60 (60hz) with judder. It appears that 1080p24 is also shown at 96hz.

For 480i sources, or 1080i from video, rather than film, hopefully others can answer your question.

What scaler does the Pearl use? By all reports, it is a single chip proprietary Sony design-ed solution.

Now does anyone know if an Nvidia 7800GTX under Windows XP can be configured to output 24 or 48hz and have the projector display it at 96hz. That would be splendid.

-James

I got my nVidia 6600LE (SE?) to output 24hz at 1920x1080 no problem, but on all but the cleanest DVDs, it was happier outputting 1920x1080 at 60hz. I'm not sure why. It's easy to set up in the nVidia control panel. Choose the resolution, first, then the refresh rate.

I got my nVidia 6600LE (SE?) to output 24hz at 1920x1080 no problem, but on all but the cleanest DVDs, it was happier outputting 1920x1080 at 60hz. I'm not sure why. It's easy to set up in the nVidia control panel. Choose the resolution, first, then the refresh rate.

Are you using ReClock?

Have you tried 48hz?

-James

This may have been discussed already, but what's the general view on Pearl vs. Ruby?

did any of you lucky pearl owners try the DDE (Dynamic Detail Enhancer) Film function detailed page 43 of the user's manual ?
it's supposed to do the 3:2 pulldown from a 1080i60 source to 1080p24 (@96hz ?)

So where is everyone placing there center speaker? Above or below the screen?

When I see pictures of home theaters in the internet, the speaker is always underneath. I guess I don't quite understand why. If put the speaker at the top of the ceiling and aim it down a bit, doesn't that reach everyones ears more effectively?

I am curious as to why I have never seen this done, there must be some reason. I figure on eventually having two couches, with the one behind lifted up 1 extra foot off the floor. I can't imagine the center speaker coming from the floor to reach the back row very well with a couch in front of it.

-James

IMO, there's two reasons that most people go low instead of high.

1) Convience. It's usually easier to find a speaker stand to be used under the screen rather than a wall mount to place it above the screen.

2) For the best pans, you want the all the front speakers to be as close to the same level as possible. Otherwise when a sound pans across the front you will hear it jump up or down to the center speaker and then back up or down to the mains. Since most people have floor-standing mains, putting the center below the screen is usually closer to the level of the mains than putting the center above the screen.

IMO, there's two reasons that most people go low instead of high.

1) Convience. It's usually easier to find a speaker stand to be used under the screen rather than a wall mount to place it above the screen.

2) For the best pans, you want the all the front speakers to be as close to the same level as possible. Otherwise when a sound pans across the front you will hear it jump up or down to the center speaker and then back up or down to the mains. Since most people have floor-standing mains, putting the center below the screen is usually closer to the level of the mains than putting the center above the screen.

So perhaps putting my screen closer to the ceiling (8") and putting the center speaker underneath is my best bet. My Left & Right Fronts are 4" high, with four 8-inch drivers in each. So I'll try to position that center up to the bottom of the screen.

-James

did any of you lucky pearl owners try the DDE (Dynamic Detail Enhancer) Film function detailed page 43 of the user's manual ?
it's supposed to do the 3:2 pulldown from a 1080i60 source to 1080p24 (@96hz ?)

Yes... and it appears it works rather well. I haven't seen 3:2 judder on film source since I've enabled it.

So where is everyone placing there center speaker? Above or below the screen?

When I see pictures of home theaters in the internet, the speaker is always underneath. I guess I don't quite understand why. If put the speaker at the top of the ceiling and aim it down a bit, doesn't that reach everyones ears more effectively?

I am curious as to why I have never seen this done, there must be some reason. I figure on eventually having two couches, with the one behind lifted up 1 extra foot off the floor. I can't imagine the center speaker coming from the floor to reach the back row very well with a couch in front of it.

-James

That's exactly what I did. My center is framed in to the soffit above my screen. My sides are above center as well. The imaging is excellent.

Dennis Erskine, a theater designer and audio expert of some reknown, has stated that given the choice, above is preferred to below.

That's exactly what I did. My center is framed in to the soffit above my screen. My sides are above center as well. The imaging is excellent.

Dennis Erskine, a theater designer and audio expert of some reknown, has stated that given the choice, above is preferred to below.

I would LOVE to see a picture of that.

So after reading the whole forum again, here's what I'm going to attempt to do. Just want anyone who has an opinion good or bad or how to improve this to throw something at me.

