Yeah I know you can't judge a projector by screenshots alone.

BUT I know there are people out there like me who do like to look at them :D

The pics I post are going to be as unaltered as I can possibly make them.

I encourage orther pearl owners to post your pictures in the thread.
Also I am open to any picture requests or sugesstions.

First up my baby ;)
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/7241/projectorstuff005na4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


Here is The Transporter 2 that was on HD the other day.
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/9883/projectorstuffnf2.jpg

More to come tomorrow

Nice screenshot, can't wait to see more. Thanks Chako

Chako,

Thanks and keep them coming. I am very interested in the Pearl as a replacement for my Sony VPL-VW10HT.

Also, what screen are you using?

Beautiful !


Johnathan

Screenshot looks great. But if that picture is accurate (a big IF), it looks to me like the projector is leaning toward the green/yellow a bit (check out the flesh tones). My Pearl does the same thing. This can be corrected using the RCP color adjustment features, from what I understand.

Screenshot looks great. But if that picture is accurate (a big IF), it looks to me like the projector is leaning toward the green/yellow a bit (check out the flesh tones). My Pearl does the same thing. This can be corrected using the RCP color adjustment features, from what I understand.

Right now I haven't done a full calibration on it yet but I think the greenish/yellowish tint is just an effect used throughout the movie.

Other movies (North Country and In Good Company) and tv shows (The Office and Tonight Show) I have watched have very natural flesh tones.

Still need to give it the full setup though so I may be wrong

Very NICE..More Pic's Please :) I have seen a Pearl in the uk and Id Like one,soon as I sell my crt pj :D

Chako,

Thanks and keep them coming. I am very interested in the Pearl as a replacement for my Sony VPL-VW10HT.

Also, what screen are you using?

DIY from Lowes (lumber) The fabric store (black velvet) and Ebay (no brand screen material for 40 bucks)

OKAY!!! MAS POR FAVOR!!!...some of us need some more corheasing (sp??)

Haha sorry I only took one screenshot yesterday. I swear tomorrow I will add on a bunch more pics. Xbox 360 gaming, more HD material from cable and a few SD DVD captures.

My computer at home is on the fritz so I need to take pictures and bring my camera back to work again :D

Right now I haven't done a full calibration on it yet but I think the greenish/yellowish tint is just an effect used throughout the movie.

Other movies (North Country and In Good Company) and tv shows (The Office and Tonight Show) I have watched have very natural flesh tones.

Still need to give it the full setup though so I may be wrong

I could be wrong too. On my Pearl, I haven't really noticed any green/yellow flesh tones at all, but I get the vague sense that bright content (for example, the NFL football game I watched yesterday) is pushing green/yellow a bit. The grass isn't quite the right color, for example.

Chako,

Thanks for the reply. What color is the no name screen material that you are using? I'm currently running a 110" Firehawk screen and have heard mixed results on how well the Pearl goes with Grey screens. Just wondering if your screen material is grey or white.

Also, looking forward to some 360 screenshots because I'm a 360 gamer myself and don't play games in the theater (except for Halo2 and possibly Gears of War) but would love to see how well the 360 looks with the Pearl.

Thanks,

Thanks for the reply. What color is the no name screen material that you are using? I'm currently running a 110" Firehawk screen and have heard mixed results on how well the Pearl goes with Grey screens. Just wondering if your screen material is grey or white.

White, he claims a 1.0 gain so I guess thats what it is.
Ebay Item number: 330033660961

Also, looking forward to some 360 screenshots because I'm a 360 gamer myself and don't play games in the theater (except for Halo2 and possibly Gears of War) but would love to see how well the 360 looks with the Pearl.

Lemme just say it's a whole new experience. I have a Thursday night guys game-a-thon and we play Call of Duty 2 and Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter for hours.

Hanging with the guys drinking beers, grilling hamburgers and hot dogs is lots of fun.

How big is the screen you are using?

108 inch 16x9

Do you run in high or low lamp? how far is your Pearl from the screen?

Screenshot looks great. But if that picture is accurate (a big IF), it looks to me like the projector is leaning toward the green/yellow a bit (check out the flesh tones). My Pearl does the same thing. This can be corrected using the RCP color adjustment features, from what I understand.

I seem to remember the entire Transporter 2 film having a green/yellow tint, at least it did on the DVD. So maybe the colors on the Pearl are more accurate than you think.

I seem to remember the entire Transporter 2 film having a green/yellow tint, at least it did on the DVD. So maybe the colors on the Pearl are more accurate than you think.

Quite possibly.

With a thread title like this, I was expecting more screenshots :-)

2.35:1 Content


The Incredibles HD
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/8593/untitled5iz4.jpg
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/6196/untitled4aa8.jpg
http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/4323/untitled3kj1.jpg

This one I was testing the Cinema preset and as you can see it made the pause bar greenish.
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/941/untitled2wc1.jpg

Be Cool HD
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/9899/untitled1ej7.jpg

5th Element SD DVD
http://img476.imageshack.us/img476/3945/untitled6ea6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Spiderman 2 SD DVD
http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/518/untitled7pb2.jpg
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/5229/untitled8st7.jpg

Great. I just drooled on my keyboard :D

More 16x9 content

Sin City HD (love marv)
http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/3098/projectorstuff008yy0.jpg

Fantastic 4 HD
http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/1756/projectorstuff010nv7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/3461/projectorstuff009sg9.jpg

The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe HD
http://img351.imageshack.us/img351/858/projectorstuff013cl1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img351.imageshack.us/img351/3039/projectorstuff012qk5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

North Country HD
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/4562/projectorstuff016vg2.jpg

The Wedding Date HD
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/1975/projectorstuff034pe3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/5429/projectorstuff033us4.jpg

Very nice screenshots. Not to make any lasting conclusions I'll just observe that on my monitor the colors look natural and if there is a yellow-green tint it is much less apparent on these shots except for the Sin City one. The slight sepia or tinting on that one could be in the source. The Transporter 2 screenshot looks accurate for that film. I like the subtle shadings of pale fluorescent blue in the Incredibles office shot - nicely captured. Red looks good, not too magenta or orange as in some Pearl and Ruby reports.



In a couple of days I hope to be posting a few shots myself.

Dan

Very nice Chako ! Johnathan

Do you run in high or low lamp? how far is your Pearl from the screen?


Mostly High so far, I would say 65% high, 35% low


Pearl is 13 feet away for the screen.

Sweet screenshots. Thanks Chako. Color, contrast, uniformity, black-levels all look impressive.

I notice a slight "texture" to the images. Could be ever-so-slight SDE, could be the screen material itself, could be the digicam, could be my imagination. Anyone else seeing this?

-tony

Xbox 360

My Dashboard
http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/3945/projectorstuff037jq9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Call of Duty 2
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/5750/projectorstuff030zx5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

PGR 3
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/5533/projectorstuff031cc1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/2029/projectorstuff032ti6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Saints Row
http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/6601/projectorstuff035zn6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Dead Rising
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/9713/projectorstuff040ii3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/9669/projectorstuff039gq2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I think thats it for today.

Can't wait to see everyone elses pics.

I'm still taking requests so let me know if you have a Movie, TV show or Xbox 360 game you want a sceenie of. I probably have it.

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3936/projectorstuff002pb3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5171/projectorstuff003pi1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Wow!

The instrascene or ANSI CR of the Sin City screenshot just hit me. My digital camera screenshots tends to crush black or enhance intrascene contrast a bit, and this could be happening with this shot of yours Chako, but it still looks impressive.

There's a bunch of scenes where I've missed darker blacks in the past and I'll be concentrating on those as well as some white field shots looking for color uniformity problems. The dark scenes include the intro sub-deck scene from Master and Commander, the intro scenes from Dark City and The Fifth Element, some cavern scenes from Vertical Limit, and a variety of submarine interior scenes and the night boarding scene from U-571. One of Greg Rogers' favorites for this purpose, Manhattan, will be there, too.

Dan

I notice a slight "texture" to the images. Could be ever-so-slight SDE, could be the screen material itself, could be the digicam, could be my imagination. Anyone else seeing this?

-tony
Add film grain, jpeg compression artifacts, monitor scaling/calibration, ... all the above, some of the above, none of the above. :) :)

They are only screenshots after all, and have limitations.

Having said all that, they are flat out stunning! The detail is amazing!

While I think screenshots are appealing for obvious reasons, judging picture quality based on them is bizarre.

In the loop you have a digital camera with its own cheap lens and compression artifacts combined with your monitor and its lord-knows-what color palette. This doesn't even consider the effect of taking 2 million pixels of projected image, upscaling it to who knows what from a 100-inch image and then viewing that same image at 8-12 inches diagonally.

While I think screenshots are appealing for obvious reasons, judging picture quality based on them is bizarre.Whoops. I better cancel my order. :eek:

Seriously, I agree, warnings such as these are a good idea.

Very occasionally, screenshots can capture certain problems not dependent on all the variables Rogo refers to. Different reporter's CEDIA screenshots did show the same kind of color uniformity on the Pearl demo'd there. It's interesting that often those screenshots had no accompanying comment on this isse. Looking at the screenshots in this thread I don't see that color non-uniformity and that's slightly (very slightly, given the "N" of 2) comforting.

Dan

Mostly High so far, I would say 65% high, 35% low


Pearl is 13 feet away for the screen.

All those great shots but no sports. Would be great if you could get some baseball (ESPN & Fox 720p) and any other like football (1080i on CBS/NBC).

Great work with your camera and all these varied movies too.

While I think screenshots are appealing for obvious reasons, judging picture quality based on them is bizarre.

In the loop you have a digital camera with its own cheap lens and compression artifacts combined with your monitor and its lord-knows-what color palette. This doesn't even consider the effect of taking 2 million pixels of projected image, upscaling it to who knows what from a 100-inch image and then viewing that same image at 8-12 inches diagonally.

I disagree...partly. I agree you can never truly tell how good a projector can look from screenshots, given all the variables you mentioned. That said, you can sometimes see certain shortcomings of a projector through screenshots. For example, a perfect digicam picture is never going to show on-screen details that the projector is incapable of displaying (unless of course, the image has been intentionally doctored).

Either way, I think we can all agree that screenshots are fun, and there is a special place in heaven reserved for those who take the time to post them.

-tony

While I think screenshots are appealing for obvious reasons, judging picture quality based on them is bizarre.

Whoops. I better cancel my order. :eek:
Seriously, I agree, warnings such as these are a good idea.


Haha yeah I said that in the first sentence of the thread.

If someone bought a project on screenshots alone I would call them a fool.

Although I don't see a problem in looking at some screenshots because reading reviews and opinions does tend to get boring after awhile. I know I need to see some real world environments after hours of reading :D

I'm sure most people who are even in this thread have done their homework on the Pearl and have their mind made up before even seeing a screenshot.

My 2 cents



All those great shots but no sports. Would be great if you could get some baseball (ESPN & Fox 720p) and any other like football (1080i on CBS/NBC).

Great work with your camera and all these varied movies too.

Sure I will get some football and baseball pics to post on Monday.

Off Topic: Anyone see that Yankee/Tiger game last night? Jeter was on fire! 5 for 5, 2 singles, 2 doubles and capped of the night with a homer

Even though I was rooting for the Tigers my hat is off to him

if the games on the line, nobody i would rather have up than jeter or d ortiz (coin flip to me)

Guys, kudos to the posters of the screenshots. Honest.

All I meant was when I start reading comments about contrast or screendoor effect or whatnot, I think to myself, "Umm... did you calibrate your monitor? The digicam?"

I suppose the Pearl at CEDIA had some color uniformity issue that was detected. And maybe that's relevant with the product overall. But these shots here are really eye candy. If they make you want to buy a Pearl, go check it out and learn more. If they helped you rule it out, I'd say you used bad data to reach that conclusion. There is no way to critically evaluate a projector from these. They are fun. I think the drool reaction was probably the closest to how you should use them. :)

figured I would chime in again since I was able to wipe the drool off my keyboard :p

Since I am pulling the trigger on a Pearl sight unseen because I have not found a single retailer that has or plans to have a Pearl on display in the Dallas area I have to base my decision on several factors.

