If I remember right, the Vogels was pretty limited to how much weight it could support.
Omnimount makes a wall mount bracket that I use with my Samsung 710 and it supports it just fine (as long as you mount into a stud). I then use a chief rpm which threads onto the omnimount.
Chief also makes a wall mount attachment that is able to support even more weight.


where in the states can I buy this im checking with parts express right now but they dont carry it in stock, anyplace I can readily get this?and how much is it?

I'm either reading your post wrong or misconvergence by a fractional pixel is a bad thing. Or were you joking? If so, I'd have used a different emoticon than "embarassed." ;)
No, I'm being serious. Yes it can be correct by the end user to a fraction of a pixel, but that's not my point. I've read over and over that JVC is doing extensive QC testing on all of these PJs before they leave the factory and then they are being rechecked at their final destination for several things (including convergence). My point is that if they are doing all if this QC activity, why did this end user find the red convergence off 1+ pixel if indeed the units are going through such stringent QC testing at multiple locations??? :confused:

Some of the posts are amazing, JVC has produced a low cost projector to compete in a very competitive market, something like a Ford Fusion and many of you expect it to perform like the new Ferrari F1, and complaining that the Fusion isn't as quiet as the Lincoln Town Car.

There is some compromise you must accept with every projector on the market. The lower the cost the more compromises.

I have always been amazed at the focus on "fan noise". I have had a CRT projector (5 fans), on a table, next to my chair, it never really detracted from watching movies. Most of the time you don't hear it, the sound from the movie seems to over power it. When my RS1 arrives, I suspect the 4-DVRs, in the rack, will be making more noise than the PJ, the Dish units are really bad.

I thought the attraction of this PJ was the picture quality at the price point. If PJ fan noise is such a deal breaker, cut a hole in the back wall and mount it in the adjoining room, totally silent.

No, I'm being serious. Yes it can be correct by the end user to a fraction of a pixel, but that's not my point. I've read over and over that JVC is doing extensive QC testing on all of these PJs before they leave the factory and then they are being rechecked at their final destination for several things (including convergence). My point is that if they are doing all if this QC activity, why did this end user find the red convergence off 1+ pixel if indeed the units are going through such stringent QC testing at multiple locations??? :confused:

My guess or "theory" is that JVC's QC is verifying that the PJ's are within tolerance on the convergence to allow for user correction to the spec. Just transportation alone could account for some convergencce issues of 1 pixel is my guess - the adjustments allow for correction of this, so it's the least of my concerns. The bright corners on the other hand are something that has me "more concerned". Not enough to cancel my order, but concerned none the less...

Which one, the omni or chief?

where in the states can I buy this im checking with parts express right now but they dont carry it in stock, anyplace I can readily get this?and how much is it?

No, I'm being serious. Yes it can be correct by the end user to a fraction of a pixel, but that's not my point. I've read over and over that JVC is doing extensive QC testing on all of these PJs before they leave the factory and then they are being rechecked at their final destination for several things (including convergence). My point is that if they are doing all if this QC activity, why did this end user find the red convergence off 1+ pixel if indeed the units are going through such stringent QC testing at multiple locations??? :confused:When you think about the process, the chips are actually larger than 1920x1080. The panels are aligned as accurately as possible, mechanically. If we start talking "Aerospace" program tolerances, price goes up astronomically, more equipment more time, more rejections........

Red being off 1+ pixel is no big deal since they include image shift (convergence) in the user menu. Move Red 1-pixel (L/R/U/D), if it was off less than 1.5 pixels, and now you are <=.5-pixel. With 1920x1080 or most projectors, the <=.5-pixel can only be seen at the screen. Just remember that the Plasma pixel is separate RGB cells and it works fine.

No, I'm being serious. Yes it can be correct by the end user to a fraction of a pixel, but that's not my point. I've read over and over that JVC is doing extensive QC testing on all of these PJs before they leave the factory and then they are being rechecked at their final destination for several things (including convergence). My point is that if they are doing all if this QC activity, why did this end user find the red convergence off 1+ pixel if indeed the units are going through such stringent QC testing at multiple locations??? :confused:
The OP said "less than 1/2 pixel" off. (He doesn't qualify that any further; perhaps it's .3 pixels.) In any case, is less than 1/2 pixel misconvergence on one color a QC lapse? :confused:

My guess or "theory" is that JVC's QC is verifying that the PJ's are within tolerance on the convergence to allow for user correction to the spec. Just transportation alone could account for some convergence issues of 1 pixel is my guess - the adjustments allow for correction of this, so it's the least of my concerns. The bright corners on the other hand are something that has me "more concerned". Not enough to cancel my order, but concerned none the less...The panels cannot move at all, with the exception of thermal expansion in the assembly. My guess would be that QC is verifying that the panels are square/parallel to each other not tilt/skew adjustment on the permanently mounted panels. Some displays don't give access to convergence shift, we're lucky with the RS1.

Some of the posts are amazing, JVC has produced a low cost projector to compete in a very competitive market, something like a Ford Fusion and many of you expect it to perform like the new Ferrari F1, and complaining that the Fusion isn't as quiet as the Lincoln Town Car.

There is some compromise you must accept with every projector on the market. The lower the cost the more compromises.

I have always been amazed at the focus on "fan noise". I have had a CRT projector (5 fans), on a table, next to my chair, it never really detracted from watching movies. Most of the time you don't hear it, the sound from the movie seems to over power it. When my RS1 arrives, I suspect the 4-DVRs, in the rack, will be making more noise than the PJ, the Dish units are really bad.

I thought the attraction of this PJ was the picture quality at the price point. If PJ fan noise is such a deal breaker, cut a hole in the back wall and mount it in the adjoining room, totally silent.

I agree completely Glenn, for some reason people want to hold this projector to a higher standard, more than any projector I have ever read about on the forum. It has undergone so much more pre-release scrutiny, its getting ridiculous. People get so worked up over lumens, noise, CIH, will it have this or will it have that. Reminds me of the movie Raising Arizona where Holly Hunter is worried about getting the baby a 'dip tet' shot, she had no clue what a 'dip tet' shot was or why it was needed, but she certainly wanted the baby to have one. I just have to LMAO every night, when I read these forums, over the hysteria this projector has created.
I can't wait to get my hands on one of these and sit back and enjoy a movie. It shouldn't be any more complicated than that. I saw this pj at CEDIA and knew it was a winner.