Projector Lense to wall: 14.5ft.
Projector Mount: Ceiling, 12 - 18 inch adjustable.
Eye to Screen Distance: ~ 13-14 ft. in optimal seat.
Screen Size: 110" diagnol. 8ft. wide, 4'6" tall.
Screen Material: CRT Goo base and top coat, 1.4 gain rated (ya so they claim).
Screen Trim: 2 inch black velvety non reflective stuff.
Environment: Light controlled, up to nearly 95% pitch black (possibly higher)
Ceiling: 7 ft'
Room width: 17ft, tapers to 14ft. Centering off the 14ft. width.
Room Length: 27 ft. depending how much of it I want to use.

My center speaker is probably 8 ot 10 inches in height... should I still mount this above the projector? or do I need to spare those extra inches to keep the screen as high as possible. Floor mounting the center channel is an option. Black non reflective material is an option on the ceiling floors, speakers etc. too.


-James

I would LOVE to see a picture of that.

-James


As you wish...

Soffit speaker cavity framing (http://caesare.homeip.net:32171/basement/slides/IMG_1363.htm)

Wide angle shot of front soffit framing (http://caesare.homeip.net:32171/basement/slides/IMG_1364.htm)

Center speaker (http://caesare.homeip.net:32171/basement/slides/IMG_1419.htm)

Soffit finished with speaker mounted (http://caesare.homeip.net:32171/basement/slides/IMG_1931.htm)

View with screen installed for reference (http://caesare.homeip.net:32171/basement/slides/IMG_2016.htm)

Another shot with screen (http://caesare.homeip.net:32171/basement/slides/IMG_2019.htm)

I'll post some more on my "contruction pics" thread when I get the grill cloth installed.

As you wish...

Soffit speaker cavity framing (http://caesare.homip.net:32171/basement/slides/IMG_1363.htm)

Wide angle shot of front soffit framing (http://caesare.homip.net:32171/basement/slides/IMG_1364.htm)

Center speaker (http://caesare.homip.net:32171/basement/slides/IMG_1419.htm)

Soffit finished with speaker mounted (http://caesare.homip.net:32171/basement/slides/IMG_1931.htm)

View with screen installed for reference (http://caesare.homip.net:32171/basement/slides/IMG_2016.htm)

Another shot with screen (http://caesare.homip.net:32171/basement/slides/IMG_2019.htm)

I'll post some more on my "contruction pics" thread when I get the grill cloth installed.

Ya know I couldn't get any of these links to work... UNable to connect error (in Firefox). But I appreciate it anyway.

Ya know I couldn't get any of these links to work... UNable to connect error (in Firefox). But I appreciate it anyway.

Those links are not working for me either.

Typically that means you aren't letting arbitrary outgoing ports in your firewall. I'm amzed how many computers have this configured against RFC specs.

Gimme your email address via PM and I'll send them if you'd like.

Are you using ReClock?

Have you tried 48hz?

-James

Nope, not using ReClock. Might that be a solution?

There isn't a built in option for 48hz on the nVidia drivers I am using. Just 24hz, 50hz and 60hz when outputting 1920x1080.

Typically that means you aren't letting arbitrary outgoing ports in your firewall. I'm amzed how many computers have this configured against RFC specs..
I doubt that is the problem. My firewall has no outgoing port restrictions whatsoever and all of these links are dead.

I don't use host-based firewalls at all on my network. I have a Cisco PIX.

I can ping your host so it isn't a connectivity problem. Perhaps there's a problem with your firewall port map or web server configuration.

--Jerome

As you wish...

Soffit speaker cavity framing (http://caesare.homeip.net:32171/basement/slides/IMG_1363.htm)

Wide angle shot of front soffit framing (http://caesare.homeip.net:32171/basement/slides/IMG_1364.htm)

Center speaker (http://caesare.homeip.net:32171/basement/slides/IMG_1419.htm)

Soffit finished with speaker mounted (http://caesare.homeip.net:32171/basement/slides/IMG_1931.htm)

View with screen installed for reference (http://caesare.homeip.net:32171/basement/slides/IMG_2016.htm)

Another shot with screen (http://caesare.homeip.net:32171/basement/slides/IMG_2019.htm)

I'll post some more on my "contruction pics" thread when I get the grill cloth installed.

Ah.. Mea Culpa!

My apologies, but I had a typo in my cut-n-paste that indeed rendered all those links dead. (Hey at least I hadn't been TOO MUCH of an @ss and offered to mail them :o ) Every previous time I had problems with others accessing, it had been local FW issues. Again my fault.