1. Looking at the two other players in the Sony game and figuring the Pearl will hit between them.

2. Reading reviews and comments from those that already have the pearl in hand and wading through all the geekdom :) .

3. Looking at screen shots. Yes I am aware that the screenshots are not a scientific way to judge a projector performance but If you take all of the ones that have been taken and posted it allows you to get at least an point of reference. Believe me I have seen some shots of projector screens that were down right FUGLY and in most cases the responses that you read are usually in line as well. If someone can take a picture of a paused screen of a movie with a digital camera and without editing the image can make people say WOW then it may not make the final decision but it can sure add to it.

2.35:1 Content


The Incredibles HD
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/8593/untitled5iz4.jpg
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/6196/untitled4aa8.jpg


Does the geometry really look like that? The bars look very scribbly, right were he's pointing to.

As a Pearl owner, these shots are great but you really have too see the Pearl in person to see how good it really is. No screenshot IMO will do it any justice. Yeah, its that good.

Does the geometry really look like that? The bars look very scribbly, right were he's pointing to.

You need to educate yourself on digital photography and compression methods. What you mention has nothing to do with the actual image projected by the projector.

Since I am pulling the trigger on a Pearl sight unseen because I have not found a single retailer that has or plans to have a Pearl on display in the Dallas area I have to base my decision on several factors.

The person who started this thread and is posting all the screen shots lives right outside of Dallas. Maybe you should PM him...

You need to educate yourself on digital photography and compression methods. What you mention has nothing to do with the actual image projected by the projector.

Im used to ruler straight bars and if it's scribbly like that it would bother me.

Digital photagraphy? May i dare ask to see a screenshot from you kipp...hehe

Im used to ruler straight bars and if it's scribbly like that it would bother me.

Digital photagraphy? May i dare ask to see a screenshot from you kipp...hehe

I see what you are saying. The top of the screen looks like it is not straight across. It is much more likely that this is a screen problem (wave or a result of a DIY screen maybe?).

Daniel

Does the geometry really look like that? The bars look very scribbly, right were he's pointing to.


HAHAHAHAAA!! Dang you spotted my crappy flip down mask :)

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/8076/projectorstuff019xf2.jpg


I was useing a lens on my Z4 to get rid of the black bars.

With the Pearl I unhook the mask from the ceiling and use the power lens shift to move the entire image down so the 2.35:1 content is centered. Don't even use the lens anymore.

As a Pearl owner, these shots are great but you really have too see the Pearl in person to see how good it really is. No screenshot IMO will do it any justice. Yeah, its that good.

You are so right if you think these are good you need to see it in person.

You need to educate yourself on digital photography and compression methods. What you mention has nothing to do with the actual image projected by the projector.

Yup, it has more to do with my clunky seamstress work ;)

HAHAHAHAAA!! Dang you spotted my crappy flip down mask :)


WHEW. Looks like with your set-up you dont have to deal with black bars, i dont blame you.

Yeah, once you get rid of em' you never want them back.

Even though it is a bit shoddy I love that strip of velvet.

Im used to ruler straight bars and if it's scribbly like that it would bother me.

]

This is kinda my point. That you even asked....

Geometry errors much smaller than the one you noted would be horrid. They won't show up on screen shots.

But, hey, we now know more about felt cutting! :)

Yeah, once you get rid of em' you never want them back.

Even though it is a bit shoddy I love that strip of velvet.


Interesting. I've thought about doing something like that with a strip of plastic covered in velvet, and a couple of velcro strips.

Do you lose focus when you lens shift up and down?

You are so right if you think these are good you need to see it in person.



Yup, it has more to do with my clunky seamstress work ;)

;) ;) ;)

HAHAHAHAAA!! Dang you spotted my crappy flip down mask :) I sympathize. I tried something similar with a long styrofoam plank. It turned out to be a big deal to try to get a very straight edge because the black velvet wrapped around the edge and stapled in (not effective) would tend to loosen and crinkle resulting in the same scribbly effect. Something with a firm edge like a plastic strip that Rogo mentioned sounds better. Use spray glue to adhere and stretch the black velvet around the edge to make it straight and prevent subsequent loosening and scribbles.

Dan

I sympathize. I tried something similar with a long styrofoam plank. It turned out to be a big deal to try to get a very straight edge because the black velvet wrapped around the edge and stapled in (not effective) would tend to loosen and crinkle resulting in the same scribbly effect. Something with a firm edge like a plastic strip that Rogo mentioned sounds better. Use spray glue to adhere and stretch the black velvet around the edge to make it straight and prevent subsequent loosening and scribbles.

Dan

That was me that mentioned the plastic! :=)

Another possibility mght be an aluminum sheet. They're very light and easy to work with.

I like the idea of a spray on adhesive.

Someone ought to just make a manual masking product like this. Huh.

I use a piece of felt -- with velcro along the sides and top of the screen. It's pretty easy to get it stretched tightly, without messing with my retractible screen. But this is on a 92inch diag screen, so with a larger screen, it might be different.

In fact, I find this works better than the HTIQ masking system I bought a couple of years ago for my old Firehawk screen (dearly departed). So the HTIQ masking system is sitting in the garage, waiting for a new home (surprising how UNPOPULAR the 82inch diag 16x9 screen size is these days) and I've got a couple of rolls of nice felt for manual masking, on a shelf in the living room.

Sure, it's not nearly as slick as an automated system, but it can be stashed away when the theater is not in use (ie, when it's a living room) and the screen is rolled up.... and when the theater is in use it is too dark to see the makeshift nature of the masking -- but the masking is VERY EFFECTIVE.

Interesting. I've thought about doing something like that with a strip of plastic covered in velvet, and a couple of velcro strips.

Do you lose focus when you lens shift up and down?


Nope, still razor sharp.

I don't shift very far away from the center of the lens though so I guess if you go to the extreme of the lens shift you might lose some focus

That was me that mentioned the plastic! :=)

Another possibility mght be an aluminum sheet. They're very light and easy to work with.

I like the idea of a spray on adhesive.

Someone ought to just make a manual masking product like this. Huh.

This sounds like a good idea. I will try it when I do a new screen because the Pearl is whispering in my ear to go bigger :D

An aluminum sheet with black felt glued to both sides and a hinge at the top that would connect to the screen that could swing up and down......


*wheels turning in my brain*

Keep those screenshots commin´. Great!

:D

This sounds like a good idea. I will try it when I do a new screen because the Pearl is whispering in my ear to go bigger :D

An aluminum sheet with black felt glued to both sides and a hinge at the top that would connect to the screen that could swing up and down......


*wheels turning in my brain*


Oooooo... hinge. That's slick!

Chako,

Thanks for the great pics, I was curious if you might have Superman: The Movie? Would love to see some screen shots from where he saves lois and captures the plane as thats an ultra black shot.

I was also curious. I just picked up a 46inch XBR2, and given the price of that TV, I am wondering if I should replace it with the Pearl. Any thoughts??

Chako,

Time to get that great camera out again and put up some baseball and football baby!

I just picked up a 46inch XBR2, and given the price of that TV, I am wondering if I should replace it with the Pearl. Any thoughts??

If what you want is a front projector, most definitely. If what you want is a great TV, for watching with room lights on or windows open during the day, then probably not.

Those screen shots look good. While it's very tough to really know what it looks like in person, as screenshots are always just a sample, I like the overall look of it.

I'm not about to switch from my 9500LC, no way, but it does look like I could enjoy
watching it....as long as the bulb holds out.


The best digitals today are starting to get to the point that it's hard to criticize the picture,
but I'm still concerned about the product lifespan and ageing effects and how they affect
the projector as it ages.

I can reasonably expect 20 years out of a good CRT chassis, retubing once every several
years if it's used with regularity. I have yet to see a one-chip or LCD based digital that is capable of coming close to meeting its original specs at its third birthday in service. The heat from the lamp is destructive of the optical core components.

When the service life issues are solved, I'll be more favorably inclined to look at actually
buying a digital. But why would the companies try to make them last longer when it means
they won't sell as many?

Oh well, I've got at least another ten years of good service to get out of my 9500LC before
I need to even think about replacing it. (Actually, with my viewing habits, it'll be more
than 20 years before the tubes are well worn.)

CJ

CJ
I have owned 3 LCD projectors over the last 7 1/2 years. The first only briefly and the last two a Sony 400Q 4 years and a Sony HS-10 3 1/2 years. Image degradation has never came into play as a reason for me to upgrade.

But increases in quality and options have always driven me to the newer model. Could not imagine anything in this game satisfying me for 20 years to come.Glad to hear that the image is to your liking.

I am looking forward to seeing a Pearl in a good setting. I have seen CRT's at different home theater outlets. Everyone can pick there own flavors and that is what makes it all good. Johnathan

There are two factors that matter most to me: Picture, and reliability for the long term.

The first, well, I have that in spades now. My machine resolves the SMPTE bar test
patterns at 2048x1536 anamorphic, equivalent to 2048x2048 in 16x9. That's the future
of digitals, but it doesn't matter as it's well above 1080p, the best that you can get
viewable material in right now short of stealing the digital 2K playback system from a
DLP-equipped theater.

I can see no reason why picture quality would be a driving force in me wanting to change
projectors, as I've got it all NOW. If the next generation super-HD format comes out and
pushes resolution demands beyond what my PJ can deliver, that's a reason to upgrade,
but my PJ was 1080P capable in 1995, it fully resolves everything HD can throw at it,
it's as bright as an SMPTE standard movie screen is, and then some. So what's my
motivation to upgrade? None...because of yet, it ISN'T an upgrade. I could only spend
more money and get a picture that is comparable, but not necessarily better.

CRT continues to be right for me, for now, but the latest digitals like the Pearl would
satisfy me if I woke up tomorrow and found that my PJ had melted into a pile of slag and
insurance bought me a new one. I'm just glad that digitals have achieved this level of performance. It took a while.

CJ


The newest (and most expensive) digitals have reached the point where I have no
objections to them that matter. And I'm a picky sort!

The second is because when I buy something, I expect it to last a VERY long time.

I believe I will have quite a few years to go before the condition of my PJ degrades to the
point that I will be looking for a replacement. I'm pleased to note that when the time comes
that such replacement is desirable to me, I won't have to give up picture quality.

Only recently has this happened.

I just hope that when I end up getting a digital, it will last like I want it to.

My car is 14 years old and other than 14 years of chips and sand scratches in the paint,
it works, runs, and drives like new. This is typical of what I expect out of something that
I spend much money on. I want a long, reliable lifespan out of it.

I would hope to get at least ten years out of any projector I chose to install in my theater, if I wanted to.

Here are some screenshots from U-571, Vertical Limit, Phantom of the Opera, and Seabiscuit that are meant to convey some sense of the black levels, shadow detail, and perhaps depth one might get with the Pearl, depending on setup of course. Some of the POTO shots and the last screenshot from Seabiscuit are included to show off fleshtones. All the sources, except Vertical Limit which is from an Oppo 741 upconverted to 1080i, are HD DVD / HDMI without external video processing. What I really like about the Pearl are its color rendition and the distinct clearing of the haze effect in low APL (generally dark) scenes. I have no complaint about sharpness; detail is unmistakeably improved from 720p sitting at 1.5 screen widths from the screen. I find the image this pj puts out noticeably non-fatiguing - it's been easy to stay up until early hours of the morning watching film after film.

FWIW, looking at my monitor setup and generally comparing what I see in person, I'd say that among other things the Canon (PowerShot A620) digital camera processing ends up crushing blacks a little or gives a higher gamma, say 2.4 vs. 2.2. Intrascene CR looks a bit enhanced in the photos. My monitor is calibrated for 2.2 gamma. I did not edit the screenshots except for size. A low ISO setting was kept to keep noise low. The noise in the Vertical Limit shots is there in the source.

These were taken with colorspace set on normal and default settings otherwise with autoiris1. I use a Da-Lite High Power (images about 110" wide) with the pj installed about 1 foot above viewing level and immediately behind the center viewer, 14 ft away from the screen. The bulb was 12 hours old when these shots were taken. This projector is not calibrated yet although I have made three "user" settings changing gamma and colorspace that I'll toggle depending on the source material.

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k121/drapp1952/U571a.jpg
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k121/drapp1952/U571b.jpg
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k121/drapp1952/VL.jpg
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k121/drapp1952/VL1.jpg
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k121/drapp1952/POTO1.jpg
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k121/drapp1952/POTO3.jpg
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k121/drapp1952/POTO4.jpg
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k121/drapp1952/POTO6.jpg
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k121/drapp1952/SB3.jpg
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k121/drapp1952/SB1.jpg

Dan

Some nice lookin shots drapp. Curious if you could take a few more with some bright scenes. Also what size screen?