I still can not make up my mind, due to the various statements about the noise. :confused:

If going with it, I would like a wall mount solution like this

http://www.techhaus.dk/images/epw6565.jpg

Is such a solution available for the HD1, that can carry the weight?

Another alternative would be a shelf attached to the wall. It makes it really easy to move the PJ if needed. It also makes it easy to place an anamorphic lens in front of the projector.

Do you suppose JVC US is modifying the machines here in the US by adding a small module to the mother board which picks up the fan noise thru a small microphone, phase inverts it, amplifiies it to the measured db, and then outputs to a small speaker, thus substantially reducing the fan noise. That would explain the delivery delay.

Close, but not quite. What they're really doing is adding a circuit that alternately flashes red, green, and blue light on the screen very rapidly to make this machine more palatable to the people who prefer DLP.

hahaha

Well as one of the first people in the world to get a production model I would have to say that the noise is there and to me the noise is louder than it was on the demo model that was seen in the UK. I am also not the only one who has the projector at home to mention this. Also what is JVC standing with the light spill issue as once again I am not the only one to mention this. Has there been any changes from the demo models which wowed the people including me to the one I have at home?.

Dessie,
Do you have the projector shelf mounted or ceiling (inverted) mounted??? Have you tried reversing this in the users menu to see if the fan noise increases or decreases???

I agree completely Glenn, for some reason people want to hold this projector to a higher standard, more than any projector I have ever read about on the forum. ......

Yep, I've noticed the same thing in some posts. I think that some people have probably gotten so tired of hearing all of the glowing reports that they latch onto anything even slightly negative and run with it. I don't know the reasoning behind this, but for some I imagine that they are trying to temper their own excitement and expectations so that they won't set themselves up for possible dissappoint. Others I suspect may have just bought a new projector and don't want to entertain the thought that something significantly better is suddenly available. I personally just bought my Z4 in November of 05 and am thrilled that I'm able to pick up a much better projector for a good price so soon.

Others I suspect may have just bought a new projector and don't want to entertain the thought that something significantly better is suddenly available.

I'm currently shopping for a new projector, and I can tell you that the day I order one is the day I stop reading this forum for at least 2 years. Too depressing otherwise. :rolleyes:

word :)

Do you suppose JVC US is modifying the machines here in the US by adding a small module to the mother board which picks up the fan noise thru a small microphone, phase inverts it, amplifiies it to the measured db, and then outputs to a small speaker, thus substantially reducing the fan noise. That would explain the delivery delay.

Wouldn't that be great? Acura started doing noise cancellation in the RL and the new TL-S cars... projectors can't be far behind! :D

I still can't remember anyone mention if the dB goes up, when the RS1/HD1 is ceiling mounted? The fan in my current Z4 is more audible when ceiling mounted.

The OP said "less than 1/2 pixel" off. (He doesn't qualify that any further; perhaps it's .3 pixels.) In any case, is less than 1/2 pixel misconvergence on one color a QC lapse? :confused:
Read his entire sentence:
"I needed one horizontal pixel of red shift, but this brings convergence easily below half-a-pixel off."

This means the machine was off by just over one pixel (probably 1.3 to 1.4 based on the second half of the sentence), not 1/2 or .3 pixels as you're stating. Like I said, not a big deal and it can be corrected by the user... but for the third time, that's not my point! Once again, if they are doing all if this QC activity, why did this end user find the red convergence off 1+ pixel if indeed the units are going through such stringent QC testing at multiple locations???

I realize this is no Ferrari F1, fine. BUT, why are the people from JVC telling us these machines are going through QC check after QC check (including reopening boxes at their final destination) looking at stuff like convergence, yet the end user finds his convergence off?


Anyway, time to move on...

I have always been amazed at the focus on "fan noise". I have had a CRT projector (5 fans), on a table, next to my chair, it never really detracted from watching movies. Most of the time you don't hear it, the sound from the movie seems to over power it. When my RS1 arrives, I suspect the 4-DVRs, in the rack, will be making more noise than the PJ, the Dish units are really bad.

I thought the attraction of this PJ was the picture quality at the price point. If PJ fan noise is such a deal breaker, cut a hole in the back wall and mount it in the adjoining room, totally silent.


Glen, I think you are being FAR too forgiving of pj's that have loud fan noise. Regardless of whether the RS1 is quieter than your CRT's, or what you have in your rack, it would seem obvious to me that we should be pushing manufacturers to make all of these theater items as quiet as possible.

I am surprised to see an ISF tech downplay the fan noise so much and say that "most of the time you don't hear it, the sound from the movie seems to over power it". A loud fan can definitely have an impact on the dynamic range.

It seems counterproductive that many of us have put a lot of research and planning into our HT's to make the sound quality as good as it can be, paying special attention to acoustics and soundproofing. Then the big day comes, you put your audio system together, then you put up your pj, turn it on, and discover it has a loud constant hum from the fan. Suddenly all the work and money that went into the acoustics and soundproofing seems wasted.

I don't think anyone is overstating the importance of a quiet fan at all.

Wouldn't shipping have a tendancy to knock the convergence off? I think it is great that they included the ability for it to be user adjustable.

Well I must say I am absolutely thrilled with the early reports coming in from HD1 users in the UK.

There are no reports of problems related to poor calibration, color and/or brightness uniformity, bad pixels, convergence issues that could not be fixed with the awesome panel alignment feature, brightness, contrast, color etc. These are among the things that matter most to me.

No pj is going to be perfect, especially at this price range. Would I love it if there was no bright corner issue? Of course. But having lived with the Ruby like this I know from experience I can easily tolerate it and it is DEFINITELY not even close to a show stopper for me - at least based on the relatively small amount of it that's being reported (sounds like the Ruby is worse in this regard and if I could tolerate that...).

Regarding the fan noise - I would love for it to be lower but I can "deal" with it. The Ruby is whisper quiet and I knew getting rid of it that whatever followed would be considerably louder.

I currently am using my old Sharp 10K and let me tell you it is loud. However most of the time I do not notice it. Some people have more of a tolerance than others for fan noise. I think this would be a bigger issue for many than the brighter corners.