I've editied the priginal post, and the links quoted in this message work as well.

(Would those who quoted my "bad" links be so kind as to edit them out of this thread? Thanks)

The links all work fine. Thanks.

I wasn't being critical of you...just trying to be helpful since it seemed pretty clear to me that the problem was on your end.

Cheers.

--Jerome

The links all work fine. Thanks.

I wasn't being critical of you...just trying to be helpful since it seemed pretty clear to me that the problem was on your end.

Cheers.

--Jerome

No prob... I didn't think you were, I just felt a bit like a dork, as I didn't bother to check this time. :o

Ah.. Mea Culpa!

My apologies, but I had a typo in my cut-n-paste that indeed rendered all those links dead. (Hey at least I hadn't been TOO MUCH of an @ss and offered to mail them :o ) Every previous time I had problems with others accessing, it had been local FW issues. Again my fault.

I've editied the priginal post, and the links quoted in this message work as well.

(Would those who quoted my "bad" links be so kind as to edit them out of this thread? Thanks)

Your theater looks awesome, by the way.

scaesare
Wow
What a beautiful home for your Pearl ! Very nice theater. You may have posted this but how is the brightness with the Pearl ceiling mounted and your 133" Hi Power. Are you running in high bulb mode ? Johnathan

Your theater looks awesome, by the way.

Thanks! I made the tactical error of connecting all the equipment... now I have lots of small stuff I haven't gotten too... maybe this weekend. :)

scaesare
Wow
What a beautiful home for your Pearl ! Very nice theater. You may have posted this but how is the brightness with the Pearl ceiling mounted and your 133" Hi Power. Are you running in high bulb mode ? Johnathan

Thanks Johnathan.

I'm very pleased thus far. Of course the bulb has less than 40 hours on it so far, but at shortest throw the image on the HP is great, even with the ceiling mout, and to the side fo the room, etc.

I can have ambient light on, and still get a nice picture for sports, etc... but I was rather particular on how I designed the lighting layout (can placement, narrow beam lamps, etc...), so not too much hits the screen directly.

I can see some change in gain as I move around the room, or stand up, but I feel that it's a worthy trade off for a nice big screen...

I received my VPL-VW50 last week and completed the installation today. I have it ceiling mounted in my basement media room. In the set-up I have the room configuration forced me to locate the projector directly over my couch - the prime viewing location.

Out of the box, with no changes to any of the picture setting, except for position and keystoning, I have got the say the image is nothing short of fabulous. I'm sure I will gradually start seeing things that I want to tweak and fine tune, but the wow factor right out of the box is simply stunning. This from someone who has been in the broadcast industry for 40 years and who has seen plenty of high definition in its raw, uncompressed form.

I do have one slight gripe. There were some posts when the VPL-VW50 first arrived for some, that indicated that the sound level of the internal fan was so low that no one would hear it. I must say that the truth is that it is quite audible and has a relatively low frequency component. With normal audio levels, you probably won't notice it, but during quiet passages or when there are pauses in music, it is there. My overhead location certainly makes this more of a problem for me. If you are ceiling mounting and can have it well in front or behind your prime viewing spot you may be able to reduce the level enough to make it acceptable.

If I wind up discovering anything else, either good or bad, I'll let you know.

Thanks to those who e-mailed me with advice on roughing in the cable runs in advance. I took your advice and ran 2 50 foot HDMI cables with repeaters a component cable and an S-video cable. I am currently using only an HDMI with my cable box, but expect I'll get use out of the rest as I add components to my system.

I read somewhere that you want to mount the projector just behind and above your viewing position.

What are the ramifications of mounting the projector directly above your head, or slightly in front of it? How does it affect viewing?

Right now I have mine installed ~14.5 ft. from the lens to the wall. I tested the projector on a white wall in a nearly completely dark room at 98 inches diagnol and it wasn't quite as bright as I would have preferred. Now I will install some goo paint on the wall with a claimed 1.4 gain, and I would like to increase the screen size to 120 in. diagnol.

I was thinking of moving the projector 1 ft. closer to ~13.5 but that would position it directly if not ever so slightly forward of my viewing position. I'm wondering if the there is any downside to this. I want to guarantee better brightness. I am not concerned with fan noise. Currently the projector is mounted almost flush with the ceiling at 7.5 ft. and I can't notice any fan noise in high lamp mode.

-James

Just behind and above your head pertains to those using a High Power screen manufactured by Dalite. Near your head is sufficient.