Here are some screenshots from U-571, Vertical Limit, Phantom of the Opera, and Seabiscuit...


Beautiful screenshots. Right now, I have my pearl mounted near min throw, which cuts the contrast by a third, and I'm running on "low bulb" mode most of the time, which is plenty bright and gives good blacks. When I finally get to mount my Pearl in my dedicated HT, it will be at max throw, which, according to the Cine4Home reviews, will boost contrast nicely. Then I can move up to "high bulb" mode and I expect to be able to get highlights/blacks comparable to what you have in these photos.

In the meantime, despite all my OCD grouching about its imperfections, this projector truly is amazing. I watched the Cardinals game on Fox tonight. It was better than being there -- thankfully my local Fox affiliate eased up on the bandwidth compression for tonight's game.

And then I switched over and watched a bit of Doom (goofy movie, I know) on one of the HD premium channels. In low bulb mode, the blacks were damn near inky. Just beautiful.

Without a Dynamic Iris, I still don't think the new JVC will be able to compete with the pearl on Low APL scenes with no bright highlights -- in scenes like those that permeate movies like Alien, Doom, Pitch Black, and many others, black level rules the day, and the Pearl's excellent with these scenes.

He said 110" wide which is 126" diag.

Nice camera work Drapp. It really does show the pj at its best. How about some typical HD stuff and sports?

I love my Toshiba HD-DVD too and Seabiscuit is a terrific transfer. Phantom I know is a favorite for quality but not my cup of tea.

How about some baseball and football?

Fun thread! :)

Gremmy no screenshots? Here's a tip, turn off all the lights, turn off the flash on your digital camera, thats the key, and you should have no problem taking screenshots like above.

Thanks for posting the pics, makes me think twice about the claims that the Pearl is still too dim. Any chance you post a few pics from upcoming Monday Night Football game?

Drapp...Are you using high or low lamp in those screenshots? beautifull shots by the way!

If my ftL calculations are correct, you are getting the same ftL as someone would get with a 1.3 gain white screen at 92" diag which is an interesting point of ref.

drapp: Boy, it's impressive to see how good black detail one gets with a HighPower! This certainly removes my hesitancy about whether the HP would convey the good CR, black level, etc., of the Pearl. It looks like the Pearl + HP combo is an excellent match.

Are the walls in your room dark colored, etc., i.e., the ideal HT, or are they lighter colored? (I.e., any significant amount of reflected light?)

Well, it's 1:00 am and I've got work tomorrow. I just emerged from downstairs where I was taking more screenshots and doing some experimentation with exposures, etc.

I hope to be doing a shootout with Kevin Anderson who just installed his HD81 tomorrow. I'll see about doing some shots there of other stuff and the Optoma.

The lamp is on high on the Pearl.

Dan

Drapp - Those shots look great - but the black levels look actually black - is this the case while watching? I thought the Pearl couldn't manage absolute black, especially doubled by the hipower. Is this a camera thing?
Cheers
tt

I hope to be doing a shootout with Kevin Anderson who just installed his HD81 tomorrow. I'll see about doing some shots there of other stuff and the Optoma.



Ooooh - Pearl vs. HD81. Can't wait to see and hear the results!

-tony

Great shots drapp!

I will try to get some sports up tomorrow. Could not find my camera this weekend. I cleaned up for the football watching party and then forgot where I put it. :rolleyes:

Drapp - Those shots look great - but the black levels look actually black - is this the case while watching? I thought the Pearl couldn't manage absolute black, especially doubled by the hipower. Is this a camera thing?
Cheers
ttGlad you asked. It is a camera thing. Blacks get crushed with most digital captures, but I am experimenting trying to more accurately catch very low light levels. Long ago Mr. Wigggles did a special technique of bracketing exposures and then overlapping to more accurately portray this. There's a related or the same technique in Photoshop 7 (and recently highlighted in the New York Times) that allows this - I've forgotten the specific name for the technique.

Absolutely, the High Power will give 3 gain for all light sent its direction back toward the source. So, I see the lightspill, and what at times look like blue-black blacks and a little color disuniformity with blue in the lower left and upper right corners at black. On the bright side, all this will get better as the bulb dims (sorry); now it's only 17 hours old. To keep things in perspective, it's not something you generally see. Bulb dimming, calibration, and if I get real obsessive maybe gamma 3D adjustments, will help this.

I am using high lamp setting because I was fooling around with the manual iris setting, putting it at minimum aperature and comparing that with autoiris1 and autoiris 2. Also, with high lamp setting I found the fan noise to be less obstrusive insofar as it does not "cycle" as it does for me with low lamp. I sit about a foot away from the pj and can hear this subtle cycling but the vast majority of viewers won't hear it in a more typical setup.

My HT is very dark. This makes a big difference in simultaneous CR and that might be reflected in my screenshots. I've emulated darinp, simply looked around at cinemas, and fortunately am able to do this. With black on the ceilings, black rugs/carpet, black fabric thumbtacked into the ceiling, and black velvet draped all over around the pj end of the room, no living room should look like my basement HT. I'll post a photo or two of it later.

Kevin Anderson, HiHoSteve, and I will offer our opinions of the HD81 vs. Pearl in Kevin's setup. I'll include screenshots if any differences can be seen that way.

Dan

Thanks Dan for the clarification. Look forward to more shots from you and Chako :)

Time for some Monday Night Football!!!! Courtesy of ESPN HD


I took these first few shots showing what it looks like with a lot of ambient light. I had ALL my lights on for these. I know the foreground looks dark but it is very bright in person. You could easily read a book or do anything else that needs a good amount of light.

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/7074/projectorstuff043as0.jpg
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/7358/untitled1ux8.jpg
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/1719/projectorstuff046ul9.jpg
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/1561/projectorstuff044sp2.jpg
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/5899/projectorstuff047fy4.jpg
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/7082/projectorstuff054yc6.jpg

As you can see still very watchable but a little washed out.

I prefer to watch in a completely dark environment. Also these shots are a little hazy. This is not caused by the projector, the game was rainy last night hence the slight haze. Still looked great though.

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/1157/projectorstuff051xz0.jpg
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/6303/projectorstuff050fz7.jpg
http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/6708/projectorstuff052ri2.jpg
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/9583/projectorstuff049ob0.jpg

Just for fun a lights on lights off split.

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/6673/splitbim9.jpg
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/7762/splitaqt7.jpg

Great pics. Thanks again.

-tony

Now that's what I'm talking. Really awesome. And the additional comparison with lighting was a very nice plus. Even with the high power screen, it does appear that light is the devil.

Those pics look washed out to me.

...the additional comparison with lighting was a very nice plus. Even with the high power screen, it does appear that light is the devil.
IIRC Chako does not have a High Power scrren, it is a no name from EBAY. The HP would be up to 3 times brighter!

Holy cow! I must have confused him with another owner. That's really interesting being it's on a no name. So the light was eating up this screen that had no retroeflective power.

Thanks HoustonHoyaFan.

Yes it is not High Power just a matte white screen with 1.0 gain

Chako - it looks like you have light colors in that room (walls and ceiling), but based on the pictures, there doesn't seem to be too much light spill when you control the lighting. Is this correct?

The reason I am asking is that the room I intend for my eventual Pearl will have great light control but the walls and ceiling are beige.

Those pics look washed out to me.

Which ones? The ones I said were washed out because I said all the lights that could possibly be a factor to the screen were on.

Or the ones I said weren't as vibrant as it usually is because the game was played in a drizzle and made them somewhat hazy.

:rolleyes:

Chako - it looks like you have light colors in that room (walls and ceiling), but based on the pictures, there doesn't seem to be too much light spill when you control the lighting. Is this correct?

The reason I am asking is that the room I intend for my eventual Pearl will have great light control but the walls and ceiling are beige.


Yes, while not ideal it still produces a very good picture with minimal light bouncing of the walls and ceiling back onto the screen.

I would paint them black but the apartment office says they would charge me beaucoup bucks if I did lol :D

Which ones? The ones I said were washed out because I said all the lights that could possibly be a factor to the screen were on.

Or the ones I said weren't as vibrant as it usually is because the game was played in a drizzle and made them somewhat hazy.

:rolleyes:

Both actually. Though obviously the ones with the lights on looked more washed out than the others.

Could be your digital camera.

Excellent. This is very reassuring to me as I will have similar lighting conditions and would like to at least leave the lights in the back of the room on during sports without having to use a high gain screen. It's good to be able to see that it's still perfectly viewable. Thanks for the pictures!

So, is there any truth to the rumor that the next Sony digital in line is going to be called the SWINE?


You know....pearls before swine.... :D


But seriously...it's nice. No doubt about that. But turn off the room lights! Any reduction
in available contrast ratio is unacceptable!

So, is there any truth to the rumor that the next Sony digital in line is going to be called the SWINE?


You know....pearls before swine.... :D


But seriously...it's nice. No doubt about that. But turn off the room lights! Any reduction
in available contrast ratio is unacceptable!


Hahahaha!!! Clever


Yeah I always have the lights off during viewing. Just trying to help those out that wanna see what sports look like in a lit room. What can I say I'm a people pleaser. :D

Guess thats why all the movie nights/ videogame night/ sports nights are all at my house.

Or maybe it's the projector ;)

Chako,

Thanks so much for the screenshots, I was curious if you could take a couple of either Chronicles of Riddick during the ending fight scene with lights off and on, and or Superman: The Movie under the same conditions. I am closing to pulling the trigger on the Pearl and this would really help. Thanks!!!!

wow, love the screen shots, cant wait to unbox my Pearl and get to finally use it int he next upcomming weeks.. i even got the new SST firehawk screen, i cant wait to see what it looks like, if yours looks like this on that screen..

I was useing a lens on my Z4 to get rid of the black bars.

With the Pearl I unhook the mask from the ceiling and use the power lens shift to move the entire image down so the 2.35:1 content is centered. Don't even use the lens anymore.

That is a great idea! Wonder how hard it would be to make a motorized top mask that is a bit cleaner? Also can a memory be setup for the lens shift? Or I guess as long as it is X- amount of clicks down with the lens and x-amount back up it could be automated with a remote.

Chako,

Thanks so much for the screenshots, I was curious if you could take a couple of either Chronicles of Riddick during the ending fight scene with lights off and on, and or Superman: The Movie under the same conditions. I am closing to pulling the trigger on the Pearl and this would really help. Thanks!!!!

I don't have Superman but I can do Riddick.


Also can a memory be setup for the lens shift? Or I guess as long as it is X- amount of clicks down with the lens and x-amount back up it could be automated with a remote.

No memory that I know of but I can do it very easy with the powered lens shift. If you hold it down it will get it close then you can tap the button a few times to get it perfect. No more than 1 - 2 min to get centered.

I don't have Superman but I can do Riddick.


Thanks so much Chako, I am eagerly awaiting those pics :)

Could some folks post pictures of the Pearl shooting black and white images? I'm tryig to figure out whether my color uniformity issues are par for the Pearl, or whether my unit is worse than it should be. (I have a picture from my unit in the poll thread) Thank you,

Sage

Yeah I can do some more B&W stuff

Could some folks post pictures of the Pearl shooting black and white images? I'm tryig to figure out whether my color uniformity issues are par for the Pearl, or whether my unit is worse than it should be. (I have a picture from my unit in the poll thread) Thank you,

Sage

Sage, are the pictures that you posted in the other thread a good representation of what you see with your naked eye, in terms of "blob" severity?

I don't think I have any B&W movies in my DVD collection, so I'm at the mercy of whatever they're showing on cable. But if I see some B&W content, I'll snap a few pics for you.

Could someone point me to information about good ways to take screen shots with a digital camera? I assume it's here somewhere...

Marc

Sage, are the pictures that you posted in the other thread a good representation of what you see with your naked eye, in terms of "blob" severity?

I don't think I have any B&W movies in my DVD collection, so I'm at the mercy of whatever they're showing on cable. But if I see some B&W content, I'll snap a few pics for you.

It's actually worse with the naked eye, but it is otherwise a good representation.

The picture is from Phantom of the Opera HD DVD, which is a color movie with a short black and white section at the begining. The blob is visible in color content, but I had troulbe photographing it.

Could someone point me to information about good ways to take screen shots with a digital camera? I assume it's here somewhere...