Bottom line for me is that if it turns out that this pj delivers the stunning picture quality we've been hearing about for months, with amazing contrast, sharpness, resolution, colors, and so forth - and if its only drawbacks are that it has higher fan noise and some bright corners then I am a very happy guy. To expect perfection is unrealistic especially at this incredible price point...

Just my 2 cents.

I was holding off on buying the SONY Pearl and getting this JVC projector instead. At least the Pearl is as quite as can be.

I have sensitive ears... so fan noise IS important to me. I'll wait to hear more about the noise issue before I make a decision. Disappointing :(

Wouldn't shipping have a tendancy to knock the convergence off? I think it is great that they included the ability for it to be user adjustable.
Yes, of course. Some here are picking at nits.

I was holding off on buying the SONY Pearl and getting this JVC projector instead. At least the Pearl is as quite as can be.

I have sensitive ears... so fan noise IS important to me. I'll wait to hear more about the noise issue before I make a decision. Disappointing :(

Interesting. For me, no IRIS is so much more important than fan noise, that I would never go Pearl over RS-1.

Easy solution for all the "fence sitters", "naysayers", "deal breakers", "worry warts", "perfectionists", "videophiles", "audiophiles", "ansiphiles", "phonophobes",
"photophobes", those with perfect acoustical rooms, those with projectors mounted 8" from your head, those with or without batcaves, those people susceptible to D-ILA burn-in, those who insist on negative pressure room quality control by NASA scientists and those who get dizzy with .3 pixel misconvergence........

DO NOT buy this projector. You will undoubtedly be very, very disappointed. It cannot and will not live up to your expectations. Wait one more year and I'm sure something better will be announced that will blow the doors off the JVC. Or alternatively go for something in the $30,000+ range and I'm sure that the concierge service that comes with a projector in that price range will bend over backwards to make you happy.:) :)

...DO NOT buy this projector. ...
and for a small fee, I can help unburden you of that pre-buy RS1 committment ... ;)

Interesting. For me, no IRIS is so much more important than fan noise, that I would never go Pearl over RS-1.

I agree 100%. However everyone has their priorities. If one gives the absolute highest priority to sharpness, they go with the Sharp 20K. A quiet pj? Go with the Pearl. Price no object, perhaps the Marantz. IMO by all accounts the RS1 does an amazing job at delivering the best of all worlds most important to PQ with some drawbacks, but the positives out weight those drawbacks.

and for a small fee, I can help unburden you of that pre-buy RS1 committment ... ;)

Thankfully I don't fit into any of the above categories...I'm keeping my pre-order slot....geez I must be deaf, dumb AND blind!! ;)

Or alternatively go for something in the $30,000+ range and I'm sure that the concierge service that comes with a projector in that price range will bend over backwards to make you happy.:) :)

For that price they should have someone stand behind you and cover your ears when the movie gets to a quiet part so you can't hear the projector. :D

I was holding off on buying the SONY Pearl and getting this JVC projector instead. At least the Pearl is as quite as can be.

I have sensitive ears... so fan noise IS important to me. I'll wait to hear more about the noise issue before I make a decision. Disappointing :(

At the JVC/Pearl demo we attended, I didn't think either projector was noisier than the other. The only way to see whether you find 25db annoying is to go and listen to it. Until then, its difficult to see how you can be disappointed? :confused:

Does brightness in the corners on a dark screen mean that those portions of the image will always be that bright? When video is being displayed will those areas of the image have a much lower contrast than the rest of the image? Can someone from the UK please post a screenshot of the phenomenom. I have read three reviews so far and two of the units have this "issue,' one does not. None of the pre-production units did, at least according to all the reports.
People who are criticizing people for being concerned with these issues need to calm down. As has been said, there are things that are more important to some than others. Just look at the whole rainbow thing. Some have a problem with loud fans. I had to get an expensive hushbox for my 7205 because it was just too damn loud. People have been talking about crt like fades to black for years. The black level on this projector was supposed to get pretty close to this, but now, maybe not in the corners. No one expected a perfect projector for this price, but damn close considering all the pre-release hype. Now that we have production models, some negatives are coming to light that have not been seen before. People will now need to evaluate what they are willing to compromise. If it bothers you, stop reading and stop insulting people who do care.

Thanks,
Jason

For that price they should have someone stand behind you and cover your ears when the movie gets to a quiet part so you can't hear the projector. :D

Use Ipod earphone, you are safe even if a fighter jet fly over your house . . . . :p

At the JVC/Pearl demo we attended, I didn't think either projector was noisier than the other. The only way to see whether you find 25db annoying is to go and listen to it. Until then, its difficult to see how you can be disappointed? :confused:
This is the point. That was a pre-production and or hand picked unit. Now that production units are showing up in consumers' hands it is useful to hear their impressions.

It's amazing to me that there are people who have thousands of dollars invested in acoustical treatments, dual subwoofers, bass shakers, 125W per channel 7.1 surround sound and find a 25 db projector a deal breaker.

They must be watching Charlie Chaplin movies. ;)

Does brightness in the corners on a dark screen mean that those portions of the image will always be that bright?

No. If it is like the Ruby's "brighter corners issue", then it is only noticeable on a completely black scene like after a fade to zero. The corners have a glow to them and therefore its not completely a black bit. This can impact some of the effect of the movie during that scene. But when there is any other light on the screen, say even a star field or even a single credit, you do not notice the brighter corners at all (or its just not there). And no during normal program materials the corners do not appear any brighter than the rest of the image at all.

No. If it is like the Ruby's "brighter corners issue", then it is only noticeable on a completely black scene like after a fade to zero. The corners have a glow to them and therefore its not completely a black bit. This can impact some of the effect of the movie during that scene. But when there is any other light on the screen, say even a star field or even a single credit, you do not notice the brighter corners at all (or its just not there). And no during normal program materials the corners do not appear any brighter than the rest of the image at all.

Thanks! Good to hear.

Glen, I think you are being FAR too forgiving of pj's that have loud fan noise. Regardless of whether the RS1 is quieter than your CRT's, or what you have in your rack, it would seem obvious to me that we should be pushing manufacturers to make all of these theater items as quiet as possible.

I am surprised to see an ISF tech downplay the fan noise so much and say that "most of the time you don't hear it, the sound from the movie seems to over power it". A loud fan can definitely have an impact on the dynamic range.