If you are not going to use this type of screen, then you would not necessarily need to have it close to your head.

Best Regards,
Doug

I have a question about mounting the Pearl in my current theater. The top of the screen is 7' 7" high and the ceiling is 9'4". Will I need to use a pole to lower the projector or can I mount it directly to the ceiling?

JHL,

Screen size would be helpful in calculating the exact number.

Take the height of the screen, multiply it by 0.15, and that is about how much higher the center of the lens can be mounted than the screen. With the chief mount that I have, I believe that the center of the lens would be about seven inches from the ceiling.

So a quick and dirty guestimate would put the center of your lens at about 8'9", and the top of your screen at 7'7". That would be a 14 inch drop. Dividing 14 by 0.15 would require a screen that is 93 inches tall. It is more probable that your screen is about half that tall, so a 1 foot extension would probably put you in safe territory.

As an example, If your screen is 48" tall, the center of the lens must be closer than (48 x 0.15 =) 7.2 inches from the top of your screen. That is the calculation for the very edge, and room to play is a good thing.

Best Regards,
Doug

The screen is 8 feet wide (16x9) so I guess that makes the height 54 inches. Using your formula, I calculate that there are 8.1 inches available as a maximum.

John

JHL,

Remember that is a calculation of the absolute maximum. If you are someone who is comfortable living on the edge... :)

If I properly understand what I read here and in the owners manual, the 0.15 multiplier is a simplification from a more complicated formula. Even if you use the precise formula, you may want to try a test mount to see if it works. All these calculations are nice to know what you should expect, but when it comes to actually putting it up, it is best to have some wiggle room.

Also, the Pearl will have to be upside down. You will not get the same offset if it is right side up. Since you were talking about a ceiling mount, I figured that was a given, but just wanted to make sure you knew that.

The chief mount that Jason Turk sold me uses a 1-1/2" pipe as an extension, so you can just go to Home depot and get one cut to the length you want.

Best Regards,
Doug

Doug,

Thanks for all the suggestions. I think it will be simplest to just assume that an 18" pipe will be appropriate. That should still be high enough that no one can bump their head.

John

I saw the pearl a while back at Mag Hi FI and thought it was great except for lumens/brightness coming off the firehawk 92" diag screen. I think this is the wrong combo IMO. I'm looking at getting a Carada BW 106" to go with my future pearl. Or, should I go HP? It will be in a light controlled room, which I believe this pj needs to REALLY appreciate. I'll be about 12 to 14 feet back with the pj. Thanks,

Terry

I am going to stick with my Draper 1.3 gain screen if/when I buy a Pearl. Based on all the light output calculations I think that should be fine in a light controlled room. If you don't like the brightness after the bulb starts to age, you can always update the screen or replace the bulb.

John

Just to add more to the list. I am coming from a Panasonic AE900 with a Da-Lite Hi-Power 136" 2.35:1 which goes to about a 96" 16x9. Pearl is brighter in high lamp mode than my Panasonic. Have not tried low lamp mode on the big screen yet. Very satisfied with the Da-Lite and this large of a screen. No problems in the dedicated theater. At 96", no problems with some ambient light either but obviously the high-power is for light controlled environments.

So for a purpose built theater, the Pearl is easily the best I have had the pleasure of experiencing. No worries about lumens at all.

When you watch 1.78:1 content, do you zoom the Pearl, and get the full panel in a 96inch diag 16:9 space? Do you have the Pearl in hi or low lamp mode?

The reason I ask: I have my pearl in low lamp mode, projecting onto a 92inch diag hi power 16:9 screen, and even in low lamp mode, it's too bright in the primary viewing cone, and I find I have to use a ND2 filter.

I hate this thread. I am so jealous of all the lucky ones that got their Pearls.


Come on AVS, make a miracle happen, get my Pearl to me soon. :D

When you watch 1.78:1 content, do you zoom the Pearl, and get the full panel in a 96inch diag 16:9 space? Do you have the Pearl in hi or low lamp mode?

The reason I ask: I have my pearl in low lamp mode, projecting onto a 92inch diag hi power 16:9 screen, and even in low lamp mode, it's too bright in the primary viewing cone, and I find I have to use a ND2 filter.

What throw distance do you have? I do stretch in low mode and it is comfortable without viewing cone problems. I am also fairly far back though because of the 136" 2.35:1 screen. So it may just be how far back my projector is. I can measure mine if you care to know. But the light output drops pretty quickly the further back you can put it. Mine is also ceiling mounted and at about 6.5' off the ground with a fairly high screen height. I think some pics of the older setup are still on-line in my profile.