Marc

I just turned off the flash and pointed the camera at the screen. It seemed to work okay.

Yeah I can do some more B&W stuff

That would be awesome.

These pics do not do it justice. Must be seen in person. I just saw one and ordered it.

Nate

That would be awesome.

Sage, I ran across a black and white music video on the MTV HD channel and snapped a few quick pics for you. My camera is crushing blacks, or else you'd be able to see perfectly uniform dark gray bars framing the 4:3 image. For some reason, some of these pics don't look entirely black and white (they look sort of green for some reason), but I assure you that no discoloration was visible with the naked eye here, and any coloration is due to the camera:

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c101/gremmmy/Pearl002.jpg

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c101/gremmmy/Pearl006.jpg

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c101/gremmmy/Pearl013.jpg

Never done this before, but it seems to have come out reasonably. No green or other colored blobs while watching this...

Marc

I am about to order a Pearl through AVS (will be my first pj) because I'm moving into my new home in two weeks. So, I went to a store today and spent an hour in a dedicated/light controlled room watching a Ruby (they don't have any pearls yet).

Although I was astounded by the quality of the picture , I became distinctly aware of a greenish tint that seemed to predominantly be in the center of the screen. The salesmen stated that other customers had commented on this as well. Is this the infamous green blob? Should I hold off on ordering this projector (maybe a Mits HC5000)? It was really distracting to an otherwise glorious experience.

P.S.
I was pleasantly surprised to see how well the image held up under ambient light on a firehawk screen (salesman said the bulb was at the very end of its lifespan ). I was hoping I was going to be able to use my new pj in my home to watch CNN news during the daytime with a 100" HP, that im also going to order.

Congrats on moving up to the BIG world of front projection, Evan! :)

Rob,

Your incredible home theater was the first big-screen projector experience I ever had (thank you again for having me over). In fact, I hold you partially to blame that I am going into financial debt, to buy a big house only so I could have the room to get a projector. I will try not to hold resentful feelings against you during the inevitable foreclosure I will one day have to endure. :p

Evan

I just started laughing at the memory of when I complimented you on the 106-inch screen, and you indignantly corrected me, and emphatically stated that it was in fact a 120"!!! (I continue to hope for your forgiveness on this unforgivable insult ;)

How much is the Pearl streeting for, anyway?


CJ

Gremmy and MBlank, thank you hugely. This is just what I needed to see.

Sage

Did you have the color uniformity problem with the Pearl from the beginning, or did it devolope over time? Also, is it present when from the time you turn on the projector, or is does it become visible as the pj warms up?

Rob,

Your incredible home theater was the first big-screen projector experience I ever had (thank you again for having me over). In fact, I hold you partially to blame that I am going into financial debt, to buy a big house only so I could have the room to get a projector. I will try not to hold resentful feelings against you during the inevitable foreclosure I will one day have to endure. :p

Evan

I just started laughing at the memory of when I complimented you on the 106-inch screen, and you indignantly corrected me, and emphatically stated that it was in fact a 120"!!! (I continue to hope for your forgiveness on this unforgivable insult ;)

You are very welcome (I think;)) Evan.

You will not regret it for a minute, I can tell you that! There's nothing better than a big front projection image for full cinematic immersion! You will never need or want to go to the theater again. :)

Rob

P.S. You are forgiven regarding the incredible insult wherein you accused me of having a measly little 106" screen. :p

Well, that IS a little on the small side... ;D

It's not worth plugging the 9500LC in if the screen isn't 8 feet wide at least!

And while we could argue all day over which is really a better PJ, you do have more
available brightness so should be able to run a bigger screen, at least, even though
you're limited to "only" 1080p. (Which is enough, at the moment....I can go considerably
higher but try finding something to watch that's playing at QXGA!)


CJ

Sage

Did you have the color uniformity problem with the Pearl from the beginning, or did it devolope over time? Also, is it present when from the time you turn on the projector, or is does it become visible as the pj warms up?

I noticed it immediately on the first time I used the projector, but was so busy picking my jaw off the ground from the large screen (I came from a 65") and the other features, that I wrote it off as mild color uniformity. It wasn't until I actually tried to do a proper calibration that I realized how wicked bad it was.

It is clearly visible, immediately. I can't see any fundamental change as the projector heats up. I have not measured it cool to objectively verify this, however.

< $4K

Really? :eek:

Dang I forgot my camera at home.

Sage, I took some pics of Young Frankenstein, 12 Angry Men and Schindler's list. I can put those up tomorrow but I can tell you now none have color uniformity issues.

Chako, I'd love to see them. I think they would also be useful for other folks who are interested in projector performance and white field uniformity.

Hrm... I just started noticing green -> pink discoloration going from left to right (inverted mount) as well; I really didn't see this until today, I'm pretty sure. It's pretty obvious if you're looking for it, especially at high IRE. It goes away entirely if the brightness is turned up very high, by the way (don't know if that's a hint to the problem), but of course that's not a reasonable way of using the projector.

Marc

WOW, come on people, its on almost everyones Pearl (if not on everyones)

You just have to look for it.

And know what your looking for.

Bringing the panel driver of blue up to 40 help eliminate the problem.

Check out my Tweak thread

WOW, come on people, its on almost everyones Pearl (if not on everyones)

You just have to look for it.

And know what your looking for.

Bringing the panel driver of blue up to 40 help eliminate the problem.

Check out my Tweak thread


I have no doubt that pumping up the blue panel hides the problem, but most likely at the expense of color and gray-scale accuracy , and 3 dimensionality, on some level. You can get a similar effect without going into the service menu at all simply by boosting the blue gain.

But the proper solution to this problem is a 3D gamma adjustment in the higher IREs. At least, that's what I suspect. I'm a bit scared to tackle this, but I might give it a shot.

I have no doubt that pumping up the blue panel hides the problem, but most likely at the expense of color and gray-scale accuracy , and 3 dimensionality, on some level. You can get a similar effect without going into the service menu at all simply by boosting the blue gain.

But the proper solution to this problem is a 3D gamma adjustment in the higher IREs. At least, that's what I suspect. I'm a bit scared to tackle this, but I might give it a shot.

I am not changing the blue by much at all.

I am very very very picky about my image, there is no noticeable change in color and gray-scale accuracy , and 3 dimensionality. If anything it looks better at least with my Pearl as the color uniformity is greatly diminished.

I am not changing the blue by much at all.

I am very very very picky about my image, there is no noticeable change in color and gray-scale accuracy , and 3 dimensionality. If anything it looks better at least with my Pearl as the color uniformity is greatly diminished.

Have you done the obsessive compulsive toggling on and off of your "fix" to compare the 3 dimensionality? You haven't truly arrived in my own personal private hell of video OCD until you've done this about 500 times on 30 different sources and determined that yes, indeed, your fix is not hurting the picture quality.
I'm quite sure they make a medication for this, and I should probably look into it.

:D :D :D :D :D

Eventually I'll be able to relax and just watch the movie, but that's not likely to happen for another few weeks.

On another note, I just got done watching the movie "Domino" on Max HD. Totally incredible on the Pearl. I used to think that my directView CRT had a nice picture, but this beast is on a whole different level. You know, to be honest, 99% of the time, my color discontinuity is totally invisible, even when I'm looking for it. It really is very subtle, especially with my blue gain boosted.

Unfortunately, it is clear to me (now) that boosting the blue on my Pearl does mess up the colors a bit, but only a little bit, and it's a good trade off.

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c101/gremmmy/Pearl002.jpg

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c101/gremmmy/Pearl006.jpg

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c101/gremmmy/Pearl013.jpg


Looks good :D

I currently have a HS51 and been very happy with it, would love to make the jump into a 1080p projector. Anyone know if anyone takes trades on a very good HS51 (652) hours on it, for a VPL-VW50? PM me if you know of a good plave that takes trades and gives fair pricing :) This unit looks awesome from what I saw of several demos.

Bump.......

Have you done the obsessive compulsive toggling on and off of your "fix" to compare the 3 dimensionality? You haven't truly arrived in my own personal private hell of video OCD until you've done this about 500 times on 30 different sources and determined that yes, indeed, your fix is not hurting the picture quality.
I'm quite sure they make a medication for this, and I should probably look into it.

:D :D :D :D :D

Eventually I'll be able to relax and just watch the movie, but that's not likely to happen for another few weeks.

On another note, I just got done watching the movie "Domino" on Max HD. Totally incredible on the Pearl. I used to think that my directView CRT had a nice picture, but this beast is on a whole different level. You know, to be honest, 99% of the time, my color discontinuity is totally invisible, even when I'm looking for it. It really is very subtle, especially with my blue gain boosted.

Unfortunately, it is clear to me (now) that boosting the blue on my Pearl does mess up the colors a bit, but only a little bit, and it's a good trade off.


We are talking about to different things!

You are talking about changing the color Blue!

Gain and Bias

I am talking about the Panel driver in the service menu.

You would loose 3D effect with what your doing. and Grey Scale.

Not my way! ;)


If you want to know more check out my first post in the calibration thread.

P.S. THIS WILL NOT FIX IT for anyone that want to try it. Just minimize it.

We are talking about to different things!

You are talking about changing the color Blue!

Gain and Bias

I am talking about the Panel driver in the service menu.

You would loose 3D effect with what your doing. and Grey Scale.

Not my way! ;)


If you want to know more check out my first post in the calibration thread.

P.S. THIS WILL NOT FIX IT for anyone that want to try it. Just minimize it.

SOWK,

I'm not saying you're wrong, but could you articulate to me how increasing the drive of the entire blue panel would be different than boosting its gain and bias? I just want to understand. Are you not increasing the amount of blue in both cases? And therefore, wouldn't both lead to color and grayscale inaccuracies?

;) ;) ;)


so much for being "educated on digital photog and compression methods"

Could you take more screenshots of bright scenes, i.e Gladiator, Fast and the Furious, SDDVD LOTR etc. Many are complaining of the the dimness of the Pearl. I´m going for a 92 inch screen with 1.0 gain in a total light controlled HT...

Could you take more screenshots of bright scenes, i.e Gladiator, Fast and the Furious, SDDVD LOTR etc. Many are complaining of the the dimness of the Pearl. I´m going for a 92 inch screen with 1.0 gain in a total light controlled HT...

After seeing the Pearl, I'm convinced that it will be plenty bright on a 92" screen.

:D
Given a complete lightcontrolled HT (with dark, lightabsorbing colors), 90-100 inch light grey/ white 1.0 gain filmscreen, connected to a good source such as a HDDVD-player - is there any negative issues with the Pearl that should keep me from buing it?

As I see it it is the perfect pj (price/ performance), given that you do not have too large a screen and a lightcontrolled HT.

Any comments?

is there any negative issues with the Pearl that should keep me from buing it?

In my opinion there are no big negatives, but the projector could be a bit sharper and then de-interlacing for PAL videomaterial could also be a bit better :)

What is the ANSI lumen spec on this unit?

For reference, a good 9" CRT PJ may be rated for 260 ANSI lumens, and when mated to a
reasonably sized screen (96" wide or so), nobody in their right mind would complain about a lack of adequate brightness in a light controlled theater.

The very idea that someone could complain about a lack of brightness out of a digital that
is PROBABLY delivering greater than 260 ANSI lumens is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Particularly when everything mentioned so far will meet or exceed the SMPTE spec for screen brightness for movie theater, which I think is 9.1 foot-lamberts.


CJ

To the original poster:

Are those Logitech Z-5500 speakers you're using for your home theater? I use them currently for my little "home theater" with my JVC 52" LCoS. Was thinking about getting a Pearl next summer maybe. How far away from the screen do you sit? How much did the screen cost you? Lastly, what dvd player do you have and do you have hd dvd player as well? And also lastly, nice DVD collectioN! :)

so much for being "educated on digital photog and compression methods"


It went right over your head...didn't it.... :p :p :p

Particularly when everything mentioned so far will meet or exceed the SMPTE spec for screen brightness for movie theater, which I think is 9.1 foot-lamberts
The Pearl seems to produce 450 to 790 ANSI Lumens, depending on throw distance and hi/low lamp selection.


The SMPTE theater spec is 12 to 22 fL measured off screen. The screening room spec is 16 fL

The DCinema spec is 12 fL.