It seems counterproductive that many of us have put a lot of research and planning into our HT's to make the sound quality as good as it can be, paying special attention to acoustics and soundproofing. Then the big day comes, you put your audio system together, then you put up your pj, turn it on, and discover it has a loud constant hum from the fan. Suddenly all the work and money that went into the acoustics and soundproofing seems wasted.

I don't think anyone is overstating the importance of a quiet fan at all.OK, possibly I hear it and it just blends into the background. I mainly look at video performance from the ISF side. Fan noise doesn't do anything to video performance, you can't see it. Sounds like you think I should tell a customer, "I can't calibrate your projector, there is too much fan noise."

Yes, I live with the fan noise on my 9500LC, but the picture is stunning, I get engrossed in what I am watching.

If you (anyone) wants specific features, then bring 'lots of money'. If you bring enough you can have it all. I agree that every aspect in a HT is important, but where/when do you compromise? It needs to be a personal choice.

Fan noise is a direct result of heat, in a CRT, it is in the circuit boards, the CRTs really don't get hot. In digital projectors, it's the bulb. Now, we have people complaining about not enough light output and too much fan noise. With current technology, there is a balancing point between cost, light output and noise among many other issues. My best guess would be, manufacturers will choose cost, light output then noise.

If so much effort has been put into HT planning, then obviously, there was thought put into noise abatement from the projector, they haven't made a totally silent one yet. Do you really want us to believe that you built a perfect HT, with a lot of research and planning, with perfect acoustics, and then expect to force a manufacturer to build an "affordable" projector to suit your needs because you didn't plan on any noise from a projector. Not in a free world where profits is a decision maker.

There are many expensive high-end theaters where everything is seemingly dealt with and when completed, never consider video calibration. What good is the whole package, perfect sound/acoustics, seating comfort, room temperature, and a bad picture.

It's amazing to me that there are people who have thousands of dollars invested in acoustical treatments, dual subwoofers, bass shakers, 125W per channel 7.1 surround sound and find a 25 db projector a deal breaker.

They must be watching Charlie Chaplin movies. ;)Don't forget about the piano!

Guptown,

I agree BUT having a silent room or close to it is what draws many people to building home theaters(dedicated) and having that realisim of what is on the screen reach them. Problem is you can't get that at a theater due to other's there munching on popcorn and laughing at the wrong times and you really can't get that at home if you have a dog or kids (or wife...sometimes) but getting "close" to it I think is attainable. Not hearing that noisy projector is just one way of getting "closer" and it does improve the acoustics for the room etc. So you are hearing the music/movies the way the director etc wanted you to. I don't think they intended for us to hear the projector??



Larry

Can the scaler in the RS1 be setup to do constant height scaling for a fixed 2.35:1 screen? In other words, can it be set to pillar box 16:9 and 4:3 material?

Thanks!

OK, possibly I hear it and it just blends into the background. I mainly look at video performance from the ISF side. Fan noise doesn't do anything to video performance, you can't see it. Sounds like you think I should tell a customer, "I can't calibrate your projector, there is too much fan noise."

Yes, I live with the fan noise on my 9500LC, but the picture is stunning, I get engrossed in what I am watching.

If you (anyone) wants specific features, then bring 'lots of money'. If you bring enough you can have it all. I agree that every aspect in a HT is important, but where/when do you compromise? It needs to be a personal choice.

Fan noise is a direct result of heat, in a CRT, it is in the circuit boards, the CRTs really don't get hot. In digital projectors, it's the bulb. Now, we have people complaining about not enough light output and too much fan noise. With current technology, there is a balancing point between cost, light output and noise among many other issues. My best guess would be, manufacturers will choose cost, light output then noise.

If so much effort has been put into HT planning, then obviously, there was thought put into noise abatement from the projector, they haven't made a totally silent one yet. Do you really want us to believe that you built a perfect HT, with a lot of research and planning, with perfect acoustics, and then expect to force a manufacturer to build an "affordable" projector to suit your needs because you didn't plan on any noise from a projector. Not in a free world where profits is a decision maker.

There are many expensive high-end theaters where everything is seemingly dealt with and when completed, never consider video calibration. What good is the whole package, perfect sound/acoustics, seating comfort, room temperature, and a bad picture.

Hmm. Seems to me that you missed my point entirely.

I understand compromises. That certainly wasn't the point of my post. My point was that you seemed to be giving manufacturers a "pass" when it comes to making the pj quiet. We need to let them know that this is an important aspect of a projector, and why. Otherwise they will think everyone is satisfied, and there is no need to try and improve on fan noise.

Sounds like you think I should tell a customer, "I can't calibrate your projector, there is too much fan noise."

Seriously. You didn't really get that from my post, did you? :confused:

Interesting. For me, no IRIS is so much more important than fan noise, that I would never go Pearl over RS-1.

I think you are missing the point. This is NOT "Well, I'll take this over that." It's apples and oranges, man. You can like 99% of something, but if the OTHER 1% is...well...like Rosie O'Donnell, do you really want to put up with HER the rest of your life? ;)

Do what you want and/or can tolerate, but it is NOT a "This over that" proposition.

Guptown,

I agree BUT having a silent room or close to it is what draws many people to building home theaters(dedicated) and having that realisim of what is on the screen reach them. Problem is you can't get that at a theater due to other's there munching on popcorn and laughing at the wrong times and you really can't get that at home if you have a dog or kids (or wife...sometimes) but getting "close" to it I think is attainable. Not hearing that noisy projector is just one way of getting "closer" and it does improve the acoustics for the room etc. So you are hearing the music/movies the way the director etc wanted you to. I don't think they intended for us to hear the projector??
Larry

EXACTLY. ;)

Hmm. Seems to me that you missed my point entirely.

I understand compromises. That certainly wasn't the point of my post. My point was that you seemed to be giving manufacturers a "pass" when it comes to making the pj quiet. We need to let them know that this is an important aspect of a projector, and why. Otherwise they will think everyone is satisfied, and there is no need to try and improve on fan noise.

Seriously. You didn't really get that from my post, did you? :confused:Pretty much.........

Anyone, who thinks they can force a manufacturer, of consumer electronics, into submission, really needs a reality check. Just try forcing your boss to pay you more, and while you are at it, work fewer hours.

I am only looking at the reality of the current situation. What you see is what you get this is an "economy" projector.