BTW, for others looking ino this, I used to have focus problems on my AE900 where the center would be in focus but not the edges. The Pearl is perfectly linear in this case. Working with a PC at 1920x1080 is perfectly clear, in focus and usable. Now I have HTPC problems because of the scaling using too my horse power, but that is in another forum thread.

When you watch 1.78:1 content, do you zoom the Pearl, and get the full panel in a 96inch diag 16:9 space? Do you have the Pearl in hi or low lamp mode?

The reason I ask: I have my pearl in low lamp mode, projecting onto a 92inch diag hi power 16:9 screen, and even in low lamp mode, it's too bright in the primary viewing cone, and I find I have to use a ND2 filter.

I'm just curious about your setup. How far is your Pearl from lens to screen?

What is the reflective rating of that hipower screen?

I hate this thread. I am so jealous of all the lucky ones that got their Pearls.


Come on AVS, make a miracle happen, get my Pearl to me soon. :D

I didn't know they were incredibly hard to acquire at this point.

I've heard good things about AVS, but since I'm a poor bastard, I financed mine through Magnolia Home Theater.

Is there a big backorder list at AVS for the Pearl right now? I wonder how long the wait is?

I'm just curious about your setup. How far is your Pearl from lens to screen?

What is the reflective rating of that hipower screen?

The hi-power is a 2.8 gain screen. Very reflective. I believe I have mine at about 16'. I will measure it tomorrow for everyone. The screen does not do well in regular rooms. Must be light controlled.

My Pearl is 14ft from the 92inch diag screen. My understanding is that this should be the dimmer end of it's zoom range. Yet with the 2.8 hi power, it's too bright. However, I really like the hi power because of its narrow viewing cone (which cuts down a lot on light hitting the side walls, which are light colored in my room) and spilling back onto the screen. I have complete light control in the sense of light coming into the room, but I don't have full light control in the sense of dark walls (though the ceiling and floor, one side wall, and the back wall are mostly dark).

I have a question about the geometry of the projected image.

I set my Pearl up on the ceiling about 4" below. I adjusted the lens shift down to where I wanted the picture on the wall. However, the bottom half of the screen is about 6 inches wider than the top half. How can I adjust this? Do I need to use an extension and lower my Pearl down from the ceiling a bit? Ceiling is 7.5' high. The image is about 128" diagnol, and the top is 7" from the ceiling.

Is there some kind of adjustment for this? All I can find it zoom and lens shift.

-James

You mean like a trapezoid shape? if so, last night when I setup a temporary mount and turned on the projector the image was not straight all around as well. I just made a shim and raised one side and it looks better but not perfect. What type of mount do you have?

I have a question about the geometry of the projected image.

I set my Pearl up on the ceiling about 4" below. I adjusted the lens shift down to where I wanted the picture on the wall. However, the bottom half of the screen is about 6 inches wider than the top half. How can I adjust this? Do I need to use an extension and lower my Pearl down from the ceiling a bit? Ceiling is 7.5' high. The image is about 128" diagnol, and the top is 7" from the ceiling.

Is there some kind of adjustment for this? All I can find it zoom and lens shift.

-James

Sounds like the projector is not level/square with the screen wall.

Sounds like the projector is not level/square with the screen wall.
Right-o! Check the geometry.

You mean like a trapezoid shape? if so, last night when I setup a temporary mount and turned on the projector the image was not straight all around as well. I just made a shim and raised one side and it looks better but not perfect. What type of mount do you have?


yes trapezoid shape. Now that I think about it, I don't remember the name of the mount but it is completely adjustable and I do believe it is not level from front to back. The front sags a bit. I had not even thought of that. At least I think the front is a little loer than the back.

If the projector is indeed level with the screen are there any manual adjustments or otherwise to adjust this trapezoidal shape?

-James

yes trapezoid shape. Now that I think about it, I don't remember the name of the mount but it is completely adjustable and I do believe it is not level from front to back. The front sags a bit. I had not even thought of that. At least I think the front is a little lower than the back.

If the projector is indeed level with the screen are there any manual adjustments or otherwise to adjust this trapezoidal shape?

-James
There are "otherwise" adjustments, but you really want to avoid them if possible and get the geometry right.

There are "otherwise" adjustments, but you really want to avoid them if possible and get the geometry right.

I'm going to try and get my projector level, but what is an otherwise adjustment?