The issue seems to be that some users are not looking for "home theater" (light controlled room), but instead are looking for "big screen TV". :)

The issue seems to be that some users are not looking for "home theater" (light controlled room), but instead are looking for "big screen TV". :)

That is what I thought. If one have total lightcontrol, I can not understand that the Pearl shouldn´t be bright enough. Think of a good CRT and the fantastic pic it gives...

If you want your friends over for beer and NFL with lights on, sure. But sholuldn´t you rather buy a large plasma-screen, then?

Home Theater is watching movies in darkness - just like in a movie theater...

My opinion...

:D
Given a complete lightcontrolled HT (with dark, lightabsorbing colors), 90-100 inch light grey/ white 1.0 gain filmscreen, connected to a good source such as a HDDVD-player - is there any negative issues with the Pearl that should keep me from buing it?

As I see it it is the perfect pj (price/ performance), given that you do not have too large a screen and a lightcontrolled HT.

Any comments?


The Pearl looks real good on a 92" Firehawk and in my opinion even better on a ST130. For me, a gain of 1.0 on 92" is not enough gain.

I just found this very nice little calculator app (works in MS Excel) that allows you to determine
your foot-lamberts rating, and much more:

http://www.digitalprojection.com/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,32/Itemid,63/

Using it, it shows that my PJ (9500LC) delivers 8.6 foot-lamberts at its rated ANSI output of
250 lumens. But at the 1000 PEAK lumens rating, I get 33.2 foot-lamberts.

I'm not sure which is the more applicable measurement.

CJ

That is what I thought. If one have total lightcontrol, I can not understand that the Pearl shouldn´t be bright enough. Think of a good CRT and the fantastic pic it gives...

If you want your friends over for beer and NFL with lights on, sure. But sholuldn´t you rather buy a large plasma-screen, then?

Home Theater is watching movies in darkness - just like in a movie theater...

My opinion...

With the right room and lights, you can do both.

To the original poster:

Are those Logitech Z-5500 speakers you're using for your home theater? I use them currently for my little "home theater" with my JVC 52" LCoS.

Yep, they sound good enough and are plenty loud for all my needs. Why buy something better if I won't be able to enjoy it. Saving the speaker setup for when I buy a house.



Was thinking about getting a Pearl next summer maybe. How far away from the screen do you sit? How much did the screen cost you?

I sit 13 feet away from the screen. Screen total cost me 70 bucks, gotta love the DIY projects :)



Lastly, what dvd player do you have and do you have hd dvd player as well? And also lastly, nice DVD collectioN! :)

The Oppo OPDV971H is what I use for upconverting DVDs to 1080i. The HD-DVD player is on its way and should be there this week. Thanks, my friends call me their personal blockbuster :rolleyes:

Iit shows that my PJ (9500LC) delivers 8.6 foot-lamberts at its rated ANSI output of
250 lumens. But at the 1000 PEAK lumens rating, I get 33.2 foot-lamberts.

I'm not sure which is the more applicable measurement.

CJ
For the purposes of the SMPTE brightness calculation, use the ANSI number. The peak number is usually measured at 10% image size!

I'm a bit amazed. That someone would spend that much money for a VERY nice projector, about as good as a digital gets, and run it with a...shall we say "budget oriented" set of speakers to go with it?


Frankly, I think your priorities are BACKWARDS.


A great sound system does more to add to the quality of the home theater experience than
a better projector. REALLY. Because even a very average projector doesn't really do
anything WRONG, it just doesn't lacks the ability to convey the subtleties of the image,
while when it comes to speakers, they're all about doing things WRONG. The better the
speaker, the LESS it does wrong.

Given a choice between two systems, one with a 2500 dollar projector and 10,000 dollar's worth of speakers, and the other with a 10,000 dollar projector and 2500 dollar's worth of speakers, I'll take the system where the money is in the speakers. It WILL give a much more engaging experience.


Buy better speakers. MUCH better. Don't stop shopping until you've found speakers that don't sound like little home theater speakers anymore. Find speakers that are rich, full,
and don't have that irritating midrange push and grain that seems to be what all the
speaker companies think is what a home theater speaker is supposed to sound like.

I've heard home theaters that sounded so bad, I'd rather turn the amps off and watch the movie with the closed captioning turned on instead.

CJ

I'm a bit amazed. That someone would spend that much money for a VERY nice projector, about as good as a digital gets, and run it with a...shall we say "budget oriented" set of speakers to go with it?


Frankly, I think your priorities are BACKWARDS.


A great sound system does more to add to the quality of the home theater experience than
a better projector. REALLY. Because even a very average projector doesn't really do
anything WRONG, it just doesn't lacks the ability to convey the subtleties of the image,
while when it comes to speakers, they're all about doing things WRONG. The better the
speaker, the LESS it does wrong.

Given a choice between two systems, one with a 2500 dollar projector and 10,000 dollar's worth of speakers, and the other with a 10,000 dollar projector and 2500 dollar's worth of speakers, I'll take the system where the money is in the speakers. It WILL give a much more engaging experience.


Buy better speakers. MUCH better. Don't stop shopping until you've found speakers that don't sound like little home theater speakers anymore. Find speakers that are rich, full,
and don't have that irritating midrange push and grain that seems to be what all the
speaker companies think is what a home theater speaker is supposed to sound like.

I've heard home theaters that sounded so bad, I'd rather turn the amps off and watch the movie with the closed captioning turned on instead.

CJ

Spoken like a a true audio-head. So please allow me to respond as the video-head that I am, no disrespect intended.

For starters, a bad projector can very well do things "wrong." For example, if your projector displays shadow detail so poorly that you are missing key elements of a scene, then you aren't really seeing the picture properly at all. Early generation LCD projectors were very bad in this regard. Secondly, a projector with horribly inaccurate colors can change the entire way that a scene feels. Think "LOTR" on early generation plasmas with day-glo green grass. Even somewhat expensive LCD projectors can have a very similar impact. And it doesn't stop there -- I could go on and on with examples of projectors getting it "wrong" in a way that interferes with accuracy of the source.

I've never seen a projector (or display of any type) that did everything 100% correct, so it seems the rules of speakers work very similarly to the rules of displays -- that is, incremental improvements really are about doing "fewer things wrong," getting "closer to the source," and becoming "more transparent," to use a few phrases that are popular in audio circles.

Secondly, there are articles that suggest that when you are watching a movie, very little brainpower is left over to process the subtleties of the sound system. But I think if you're an audiophile, you probably obsess about the details of the sound system while you're watching the movie, in much the same way that a videophile will spend too much time looking for RBE, SDE, panel noise, elevated black levels, etc. So in a very real sense, it pays to focus your funds on the object of your obsession.

I would much rather spend 10K on a quality projector and 1K on a set of speakers than the other way around.

Well spend $5000.00 on both and save the $1000.00 LOL

I have more invested in audio then Video, but I am close to 50/50.

I think both are Equal in terms of importance.

About $7000.00 in Video
About $9000.00 in Audio

For now.

In about 5 years my Audio will go up significantly.

With sufficiently good audio equipment, there quality of the soundtrack takes on a natural, unforced feel that causes you to draw your attention to the sound only when the soundtrack is SUPPOSED to. I find lesser quality sound to be constantly irritating, like a toothache.

As of right now, my PJ is a Marquee 9500LC, with Mike Parker's 2nd generation VIM and
neck board mods, plus my own focus board mods to cap it off. It has new tubes (barely
150 hours on them as of now) and it's calibrated. Focus is murderously sharp, having
been dialed in at 2048x1536 while still in anamorphic squeeze mode, which equates to
2048x2048 in 4:3 mode.

My main L/R speakers are Aerial Acoustics 10Ts, powered by Krell monoblock amps.

The last two projectors I had were a Marquee 8000, which replaced my first projector,
a Sony VPH-722Q1.

When I got the Sony PJ, I already had these amps and speakers, and the PJ was well
calibrated but was strictly limited to only 480i/standard NTSC resolution. Colors were good.

Even then, people who saw a movie in my home theater loved it. They didn't comment
so much on the picture quality, which was merely good for NTSC, but everyone commented
on the great sound quality. Clear, natural, extremely intelligible dialog, it sounds like
the actors are there in the room with you. People who weren't audiophiles by any
stretch of the imagination were saying that.

A great picture deserves great sound. Great sound deserves a great picture. The system
isn't right if you don't have both.

CJ

I agree that both are important (although I don't think you have to spend over $2500 to get something that does what you say).
However, I don't really get the point of telling someone they should be unhappy with their system when they quite clearly are. It just sounds mean! Especially as this is a Pearl thread.

...I don't really get the point of telling someone they should be unhappy with their system when they quite clearly are. I just sounds mean!
Unless CJ is going to pony up the money to buy Chako "appropriate" speakers! :) :)

As a Pearl owner, these shots are great but you really have too see the Pearl in person to see how good it really is. No screenshot IMO will do it any justice. Yeah, its that good.
The day is quickly approaching when I will have to settle upon a projector and tell my parents that this is what they want to buy. Right now, it's probably the Pearl, strictly because we are all succeptible to rainbow artifacts. But I absolutely despise the lumens rating.

I recently checked this projector out at a local Ultimate Electronics. It was showing The Incredibles. The room was dark but there was a very small level of ambient light. The image being projected (at an estimated 10 feet) was so dim that we could not watch it.

2500 bucks is enough to get very good speakers...the front pair, anyway....via the used market.

I paid 2700 for my 10Ts about 8 years ago. It was a particularly good deal for that time,
but would be easy to duplicate today.

I'd have to go listen to some new speakers at various price points in order to formulate an
opinion on what you'd have to spend to get really great sounding speakers these days.
But I've had no reason to shop for speakers for about 8 years now. Happiness has been
achieved in that respect! :)


CJ

50/50

The day is quickly approaching when I will have to settle upon a projector and tell my parents that this is what they want to buy. Right now, it's probably the Pearl, strictly because we are all succeptible to rainbow artifacts. But I absolutely despise the lumens rating.

I recently checked this projector out at a local Ultimate Electronics. It was showing The Incredibles. The room was dark but there was a very small level of ambient light. The image being projected (at an estimated 10 feet) was so dim that we could not watch it.

Was the bulb old?

I am totally perplexed by all these "Pearl is too dim" posts. According to the Cine4Home measurements (which I believe are true, based on my own in-home experience) you can get 36 ft-L (RPTV brightnesss) on a 1.2 gain 96 inch screen at minimum throw on high bulb. It's actually a bit too bright on some content. For me, low bulb is very watchable.

If you want to project from max throw and need a bigger screen, get a higher gain screen.

This projector throws out 800+ lumens after calibration. People who need to content with ambient light might want to consider a light canon DLP or a really big RPTV or plasma.

Anyone who thinks 800 lumens is too dim is probably needing the extra power to burn through the filtering given to their eyes by a nice set of cataracts!


CJ

Was the bulb old?

I am totally perplexed by all these "Pearl is too dim" posts. According to the Cine4Home measurements (which I believe are true, based on my own in-home experience) you can get 36 ft-L (RPTV brightnesss) on a 1.2 gain 96 inch screen at minimum throw on high bulb. It's actually a bit too bright on some content. For me, low bulb is very watchable.

If you want to project from max throw and need a bigger screen, get a higher gain screen.

This projector throws out 800+ lumens after calibration. People who need to content with ambient light might want to consider a light canon DLP or a really big RPTV or plasma.

What mode do you get the 800+ post calibration lumens in? Is that with a new bulb? What throw distance?

How much brightness will be lost after 100-200 hours are on the bulb?

If I can maintain about 600 lumens, or even a bit less, the Pearl would work with my 123" diagonal 1.3 gain screen. I would love to have the Pearl as a viable option.

What mode do you get the 800+ post calibration lumens in? Is that with a new bulb? What throw distance?

How much brightness will be lost after 100-200 hours are on the bulb?

If I can maintain about 600 lumens, or even a bit less, the Pearl would work with my 123" diagonal 1.3 gain screen. I would love to have the Pearl as a viable option.

Actually, doing some more calculations, 500 lumens would be enough and still give me more than 14 ftl.

What mode do you get the 800+ post calibration lumens in? Is that with a new bulb? What throw distance?

How much brightness will be lost after 100-200 hours are on the bulb?

If I can maintain about 600 lumens, or even a bit less, the Pearl would work with my 123" diagonal 1.3 gain screen. I would love to have the Pearl as a viable option.