Just try to force car manufacturers to add forged aluminum wheels, Brembo brakes and Bilstein shocks, to their economy cars and minivans, at no additional cost...........it just won't happen. We can't even get TV manufacturers to include an accurate D65 color temp because they are afraid the TV will not sell on the showroom floor (they are removing a lot of the controls to accurately calibrate the TVs in the quest of cost cutting), now you expect to have them listen to the few who have perfect Theaters that want a quiet projector, good luck!

Like several have said, I think we are blowing the 'noise issue' out of proportion, mainly because we're bored waiting for our RS1's to arrive. As I said somewhere, I specifically put my ear down to the exhaust vent of the RS1 (at CES) to listen for its noise; I did noise some quite warm/hot air, though coming out at very low pressure, and the noise was essentially inaudible to me until my ear was within a foot of the vent. And this is imp to me since I will be mounting the pj on a table/stand, about 1.5 ft above eye/ear level, and about the same distance behind our heads, i.e., CLOSE; this is to take full advantage of the Dalite HP screen. And I was even more encouraged by some reports that the production units were better in this regard that the pre-production ones; but we will all make our evaluation of this when we get them in our homes. [And if we find it unbearable, we have 30 days to decide and can send them back to Jason!]

An update on noise, for those debating. I have a friend over this evening who enjoys AV, but is not, and does not plan to be a projector owner. He doesn't have any interest in the technology, or spending large amounts on gear.

We have been watching the football for over an hour, with the volume low as we have talked all the way through, and he made no comment on the noise level. So I asked.

His comment was that he hadn't noticed it at all. I turned the volume off, and asked him to describe the noise. He said 'its just quiet background noise, not intrusive'. He said he really had to concentrate to hear it over very quiet TV volume.

This is sitting just 18 inches from our heads. Noise is always subjective, but it was interesting to ask a neutral for his thoughts.

http://www.earplugsonline.com/images/pack-personal.gif

Which one, the omni or chief?


where can I buy the vogel mount?

Pretty much.........

Anyone, who thinks they can force a manufacturer, of consumer electronics, into submission, really needs a reality check. Just try forcing your boss to pay you more, and while you are at it, work fewer hours.

First, please quote where I said we could FORCE manufacturers to do anything. You shouldn't continue to attempt to put words in my mouth.

Second, to imply that we can't have an impact on manufacturers to improve certain areas of performance is nonsense. Otherwise, why do you think they are constantly leap frogging each other in terms of picture quality? Could it be because that's what the consumer wants?

I am only looking at the reality of the current situation. What you see is what you get this is an "economy" projector.

"What you see is what you get"? That's an insightful statement. This just proves what I said in the first place: you are being way too forgiving of fan noise. Yes, we all know there are going to be some compromises. We all know it will not be a perfect projector, especially at this price point. That doesn't mean that we can't criticize certain areas of performance....regardless of price.

Just try to force car manufacturers to add forged aluminum wheels, Brembo brakes and Bilstein shocks, to their economy cars and minivans, at no additional cost...........it just won't happen. We can't even get TV manufacturers to include an accurate D65 color temp because they are afraid the TV will not sell on the showroom floor (they are removing a lot of the controls to accurately calibrate the TVs in the quest of cost cutting), now you expect to have them listen to the few who have perfect Theaters that want a quiet projector, good luck!

I'm sorry Glen, but that is a really bad analogy. Really. Comparing upgraded high performance parts on an automobile to fan noise in a projector?

You act as though making a quiet fan is like rocket science, and it can only be done at great additional expense. Well, the Pearl cost less than the RS1, and it's fan is very quiet. One of the quietest I have heard. So don't tell me that JVC can't do the same with the RS1.

Of course, I haven't heard the RS1. It is entirely possible that it will be very quiet and I won't be disappointed in that regard at all. I just thought (and still do) that you were minimizing this area of projector performance....an area of performance which any thorough projector review will address.

Bright. Quiet. Cheap. Choose any two.

You can't violate the laws of physics. If you want reasonable brightness, you need to dissipate the heat, and you can't do that in a compact enclosure without fans that move a reasonable amount of air, and fans make noise.

"Bright. Quiet. Cheap. Choose any two. "

I'd ammend that to "Bright. Quiet. Cheap. Compact. Choose any three. "

I think I've "nailed the noise" problem. My HT is in my basement, two rooms, one 20 square meters (the "cinema") and the other about 14 square meters. Separated with a 15" wall.

I will shelf mount the HD1 in the other room, make a circular hole wide enough for letting the picture fill 104" in the HT. Approximately 4.5 meters from hole to screen. No sound, no heating up and best of all. Philips wireless HDMI, coming soon.

Sounds like the perfect woman. Bright, quiet, cheap. Nothing to do with physics.

Did you see the nice stacking stuff now available from Chief? Make stacking a snap. Really need to stack two to get a popping image on a 110" screen. Considering the low price, no problem. I was kidding about JVC doing noise cancelliing. But nothing a handy installer couldn't handle.

Bright. Quiet. Cheap. Choose any two.

You can't violate the laws of physics. If you want reasonable brightness, you need to dissipate the heat, and you can't do that in a compact enclosure without fans that move a reasonable amount of air, and fans make noise.

Well put. A good example is the HD81: bright, relatively cheap, and loud as hell.

Guptown,

I agree BUT having a silent room or close to it is what draws many people to building home theaters(dedicated) and having that realisim of what is on the screen reach them. Problem is you can't get that at a theater due to other's there munching on popcorn and laughing at the wrong times and you really can't get that at home if you have a dog or kids (or wife...sometimes) but getting "close" to it I think is attainable. Not hearing that noisy projector is just one way of getting "closer" and it does improve the acoustics for the room etc. So you are hearing the music/movies the way the director etc wanted you to. I don't think they intended for us to hear the projector??



Larry

Larry, I agree that "Silence is Golden", but if a 25 db "noisy" projector that has outstanding contrast, color and lumens is going to ruin your movie experience then I think you'll be devastated when your RS1/HD1 arrives.;)

Meanwhile I keep getting flashes of several AVS forum members sitting in bat cave black, sensory deprivation tanks, sweating profusely (because AC is strictly verboten in a home theater....noisy fan) while hopelessly trying to get that last .3 pixel misconvergence calibrated out so that they won't be pulled out of the experience of watching Saw2 on Blue-Ray. :)

Bright. Quiet. Cheap. Choose any two.