Jason Turk measured 794 lumens post-calibration with the bulb in high mode. I presume this was at minimum throw, since the Cine4Home guys measured 700 lumens (I double checked) post calibration at minimum throw, and it is doubtful that Jason's measurements would have exceeded the Cine4Home numbers by such a large margin at a lengthier throw.

If you're willing to live with a less than perfectly calibrated picture, you should be able to get 800 lumens with the color temperature set at low, which contains a hair too much blue, but not much.

According to the Cine4Home measurements, the max-throw lumens are about 18 percent less than the min throw measurements, but the contrast goes up by a third -- a good trade off in my mind.

As far as bulb degredation, I have read differing opinions. Some say that the bulb will lose 30% of its brightness in the first couple of hundred hours, while others say it's closer to 50%. I'm not sure what's closer to reality.

So if you start out with 800 lumens on day 1, you'll be down to 560 lumens (if the 30% degredation figure is correct) or 400 lumens (if 50% is correct) by the time the steep part of the dimming curve is reached.

I think your screen might be a bit too big for this projector unless you want to increase the gain. Just my two cents.

Can you make a Da-Lite high power work?

Was the bulb old?
No telling. Is that meant to be a decisionmaking concern? This seems to be implying that a bulb's lifespan is only as long as the image is satisfactorily bright.

I am totally perplexed by all these "Pearl is too dim" posts.
I can only go by what I personally saw... in conjunction with my experiences with the 1000 lumens D-ILA projector I currently own. The D-ILA is quite dim, but it actually can be watched with some ambient light. I would say the Pearl that I saw is completely unwatchable with any ambient light and I question the potential enjoyability of even a completely dark room.

This projector throws out 800+ lumens after calibration. People who need to content with ambient light might want to consider a light canon DLP or a really big RPTV or plasma.
There is exactly one "really big" plasma potentially available for purchase, and it is $60,000. Triple-chip 1080p DLP solutions do not fit the $2500-to-19,999 bracket that this forum stipulates. Whatever biological curse enables a person to very readily identify rainbow artifacts, most of my family regrettably suffers.

In the same Ultimate Electronics, there was some three-chip 720p DLP from Sharp, projecting onto a screen which had to be around twelve feet, and this was in their well-lit main area. In spite of the size of the screen and the considerable ambient light, the image was actually rather watchable. I do not recall the model, but I did try to get the employees to look up the ansi lumens rating, which they failed to do. Suffice to say, there is a very good reason why, in spite of assertations that 700 lumens is "enough" or even "too much" (!), many projectors out there can boast 1500-2000+ lumens.

A great picture deserves great sound. Great sound deserves a great picture. The system
isn't right if you don't have both.

CJ

As a Sound Designer/Editor for film/tv, I can't help but agree sound is important. :)

But I have to say for me some people become so enthusiastic about the audio portion that they can end up with an imbalance of picture and sound. I've seen so many setups with relatively small displays (e.g. 42 to 70") but with BIG HONKIN' SPEAKERS
doing sound duty. So I get scenes from gladiator, sounding like I'm in the middle of a thousand full-sized troops marching, meanwhile I'm squinting my eyes to see all the tiny little figures of the troops on screen. It makes for a disconnect of sound and picture - making it hard for my brain to connect what I'm hearing to what I'm seeing.

So I personally prefer the "size" of the sound to believably match the image. Which is why my 42" plasma is flanked by a pair of Spendor 3/5 two way bookshelf high quality speakers. The size of the sound feels right and it just "sticks" to the onscreen picture magically (and with none of that hi-fi sizzle, so voices sound amazingly organic).

Then there is "subwooferitus"....don't get me started. Nothing drives me more bonkers than hearing subwoofers cranked up to "Listen to that BASS!" level - in other words, blatting around down low calling attention shouting LISTEN TO MY SUBWOOFERS! I can't stand incoherent, disconnected sound like that. I know a lot of HT buffs seem to love their subs, but I just find the typical HT set-up has the subs dialed to obnoxious levels. (To each his own, of course...just my opinion).

But sound done right, unobtrusive yet believable....is just grand.

Jason Turk measured 794 lumens post-calibration with the bulb in high mode. I presume this was at minimum throw, since the Cine4Home guys measured 700 lumens (I double checked) post calibration at minimum throw, and it is doubtful that Jason's measurements would have exceeded the Cine4Home numbers by such a large margin at a lengthier throw.

If you're willing to live with a less than perfectly calibrated picture, you should be able to get 800 lumens with the color temperature set at low, which contains a hair too much blue, but not much.

According to the Cine4Home measurements, the max-throw lumens are about 18 percent less than the min throw measurements, but the contrast goes up by a third -- a good trade off in my mind.

As far as bulb degredation, I have read differing opinions. Some say that the bulb will lose 30% of its brightness in the first couple of hundred hours, while others say it's closer to 50%. I'm not sure what's closer to reality.

So if you start out with 800 lumens on day 1, you'll be down to 560 lumens (if the 30% degredation figure is correct) or 400 lumens (if 50% is correct) by the time the steep part of the dimming curve is reached.

I think your screen might be a bit too big for this projector unless you want to increase the gain. Just my two cents.

Can you make a Da-Lite high power work?

Thanks for the reply gremmy.

It sounds like the biggest unknown is the amount of light output the bulb will lose. If 30% is accurate, I would think the Pearl could be bright enough for my screen based on my calculations: 560 lumens x 1.3 gain / 45 sq feet = 16.18 ftl.

Of course if 50% is correct, 400 lumens would put me a tad under 12 ftl.

Either way, it appears to me that there is at least a possibility the Pearl would be (barely) bright enough for my screen. I do have complete light control.

And no, a HP screen will not work for me as my PJ must be mounted on the ceiling.

And no, a HP screen will not work for me as my PJ must be mounted on the ceiling.

The Draper M2500 is a retro-reflective screen that is not as high gain as an HP, but supposedly more than 1.3 (I've seen it quoted as 1.8, and on the Draper site its 'gain curve' shows 2.0 max). But I never hear anybody talk about these screens nowadays. Apparantly they had some texture problems several years ago that some persons have said have been solved. Are they just crap, and just completely written off, or not? If they were of good quality, they might be a good choice for the Pearl if it must be ceiling mounted (higher gain than a Firehawk, and less expensive).

With sufficiently good audio equipment, there quality of the soundtrack takes on a natural, unforced feel that causes you to draw your attention to the sound only when the soundtrack is SUPPOSED to. I find lesser quality sound to be constantly irritating, like a toothache.

{SNIP}

CJ

Quite franky, your original post comes off rather elitist.

Why is it in a discussion of a projector's capabilities, colorimitry, shading, grayscale, etc... are measured and used as objective comparison points. whereas with people justifying 5-digit-cost speaker purchases we get "unforced", "natural", "airy", "effortless", and the like?

Why no discussion of frequency response and distortion?

And no, a HP screen will not work for me as my PJ must be mounted on the ceiling.

Mine's mounted on the ceiling (well, 1' down on a soffit), and HP works for me...

No telling. Is that meant to be a decisionmaking concern?

No. It was just a question.


This seems to be implying that a bulb's lifespan is only as long as the image is satisfactorily bright.

That is not at all what I intended, but now that you mention it, there does come a point when bulb replacement is advisable, and that point can happen long before the bulb actually pops. I saw a recent-model Sony LCD projector with a very old bulb (it was so dim you really couldn't make out anything in a completely dark room), but the bulb was still burning after 18 months at 10 hours a day, so it hadn't been replaced. Price differences aside (which are important, I know) bulbs are like bars of soap -- you don't have to keep using it just because there is a tiny piece of it still left unused. But I doubt this was the case on the Pearl you saw, since these projectors haven't been out for very long, so that's really not what I was getting at.

I was merely trying to understand the factors that make this projector appear so dim. Several things can contribute: mounting at max throw, having it on "low bulb" mode, having the colors undersaturated, using an old bulb, ambient light (a real killer on most projectors), using a screen that's too big, and projecting onto a screen with a gain of 1 or below can all be contibuting factors. Put all of these things together and you've created the perfect storm for a craptastic viewing experience, although some of these can be big problems even in isolation. It is important to understand the lumens rating of whatever projector you buy and to design accordingly, if possible.


, in spite of assertations that 700 lumens is "enough" or even "too much" (!), many projectors out there can boast 1500-2000+ lumens.

Oh, I think here we're dealing with differences in expectations. I'm at 80 hours on my bulb, and I'm still watching in "low bulb" mode. One thing I've noticed is that once the bulb starts to dim, a recalibration is in order -- primarly a lifting of black level and maybe some gamma tweaking. It is quite likely that this was not done on the projector you were viewing.

In addition, while I recognize that brightness can be very seductive, it can also destroy black levels unless paired with very high contrast. In my environment, the additional brightness would be wasted, since I would never ask the Pearl to deal with *any* ambient light, and I don't need a screen any bigger than 96 inches.

I bought my projector to watch movies in a completely light controlled room with dark walls. Now that digital projectors can throw an image with a bit of brightness to it, people are pulling them into their rec rooms to view while playing pool with the guys. My personal opinion is that this is not an optimum environment for watching movies or for most projectors (digital or otherwise), and if that's what people want to do, they will have to spend for something with more lumens or find a way to make a higher gain (more directional) screen function in their environment.

Or they might want to consider a big RPTV, which is much more affordable than the big plasma I mentioned earlier.

Elitist? Well, I've had to suffer my way through my share of speakers that some people thought were good, and then one day I walked into a room with my speakers playing,
with very good electronics running them, and it was sound as I'd never heard it before.
It was so much better than I even imagined that recorded sound could be that I decided
instantly that those speakers would be mine.

And it wasn't two years later that I ended up owning not just a pair of the same type, but
the actual pair that was on demonstration.

I could NEVER go back. Walking through a Best Buy or Circuit City and trying to listen to
the speakers they're selling makes me want to put a drill through my ear. It'd sound better.

I don't make much money and I don't have much to spend on toys, so I work in the used
market almost exclusively. It allows me to get huge performance for small money.

Incidentally, speakers that really DO sound THAT good are assured to measure well
with regard to frequency response and distortion. (FYI, my speakers measure flat from
28 KHz down to 21 Hz. They outperform most subwoofers in bass extension.)



Anyway, back to video equipment.


I am only making an observation here, not a criticism: It seems to me that digital PJs
constantly have issues with uniformity of brightness over time and color balance issues
as well due to bulb ageing, which seems to become a factor more quickly in a bulb's life
than I might have thought.

That's an issue for me, the owner of a top flight CRT projector with very young tubes.
I can look foward to no perceptible changes in color balance or light output for many
thousands of hours of operation, which in my case means MANY years of use as I reserve
my PJ for viewing movies and not watching broadcast material at this time.

Lamp life and stability issues are going to have to be solved in order to overcome that
one of my remaining reservations.

I think the answer is LED lamp sources. They're getting stupid light output out of single
LEDs now. I can buy single LEDs that put out 60,000 mcd now, which is 60 lumens.
So clearly, with that much available light from very small LEDs, it is only a matter of time
(and briefly, I imagine) before LED lamp sources will enter the front projection market,
and the advantages will be manyfold. Low heat, meaning long optical core life.
The possibility that the heat in the optical core may be so low as to allow passive cooling,
which would allow the optical path to be hermetically sealed, which means no contamination by dust, dirt, or humidity problems. Only the external optics would need
periodic cleaning.

This would create the "lifetime projector", with a service life of maybe 100,000 hours
with no maintenance requirements other than occasional lens cleaning.

Give a contrast ratio of 25,000 to 1, ZERO pixel alignment issues, and at least 1080p
full resolution, and you'll have an absolute winner on your hands that will last as long
as a good car.

I think it's not that far in the future.

CJ

This would create the "lifetime projector", with a service life of maybe 100,000 hours
with no maintenance requirements other than occasional lens cleaning.

Give a contrast ratio of 25,000 to 1, ZERO pixel alignment issues, and at least 1080p
full resolution, and you'll have an absolute winner on your hands that will last as long
as a good car.

I think it's not that far in the future.

CJ


Cool then I can hop into my flying car and go pick it up :D The odds of seeing something like this at a price that all but a select few would be able to afford is very slim. because if you built it they will not come back.

Projector manf are like car manf in many ways. Why would they build the holy grail of projectors when by not building it they know that those that want projectors will on most cases upgrade every 3-5 years as updates are slowly released to keep the consumer chasing the next greatest thing

Wow
I was expecting screen shots ? Johnathan

Wow
I was expecting screen shots ? Johnathan

Apparently you already saw them:

Beautiful !


Johnathan


:p

Did I hear someone requesting screenshots? Here's more to entertain, and a couple of my HT. The source material is HD recorded off Dish - 2001: A Space Odyssey and SWIII.

Black velvet draped everywhere at the viewing end of the HT to minimize back reflections to the retroflective High Power:
http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/BATCAVE1.jpg
Black all around the screen end and, if you'll pardon the mention of audio equipment, 25 year-old Martin Logan CLSes (Velodyne 18" subwoofer behind the right speaker), and a ML Cinema, invisible in this shot, hanging from the ceiling:
http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/HPOffAxis.jpg
http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/2001.jpg
http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/2001monolith.jpg
http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/2001a.jpg
This scene has nice dimensionality:
http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/2001b.jpg
This shot is not as clean as I'd like or in the best focus, but shows shadow detail that is a strong suit with the Pearl. Ironically, on my monitor it looks a bit darker here and more like the image thrown by the HD81 that we compared with the Pearl last night. Just another example of screenshots not really doing the job of portraying what the projector will look like in real life:
http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/SWIII.jpg
http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/SWIIIa.jpg
http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/SWIIIb.jpg

Dan

I always love your pics drapp. Sweet setup you have there.

I was watching The Chronicles of Narnia in HD the other night and the scene before Aslan is killed with Susan and Lucy in the woods at night looks fantastic! I could not get a good shot of it though but the shadow detail was awesome.

Thanks Rob
I should have said more screen shots ! After all that is the title of this thread. My comment was aimed at all the off topic talk .Audio vs video.

Thanks Dan
You look like you have the optimal setup ! Very nice. Johnathan

Thanks Rob
I should have said more screen shots ! After all that is the title of this thread. My comment was aimed at all the off topic talk .Audio vs video.

Thanks Dan
You look like you have the optimal setup ! Very nice. Johnathan

I know Johnathan, I was just givin' ya a hard time! ;)

Rob
I didn't see the smile until I had posted. Cheers Johnathan

Great shots Dan. Other than the Obi-Wan photo (which is much better in real life), I think they do a good job of capturing the Pearl look.

Yeah, I think I'll redo that Obi-Wan shot - it looks way too noisy and out of focus. To me the last shot in particular conveys the Pearl look best.

BTW, here at work on my LCD monitor all the shots look different due to different gamma, brightness, etc. which is just another example of how screenshots vary with each setup and monitor and why they should not be taken seriously.

Dan

Generally I think the Canon Powershot A620 I have crushes blacks somewhat, as I've mentioned before. Even though this may be too fine a point given all the variables involved, I've concluded that some brightness boost will be needed in prepping these for hosting to give a better idea of real life black level. One should be able to make out the very dark gray of the black bars bordering 2.35 aspect ratio material, for example.

Dan

Dan, what kind of mount are you using? I'm intersted to get something like yours. Thanks!

Dan, what kind of mount are you using? I'm intersted to get something like yours. Thanks!I'm not sure what you mean by mount. Are you talking about the shelf mount for the Pearl?

Dan

yeah.

After seeing these screenshots I really want to use a Hi Power screen with the Pearl but what are the disadvantages to using this screen if I am going to ceiling mount? I saw one user say he could not use the HP screen because he was ceiling mounting?

After seeing drapp's screenshots I really want to use a Hi Power screen with the Pearl but what are the disadvantages to using this screen if I am going to ceiling mount? I saw one user say he could not use the HP screen because he was ceiling mounting?

I took this screenshot 1 meter away from my screen. ICE AGE 1 in HD


http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/2944/gregphoto020hj8.jpg


Those are PAL SD DVD screenshots, PCHT in 1920x1080 VGA

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/1397/gregphoto004eb3.jpg

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/9311/gregphoto008wp9.jpg

NTSC DVD screenshots also PCHT 1920x1080 VGA


http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/1553/gregphoto026bt1.jpg


http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/3121/gregphoto030po2.jpg

Gladiator special edition DVD NTSC

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/535/gregphoto065if3.jpg

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/218/gregphoto068bg1.jpg

After seeing drapp's screenshots I really want to use a Hi Power screen with the Pearl but what are the disadvantages to using this screen if I am going to ceiling mount? I saw one user say he could not use the HP screen because he was ceiling mounting?
The optimal viewing angle is only about 15 degrees. In my setup (7'6" ceilings with a crt projector) my sample of High Power screen material actually looked duller than the draper 1.3 gain (actually almost unity) I've already got.
Of course as soon as I stood up, it came to life and looked really punchy. The other great aspect is how it deals with ambient light - as long as you're within the optimal viewing cone, you can have a side window and still retain a lot of contrast. The stuff's almost like 3M Scotchlite!!!

After seeing drapp's screenshots I really want to use a Hi Power screen with the Pearl but what are the disadvantages to using this screen if I am going to ceiling mount? I saw one user say he could not use the HP screen because he was ceiling mounting?

My setup:


Ceiling mounted Pearl (lens center ~6'8" from floor)
14' throw (min zoom)
116" wide (133" diag) DaLite Hi Power (bottom of screen ~20" from floor)
Seating ~12'6" from screen (~1.3 screen widths)


My picture is spectacular. Love the Hi Power. There is some difference in gain as you move around the room, but nothing terribly objectionable, that is unless you like to pace during movies. :)

The tradeoffs for having a BIG punchy image are well worth it, IMO. A ceiling mount / HiPower combo is defintely workable.

But why spend more money for the HP when you're not getting anywhere close to Max gain? Why not a Carada BW or something like that?

My setup:


Ceiling mounted Pearl (lens center ~6'8" from floor)
14' throw (min zoom)
116" wide (133" diag) DaLite Hi Power (bottom of screen ~20" from floor)
Seating ~12'6" from screen (~1.3 screen widths)


My picture is spectacular. Love the Hi Power. There is some difference in gain as you move around the room, but nothing terribly objectionable, that is unless you like to pace during movies. :)

The tradeoffs for having a BIG punchy image are well worth it, IMO. A ceiling mount / HiPower combo is defintely workable.

One reason is that the retro-reflective High Power helps with ambient light (i.e. it reflects it back to the source, rather than at you.

I love the high power.

If you ceiling-mount, try to mount the PJ as low as you can to get it as in-line with your line of sight (eye level) as possible without your head blocking the image while seated. The PJ mounted behind the sofa just above head height would actually produce the most spectacular image... better than a table-mount.

Nice pics kraine! Those screenshots certainly don't look "soft" to me! :)

The screenhots are much to small to say anything about the sharpness 640*480

greets

Just saw it at Abe's of Maine for $3999 :eek:

http://www.abesofmaine.com/subcategory~scat~113.htm

item no. 75

Wolfie

Just saw it at Abe's of Maine for $3999 :eek:

http://www.abesofmaine.com/subcategory~scat~113.htm

item no. 75

Wolfie

That's a no, no, Wolfie.

Does anyone know how to get an internet copy of the manual for the Pearl? When I try to get it from the Sony site, a message says the link is 'down'.

Also, Abe's of Maine is a grey market goods dealer and is not an authorized dealer on anything they sell

And they're from Maine? No...try Brooklyn NY.

Anyway, try giving AVS a call, or any other authorized dealer. Good prices are to be had.

Ed

Nice pics kraine! Those screenshots certainly don't look "soft" to me! :)

Rob,

I had a DLP and went to the Pearl. All the concerns about the picture going to look soft turned out to be most incorrect.

It's a great picture all around. I love all the 1080i and 1080p sources on it as they are just in another league altogether.

Rob,

I had a DLP and went to the Pearl. All the concerns about the picture going to look soft turned out to most incorrect.

It's a great picture all around. I love all the 1080i and 1080p sources on it as they are just in another league altogether.

Which dlp did you have? I suppose this is the ONLY issue that I have with the Pearl--i.e., the lack of 'crispness' of the pic compared to a dlp--which sounds perfect (for me) in just about ever other way.

Optoma H78DC3. No comparison on the noise and the depth on well done movies/shows is just amazing. Just yesterday was watching a recording of Matrix Reloaded via TNT (1080i) and I wasn't really interested in watching it again but the quality of the Pearl made it all good.

And that happens all the time. From "Chronicles of Narnia" to "Sleepy Hollow" to "Do the Right Thing" to any good DVD or better yet, HD-DVD.

Rob,

I had a DLP and went to the Pearl. All the concerns about the picture going to look soft turned out to be most incorrect.

It's a great picture all around. I love all the 1080i and 1080p sources on it as they are just in another league altogether.

I definitely plan on doing some serious viewing of a Pearl and new 1080p DLP's before making a final decision, but I can tell you this (and I've posted this before) I spent about 45-50 minutes doing a direct A/B comparison with a Samsung 1080p DLP (61") and Sony SXRD 60" RPTV's that were sitting side by side. I won't repost my entire review here, but I will say this: after careful viewing, it appeared to me that the SXRD was actually resolving slightly more detail than the Samsung. The SXRD picture was definitely "smoother" than the DLP. This does NOT equate to "soft" in my opinion. The SXRD appeared plenty sharp, just not in a "harsh" way compared to the DLP.

I know people say the SXRD looks smooth, but I like to describe it as thick and solid. I could tell there was a much higher fill rate than what I am used to (Panny 900 LCD). Such a beautifull picture IMO.

I know people say the SXRD looks smooth, but I like to describe it as thick and solid. I could tell there was a much higher fill rate than what I am used to (Panny 900 LCD). Such a beautifull picture IMO.

"Thick and solid". I like that! I know exactly what you are describing.

Glad you understand :) I was not sure if I should post that or not :p

Rob,

I had a DLP and went to the Pearl. All the concerns about the picture going to look soft turned out to be most incorrect.

It's a great picture all around. I love all the 1080i and 1080p sources on it as they are just in another league altogether.


Me too, agreed. ;) ;) ;)

Would someone mind posting some screenshots of HD sports such as football, baseball or basketball?

I apologize if this has been asked (I looked), but will a Pearl work at 1080P with a PC signal? I.E. a ATI X1800 video card outputting a DVI 1920x1080 60Hz signal? I have heard the Pearl will not accept anything in 1080P thats not through its digital (HDMI) port. Would a DVI-HDMI cable work? Or would the HDMI handshake not allow the PC DVI signal to display?

This is my only concern..I really want one of these.

Thanks,

D

Yes, a DVI to HDMI cable or adapter will work with digital 1080p/60Hz to the Pearl. I do this myself.

Marc

Thanks so much Marc :)

D

I definitely plan on doing some serious viewing of a Pearl and new 1080p DLP's before making a final decision, but I can tell you this (and I've posted this before) I spent about 45-50 minutes doing a direct A/B comparison with a Samsung 1080p DLP (61") and Sony SXRD 60" RPTV's that were sitting side by side. I won't repost my entire review here, but I will say this: after careful viewing, it appeared to me that the SXRD was actually resolving slightly more detail than the Samsung. The SXRD picture was definitely "smoother" than the DLP. This does NOT equate to "soft" in my opinion. The SXRD appeared plenty sharp, just not in a "harsh" way compared to the DLP.


I made a similar observation when comparing the Peal to HD81. The Pearl was sharp and detailed but not in a "digital" way if that makes sense. I guess this is why many describe the image as "film like". The HD81 appeared more digital by comparison but no more detailed.

Both produced great PQ so I guess it's a matter of taste.

Dazzer

I made a similar observation when comparing the Peal to HD81. The Pearl was sharp and detailed but not in a "digital" way if that makes sense. I guess this is why many describe the image as "film like". The HD81 appeared more digital by comparison but no more detailed.

Both produced great PQ so I guess it's a matter of taste.

Dazzer

Exactly.

Ironically, I plan on viewing a Ruby later this afternoon. Looking forward to it!

Hi,

Please can anyone post some Star Wars & Indiana Jones screenshots using this wonderful projector!

A New Hope & Raiders would be great :)

Thanks very much

Lance

Mostly High so far, I would say 65% high, 35% low


Pearl is 13 feet away for the screen.


Was glad you had the distance shown. You previously stated you had a 108" screen. Is the actual size of the picture or of the screen.

I want around 100" from 12'.