You can't violate the laws of physics. If you want reasonable brightness, you need to dissipate the heat, and you can't do that in a compact enclosure without fans that move a reasonable amount of air, and fans make noise.

The Pearl is pretty bright, cheap AND quiet. 3 out of 3.

See...it CAN be done.

Well put. A good example is the HD81: bright, relatively cheap, and loud as hell.


And NOT acceptable.

;)

The Pearl is pretty bright, cheap AND quiet. 3 out of 3.

See...it CAN be done.

Pearl bright enough? I guess if you are using a screen under 90"...

First, please quote where I said we could FORCE manufacturers to do anything. You shouldn't continue to attempt to put words in my mouth.I thought you implied that with "we should be pushing manufacturers to make all of these theater items as quiet as possible".Second, to imply that we can't have an impact on manufacturers to improve certain areas of performance is nonsense. Otherwise, why do you think they are constantly leap frogging each other in terms of picture quality? Could it be because that's what the consumer wants?I haven't seen a lot of improvement in picture quality, I see it mainly as a quest for sales volume and profits. Why was the Qualia replaced by the Ruby and then the Pearl. My guess would be they sold 50 times as many Rubys over the Qualia and plan on selling hundreds of times as many Pearls as Rubys............there is profit in volume. The improvements in projectors is simply competition ....."lead, follow or get out of the way" pretty much says it all.

"What you see is what you get"? That's an insightful statement. This just proves what I said in the first place: you are being way too forgiving of fan noise. Yes, we all know there are going to be some compromises. We all know it will not be a perfect projector, especially at this price point. That doesn't mean that we can't criticize certain areas of performance....regardless of price."Way too forgiving"........ I am just saying this is one of the quietest projectors I have heard and I have lived with very noisy projectors that didn't really bother me.I'm sorry Glen, but that is a really bad analogy. Really. Comparing upgraded high performance parts on an automobile to fan noise in a projector?

You act as though making a quiet fan is like rocket science, and it can only be done at great additional expense. Well, the Pearl cost less than the RS1, and it's fan is very quiet. One of the quietest I have heard. So don't tell me that JVC can't do the same with the RS1.Well, lets assume they will make 100,000 RS1/HD1s and a slightly quieter fan is $3 more. That becomes $300,000 less profit. I spent many years of my professional career in manufacturing cost accounting and finance that there were serious "cost reduction" demands placed on engineering, purchasing and manufacturing because of marketing's target price-point. It's not rocket science, it is dollars.

Of course, I haven't heard the RS1. It is entirely possible that it will be very quiet and I won't be disappointed in that regard at all. I just thought (and still do) that you were minimizing this area of projector performance....an area of performance which any thorough projector review will address.When I choose to sacrifice picture quality or accuracy for fan noise, just shoot me.

The Pearl is pretty bright, cheap AND quiet. 3 out of 3.

See...it CAN be done.And no mention of picture quality, performance or accuracy. What is really important?

None of these projectors are very bright after some bulb aging. Brighter than my FP CRT though but real dim compared to my 65 inch plasma. The solution is a stack. Not hard to do with stack mounts readily available and a pair of projectors for under $10K. The same price as a Ruby a bit back Cheap. The downfall which a stack can't make up for is the relatively cheap lenses projectors in this price class are forced to have. I'd love to see a RS1 with say a lens of the quality the ones in the Qualia. So it would cost $8K MSRP. Big deal.

Interesting. For me, no IRIS is so much more important than fan noise, that I would never go Pearl over RS-1.

As I get older, my ears get sharper and my eyes get dimmer. I bought a LG 780p 42" LCD in my bedroom and I can hear it in STAND BY mode! I'm having the technician coming over... it drives me nuts. My wife cant hear it but she's semi-deaf.

That example is just to point out that some folks (like me) REALLY care about the noise from our TV/projectors. If I lose 5% in video quality but get a silent machine, I'm happy.

I'm not going to put an order for a PEARL quite yet; I'll wait to hear the JVC RS1 in a store and compare it to the PEARL.

I haven't seen a lot of improvement in picture quality, I see it mainly as a quest for sales volume and profits. Why was the Qualia replaced by the Ruby and then the Pearl. My guess would be they sold 50 times as many Rubys over the Qualia and plan on selling hundreds of times as many Pearls as Rubys............there is profit in volume. The improvements in projectors is simply competition ....."lead, follow or get out of the way" pretty much says it all.
.

Hi Glen,

Interesting stuff you brought up here. Thanks.

Are you saying that Sony Qualia is much better than Ruby and much better than Pearl regarding Price/Value to its Performance/Quality?

Don't you think Qualia is too much over-price compare to what Ruby can achieve?

Usually males lose significant portions of their high frequency hearing as they get older.

I can just see Lightstrikes enterig a store and asking one of the salesmen if he could play the pearl against the RS1. Of course. we have an RS1 that I can take out of the box and play for you. Sir. Did you bring a CD with you?

No I just want you to to play the RS1 against the pearl. I really don't want hear something played on them.

OK You had me really worried for a minute. The RSI doesn't seem to have a built in CD tray.

How about a DVD then, at least you can judge the PQ of the two machines?

No Damn it. I just want you to play them so I can A/B the sound coming from them.

Uh.Uh.. But the pearl is ceiling mounted, while if I take the RS1 out of the box, it will be table mounted. Not really going to be a very valid comparison.

Well can't you take the pearl down, so I can hear them side by side?

OK. But you are going to buy one or the other from us for the prices marked?

Err . . . .

I thought you implied that with "we should be pushing manufacturers to make all of these theater items as quiet as possible".

That's hardly the same as "forcing" them to do anything. I most certainly do believe we should be pushing for quiet fans. You think we should just take what we get and be happy.

I haven't seen a lot of improvement in picture quality, I see it mainly as a quest for sales volume and profits. Why was the Qualia replaced by the Ruby and then the Pearl. My guess would be they sold 50 times as many Rubys over the Qualia and plan on selling hundreds of times as many Pearls as Rubys............there is profit in volume. The improvements in projectors is simply competition ....."lead, follow or get out of the way" pretty much says it all.