Hi,

Please can anyone post some Star Wars & Indiana Jones screenshots using this wonderful projector!

A New Hope & Raiders would be great :)

Thanks very much

LanceAfter calibrating this eveing I'll see if I can take a few shots, again for the sake of entertainment.

The source material will have to be upscaled either through my HD-XA1 or Oppo 971. Unfortunately I don't have CinemaxHD for the Star Wars episode IV, or any Indiana Jones in HD.

Do you have any particular scenes in mind?

Dan

After calibrating this eveing I'll see if I can take a few shots, again for the sake of entertainment.

The source material will have to be upscaled either through my HD-XA1 or Oppo 971. Unfortunately I don't have CinemaxHD for the Star Wars episode IV, or any Indiana Jones in HD.

Do you have any particular scenes in mind?

Dan

Hi Dan,

That would be great :D

The opening scene ANH with Vader aboard the blockade runner and the start of Raiders with Indy in the temple with the Idol would be superb.

Thanks very much
Lance

After calibrating this eveing I'll see if I can take a few shots, again for the sake of entertainment.

The source material will have to be upscaled either through my HD-XA1 or Oppo 971. Unfortunately I don't have CinemaxHD for the Star Wars episode IV, or any Indiana Jones in HD.

Do you have any particular scenes in mind?

Dan

That screwed up shot of R2D2 and C-3PO on the dunes would be much appreciated. I'm trying to figure out how much of the "color uniformity" problem I had on this scene was due to the reportedly messed up negatives in the source of these scenes, and how much was due to my Pearl. If you would, watch that entire scene and watch for any color issues.

Could the posters of the screen shots show the throw distance and the diagonal screen dimension please? This would help me in estimating where to have the projector.

Could the posters of the screen shots show the throw distance and the diagonal screen dimension please? This would help me in estimating where to have the projector.
I am also in Houston and looking to set up a Pearl. Have you seen one in action yet?

Not yet. Just started to look into projectors.

OK, here's more. I'll get back to SW-IV and check out that dunes scene, gremmy, as soon as I can. Frankly, I can't get as enthusiastic about SD DVD stuff nowadays, and you can see why to some extent in the Indiana Jones shots that I will put in a different post. I mean, it's all right and after you get into the picture the resolution difference isn't as apparent, but switching back and forth between HD DVD and SD DVD can be tough on the eyes. I may need to get a Crystalio II.

I got carried away last night watching the HD DVD of King Kong that arrived yesterday so have a few screenshots, some of which I've cropped to get rid of the time bar. I've included a few dark shots as this, I feel, shows off the strengths of the Pearl. These photos have been edited to reflect, to the best of my abilities, the original image quality. Despite this, they still should be viewed primarily for entertainment. Part II of Kong photos may follow in the next few days, but IMO much of the CGI stuff doesn't look as good as the "real" stuff, although I do like the impressionistic quality of the boat on the rocks scene.

http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/Kong/Kong1.jpg
http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/Kong/Kong2.jpg
http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/Kong/Kong3.jpg
http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/Kong/Kong5.jpg
http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/Kong/Kong6.jpg
http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/Kong/Kong7.jpg
http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/Kong/Kong8.jpg
Dan

Awesome screen shots.

I don't hear guys talk about Noami Watts much, but that girl is hot.

Interesting -- these photos look very undigital -- and the don't have the ultra sharpness mant/most digital PJ's have

I'm going to try and post some more screens tomorrow. Some HD-DVD stuff and Gears of War.

great work with the shots, wheres the LOTR`s shots then!!.

DAN is that a high pwer screen you use?

Yes, it is a 116" x 65" High Power, that works very well with the Pearl. These shots were taken after I did a calibration with no autoiris, but autoiris1 was used in these shots. I have not calibrated in autoiris modes yet. I also used cinema and gamma3, the latter after reading the Greg Rogers review indicating that (at least on his sample) gives a gamma of about 2.3.

Regarding screenshot technique, I've talked about this before, but the digital shots on my PowerShot 620 tend to enhance apparent contrast, usually by applying what looks like the equivalent of a higher gamma. So, much of my editing in Photoshop involves a bit of elevation of black level and minor adjustment of contrast. I don't usually touch color saturation. With my monitor at home this results in images that look more like those actually projected. Another key, I think, is to use a low ISO - I use 50, and manual settings to adjust for approximate brightness brightness, a tripod, and use of the delayed timer to remove any camera shake from button pushing.

Dan

Here are a few more King Kong HD DVD screenshots, and they're bigger files, too:

http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/Kong/Kong.jpg
I included this first shot because there was some controversy over in the HD DVD software forum about this transfer suffering from some blocking. I see a bit of grain.

http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/Kong/KongA.jpg

http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/Kong/KongB.jpg

http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/Kong/KongC.jpg

http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/Kong/KongD.jpg

Dan

Here are some Raiders of the Lost Ark screenshots as promised. The source is standard definition DVD upconverted with the Toshiba HD-XA1.

http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/IJ/IJ1.jpg

http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/IJ/IJ2.jpg

http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/IJ/IJ3.jpg

http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/IJ/IJ4.jpg

http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/IJ/IJ5.jpg

http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/IJ/IJ6.jpg

http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/IJ/IJ7.jpg

Dan

Once again, beautiful pics.

Here are some Raiders of the Lost Ark screenshots as promised. The source is standard definition DVD upconverted with the Toshiba HD-XA1.
Dan


Thanks Dan :)

Those photos look fantatistic.
I reall hope I can get one of these next year.

Very nice... I just showed Raiders to my kids for the first time. Great movie, and beautiful on the Pearl even for SD DVD.

Fans of Forbidden Planet may check out Pearl screenshots on the HD DVD software forum.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8923422&&#post8923422

Dan

this is a great thread, I can't wait for more screen caps.

keep up the good work.

hi
super screenshots. the depth-3D is SO MUCH bigger on RAIDERS !!! KK is a CGI cartoon compared. I know i hit the nail constantly but it's Spielberg with animatronics who should have done KK :D .

Dan:

what settings do you have on the PEARL that gives in yr opinion the best contrast ratio (which is room dependent a lot of course)

here are mine (room is black):
DYNAMIC (image size is about 3meters wide)
CONTRAST 85
BRIGHTNESS 62
GAMMA OFF (which as per widescreen gives 2.15 curve, quite good)
BLACK LEVEL OFF
AUTO 1
LAMP HIGH
had to lower RED a bit
COLOR TEMP: custom
sce at O IRE (Pioneer)
scaler : brigthness 0 contrast: +10
projector sits at 6Meters from screen

i still miss a bit the ansi contrast of the DLP. that mirror that goes on or off, see what i mean ?

guys:

would you say the high power gain increases also the contrast / contrast ratio ?
or it's the "punch", the dynamic of the image ?
i have 1.4 mp and already the "gain paint" is too visible because of the MPerforations.

a non perf screen can go much higher in gain without this "problem".

Dan:

what settings do you have on the PEARL that gives in yr opinion the best contrast ratio (which is room dependent a lot of course)

here are mine (room is black):
DYNAMIC (image size is about 3meters wide)
CONTRAST 85
BRIGHTNESS 62
GAMMA OFF (which as per widescreen gives 2.15 curve, quite good)
BLACK LEVEL OFF
AUTO 1
LAMP HIGH
had to lower RED a bit
COLOR TEMP: custom
sce at O IRE (Pioneer)
scaler : brigthness 0 contrast: +10
projector sits at 6Meters from screen

i still miss a bit the ansi contrast of the DLP. that mirror that goes on or off, see what i mean ?My image size with the High Power is 116" wide. I use default settings 80 for contrast and 50 for brightness, cinema, gamma3 (I basically use what looks best for a given source, and often it's off or at gamma3, lately), autoiris1, and custom temp settings derived from a Spyder2 sensor calibration. I use wide color mode with red turned down in RCP to -5 or so. My lamp is at high. I found dynamic mode to blow out whites and crush blacks, but standard mode doesn't look bad though I haven't investigated measurement-wise what it's doing to gamma or otherwise. The gamma3 and RCP adjustment are taken from Greg Rogers' WSR review recommendations and they work well for me.

I use a Toshiba HD-XA1 now to upconvert SD DVD and HD DVD, JVC 30000 for DVHS, and Dish 942 or ViP622 for satellite HD sources.

The High Power doesn't change the on-off contrast ratio, it just provides gain so that images appear far more dynamic. A dark environment does help ANSI CR which isn't as good with the Pearl as with DLP. The High Power does selectively suppress side reflections so it could be said to help apparent ANSI CR.

Dan

hi
thanks Dan.
i still can't figure out why CRT has bad ansi but massive ON OFF contrast while DLP has 5-7x more ansi contrast vs LCOS which has around 200-240ansi and DLP still has better blacks. has to do with the mirrors system (on-off). which somehow is better at approaching the contrast impression you with a CRT.
Really odd.

this is a great thread, I can't wait for more screen caps.

keep up the good work.OK, this is perhaps the final run of KK screencaps. A couple of the scene choices - the side shot of the plane and of the plane firing - are inspired by another poster who's shots I saw recently.

http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/Kong/KKAA.jpg

http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/Kong/KKAAa.jpg

http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/Kong/KK.jpg

http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/Kong/KK3.jpg

http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/Kong/KK8.jpg

http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/Kong/KK9.jpg

http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/Kong/KK12.jpg

http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/Kong/KK13.jpg

http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/Kong/KK10.jpg

http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/Kong/KK11.jpg
Dan

How does the VW50 SD from satellite look?

http://67.18.219.83/image_hosting/web_pages/drapp1952/Kong/KK9.jpg



FIRE!!!!!

You have a quick trigger finger. I tried a few times to pause on that spot but could not get it right, always too late or too early :)

FIRE!!!!!

You have a quick trigger finger. I tried a few times to pause on that spot but could not get it right, always too late or too early :)It did take a few tries. Freezing HD DVDs is a challenge because you have to anticipate about 1.75 seconds before the intended frame.

I thought this guy's complexion was a nice demonstration of detail rendering.

rgathright, the shots in post 174 in this thread from SWIII and 2001 are from Dish HD recordings.

Dan

These pictures are great. I am going to bring them up on my 55" HDTV for the wife to see.

That's kind of pointless, don't you think? :) You'd be better off to display the screenshot on your CRT computer monitor, if it's a good one.


CJ

These pictures are great. I am going to bring them up on my 55" HDTV for the wife to see.I recommend getting a HD DVD player and the HD DVD. :D

The screenshots may lose some pq on a big screen as CJ points out, but have fun and thanks for the compliment.

Dan

It did take a few tries. Freezing HD DVDs is a challenge because you have to anticipate about 1.75 seconds before the intended frame.

I thought this guy's complexion was a nice demonstration of detail rendering.

rgathright, the shots in post 174 in this thread from SWIII and 2001 are from Dish HD recordings.

Dan


why couldn't you use the frame advance feature?

Why is this guy's sclera blue? That can't be right.

Marc

why couldn't you use the frame advance feature?I was using a Logitech Harmony remote instead of the original and will check to see if the function got transferred to a button I missed. But it's a good point and I'll use the original next time.

And regarding the guy's blue sclera in his right eye, I have no idea except for a lighting fluke, or a poor color match for a fake eyeball. :eek:

Dan

I apologize if this has been asked (I looked), but will a Pearl work at 1080P with a PC signal? I.E. a ATI X1800 video card outputting a DVI 1920x1080 60Hz signal? I have heard the Pearl will not accept anything in 1080P thats not through its digital (HDMI) port. Would a DVI-HDMI cable work? Or would the HDMI handshake not allow the PC DVI signal to display?

This is my only concern..I really want one of these.

Thanks,

D
I'm using MCE 2005 with an Nvidia 7800gt card; it recognized the Pearl and outputs 1920x1080p; dvds played with TheatreTek look far better than when scaled from other sd players. Off the air ATSC from both this (DVI>HDMI) and another PC with a MyHD card feeding the pearl's input A are great.
Sure wish I could scale other sources with the PC...Nothing I've played so far through the pearl hasn't looked markedly better than the HS-20 and early Runco dlp that have hung previously. It does, however, benefit from HD material. Saving for a good scaler now...
Cornell

How does the VW50 SD from satellite look?

Veeeeery tiny.


No,seriously, it renders satellite originated SD sources very accurately and in excruciating detail, which is to say: sat SD signal sources generally suck.