So, competition leads to improvements, right? If competition is strong, and there is little difference in PQ as you seem to suggest, the little things like fan noise can make the difference in an extra sale. Right?

"Way too forgiving"........ I am just saying this is one of the quietest projectors I have heard and I have lived with very noisy projectors that didn't really bother me.

As I said, it just comes across as you being forgiving simply because there has been improvement over the jet engines that existed in CRT's. Just because things are better than those old CRT's doesn't mean there isn't room for additional improvement.


Well, lets assume they will make 100,000 RS1/HD1s and a slightly quieter fan is $3 more. That becomes $300,000 less profit. I spent many years of my professional career in manufacturing cost accounting and finance that there were serious "cost reduction" demands placed on engineering, purchasing and manufacturing because of marketing's target price-point. It's not rocket science, it is dollars.



I already made this point: the Pearl is cheaper than the JVC. It is VERY quiet. It uses the same 200 watt UHP lamp that the RS1 is using. There is no reason the RS1 can't be as quiet as the Pearl. Your cost analysis is nothing more than making excuses for the manufacturer. If it really cost $3 more for a quiet fan, pass the cost on to the consumer. We would pay it.

When I choose to sacrifice picture quality or accuracy for fan noise, just shoot me.


:rolleyes:

You don't have to sacrifice picture quality or accuracy for fan noise. Why are you saying that you do? Do you really think that the RS1's picture quality or accuracy would suffer if it had a fan that was more quiet?

Funny. My store sold many more Rubies than Pearls. Perhaps because the Ruby was a breakthough fow which many many took the plunge while the Pearl was only an improvement not worth dumping an installed Ruby for?


The Qualia is still one very nice projector especially given the input upgrade. Much better lenses than he Ruby or pearl. Much much brighter too. But no DI so CR is not as good. What would I buy between the three. Two pearls stacked.

Who said a $5K chip machine is better than a 9 inch CRT? In some ways it is, but in others it isn't.

All this stuff is available to me very cheaply but I am still away off replacing my CRT. Once a CRT has been installed, etc, the only real weakness is the brightness of the image. These $5K bulb projectors, while brighter, are not all that bright. Nothing to justify a replacement. Now bulbs have come a long way and if I was starting to assemble an HT now, it would be a bulb, no ifs, ands, or buts. Not because its better. just because its a lot easier and cheaper.

........ Your cost analysis is nothing more than making excuses for the manufacturer. If it really cost $3 more for a quiet fan, pass the cost on to the consumer. We would pay it. I have many years in the corporate environment and know how they operate. I am not making excuses, just explaining facts of product development, marketing and cost decisions.

"We would pay it" JVC is betting they will sell all their production with the design "as-is"

You don't have to sacrifice picture quality or accuracy for fan noise. Why are you saying that you do? Do you really think that the RS1's picture quality or accuracy would suffer if it had a fan that was more quiet?Don't misinterpret what I said ....... I am saying with projectors currently in production, available for purchase, if I choose fan noise over PQ ............

As for the RS1, I would much rather see more cost allocated to lens quality and chip size, but now we are not talking about entry level projectors we're moving into the 10K..........

The Qualia is still one very nice projector especially given the input upgrade. Much better lenses than he Ruby or pearl. Much much brighter too. But no DI so CR is not as good. What would I buy between the three. Two pearls stacked.

Mark, you are not kidding right?
Stack 2 of Pearl? Can you do that? Have you done it? Tell us more.

Will we get double Lumens brightness (2,000 Lumens) and not sacrificing Picture Sharpness and the Black Level? Or it will produce a new black? :confused:

Who said a $5K chip machine is better than a 9 inch CRT? In some ways it is, but in others it isn't.

All this stuff is available to me very cheaply but I am still away off replacing my CRT. Once a CRT has been installed, etc, the only real weakness is the brightness of the image. These $5K bulb projectors, while brighter, are not all that bright. Nothing to justify a replacement. Now bulbs have come a long way and if I was starting to assemble an HT now, it would be a bulb, no ifs, ands, or buts. Not because its better. just because its a lot easier and cheaper.All true. The biggest point is "easier and cheaper"

Mark, you are not kidding right?
Stack 2 of Pearl? Can you do that? Have you done it? Tell us more.

Will we get double Lumens brightness (2,000 Lumens) and not sacrificing Picture Sharpness and the Black Level? Or it will produce a new black? :confused:Everything doubles, but you could use ND filters to improve black levels.

But Mark, you are kidding, double the fan noise :eek:

Everything doubles, but you could use ND filters to improve black levels.

But Mark, you are kidding, double the fan noise

Don't even start that issue AGAIN !

Here come the custom installer handy:
Replacing a super quite fan with extra $100 cost, that will do the trick, and everybody happy, even JVC smiles! :)

Uups, warranty is void ....that's another topic!

ok, with all this talk of fan noise can someone tell me if the RS1 will be significantly quieter than my current Sharp XV10000? The Sharp is kinda noisy in low lamp mode but, I can drown it out with sound. :)

I have many years in the corporate environment and know how they operate. I am not making excuses, just explaining facts of product development, marketing and cost decisions.

"We would pay it" JVC is betting they will sell all their production with the design "as-is"

Very possible. Yet, if all the reviews come in and they criticize the fan noise of the RS1, do you think that JVC might listen and improve the fan noise on the next model?

Don't misinterpret what I said ....... I am saying with projectors currently in production, available for purchase, if I choose fan noise over PQ ............

Well, since that wasn't at all the point or issue, I took it to mean that you could only have one or the other, not both.

I have never said that I would purchase another projector based solely on it having a quiet fan. But if the PQ of two projectors were very close to each other, and one was much quieter than the other, guess which I would buy?

As for the RS1, I would much rather see more cost allocated to lens quality and chip size, but now we are not talking about entry level projectors we're moving into the 10K..........

Funny how you continue to avoid the point I have made, twice now, about the Pearl. Same lamp as the RS1. Very Quiet. It is NOT in 10k league.

Taking a couple dollars from the cost of a quiet fan to allocate towards lens quality or chip size really isn't going to make much improvement in those areas, methinks.

ok, with all this talk of fan noise can someone tell me if the RS1 will be significantly quieter than my current Sharp XV10000? The Sharp is kinda noisy in low lamp mode but, I can drown it out with sound. :)

Having heard the 10k several times, I sure as heck hope the RS1 is quieter! And I'm confident that it will be.

Glen C,

I've generally enjoyed reading your posts as they're usually quite enlightening in many ways with regards to the technical aspects of achieving great PQ but I must say that your reasoning on this fan noise issue is somewhat disappointing to see.

Maybe last year, or the year before, a $5k projector could be considered a budget projector but now thats the pricepoint for where a $10k projector was (the Ruby last year versus Pearl, JVC, etc. A few years ago 50" 720p plasmas were going for around $10,000, now they go for less than half of that as well.

Looks like projectors are going from being high margin, low volume items to more lower margin higher volume items, just like everything else does in electronics.

Well, lets assume they will make 100,000 RS1/HD1s and a slightly quieter fan is $3 more. That becomes $300,000 less profit. I spent many years of my professional career in manufacturing cost accounting and finance that there were serious "cost reduction" demands placed on engineering, purchasing and manufacturing because of marketing's target price-point. It's not rocket science, it is dollars.

I dont disagree with the math, I disagree with the implied assumptions.

Not necessarily, because if they improved the product with a more quiet fan, slightly better optics, or whatever, while the per unit cost goes up, even if they kept it at the same price point, if they sell ENOUGH more units they still make more profit.

Glen C,

I've generally enjoyed reading your posts as they're usually quite enlightening in many ways with regards to the technical aspects of achieving great PQ but I must say that your reasoning on this fan noise issue is somewhat disappointing to see.I just don't see JVC making a big effort to make a change in the fan. As for the noise level, I heard it and thought it was extremely quiet. I believe I will be able to hear my DVR over the RS1.

If noise is a big issue then some may want the Pearl, however from preliminary CR reports I have seen, I would want the RS1. In the here and now, I don't expect any quick changes to production. JVC is aware of noise levels, it was brought up in the demonstrations as to the "quiet fan". Is it too noisy for some, yes, is it too noisy for all, no, not at this time.

This current market is very price sensitive. For the masses, price and a few specifications out weigh performance. Many see cheap and 1080p and nothing else matters. The educated consumer starts looking to performance. The thing that really gets me is the rambling in many threads about how some manufacturer should have included ________ , "can't believe they didn't add that, what were they thinking." I especially like those who want all the HT/Consumer features in the Broadcast monitors, built for a non HT environment.

I have been through that with manufacturers before, me - "what happened to the calibration adjustments in the new model," Manufacturer - "Oh, they were eliminated to cut costs."

Different RS1s may have different sound levels, if JVC sources fans from different manufacturers, it has been done before. Just as with PCs, someone may find high-end aftermarket, super quiet fans as replacement modifications.

Personally, I don't see the fan as an issue to me, they never seem to have really bothered me. Even if the HD10K was a little noisier, if it was in my budget, I would give it some consideration over the RS1.

I have been down for a week with some sort of flu and I apologize if my responses were a bit harsh. I guess we get grumpy when we don't feel good, along with age....

In the recent past all projectors were on the loud side, but that has changed.

Once you have had a quiet projector there is no going back.

Many now would pay a premium for a near silent projector even if it meant a larger box, and reject those with higher noise despite the image.

Weren't we supposed to get some ETA news this week?

What I find amazing is that I post an update on fan noise from a completely neutral point of view, to give people a better idea whilst they are waiting for their units, and its completely ignored.

It seems people just want to seek the negative comments, and not embrace the positive ones. :confused:

RE Noise.

I don't think it is an issue as you can always place some sound absorption material around. if the PJ will be ceiling mount then place a foam board @Bottom. That will reduce the direct noise by some amount. You can go extreme and construct a hushbox but from reports I doubts the PJ is that noisy. Don't let noise affect your decision.
My HTPC used to make a lot of noise untill I covered it with 20cm fiberGlass except for a small opening on the TOP. Now I can hear my LCD Monitor noise :D

ok, with all this talk of fan noise can someone tell me if the RS1 will be significantly quieter than my current Sharp XV10000? The Sharp is kinda noisy in low lamp mode but, I can drown it out with sound. :)


I have the HD1 2' to the rear/side of my seating position. In normal mode the noise level is about the same as the Pearl in high mode and I often used the Pearl in high mode. The noise level in normal disappears during normal movie viewing.

To put it in perspective I also have a Fuji P50XHA40 plasma and that it audible in a silent room from 11' away. I don't find the HD1 anymore distracting that this from 2' away.

Dazzer

For those interested in the convergence of the HD1 here is a photo taken from 20" of the Lumagen "CROSSHATCH" 100 IRE test pattern in 1080p. The convergence is uniform across the screen area.

In the second photo I shifted RED by 1 pixel to the right to show the effect of MC compared to the first photo.

The photo's were taken on an Olympus u-mini compact in auto and I'm no photographer.

Dazzer

Photo 1

http://www.avforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=47619&d=1170890687

Photo 2

http://www.avforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=47628&d=1170923660

Bright. Quiet. Cheap. Choose any two.

You can't violate the laws of physics. If you want reasonable brightness, you need to dissipate the heat, and you can't do that in a compact enclosure without fans that move a reasonable amount of air, and fans make noise.
Why not. They do in computers. Liquid cooling is nearly silent on high end gaming machines (Alien).

Also, while we are on the topic of physics: Large blades, slow speed = move X amount of air quietly. Small blades, fast speed = move the same amount of air, but noisily. Another lesson learned by computer manufacturers (at least the ones who cared about noise, which are few but they more are coming on board).

I'm not sure I'm going to care at all about the fan noise, but I can categorically state that the problem could have been solved. It's economics, and caring about the problem in the first place.

For those interested in the convergence of the HD1 here is a photo taken from 20" of the Lumagen "CROSSHATCH" 100 IRE test pattern in 1080p. The convergence is uniform across the screen area.

In the second photo I shifted RED by 1 pixel to the right to show the effect of MC compared to the first photo.

The photo's were taken on an Olympus u-mini compact in auto and I'm no photographer.

Dazzer

Photo 1

http://www.avforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=47619&d=1170890687

Photo 2

http://www.avforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=47628&d=1170923660

Thanks for posting this. Looks pretty good. Can you give us an overall review? As you can see from this thread, we're starting to go a little batty over here waiting for ours. Let us live vicariously.

thanks again,
Jason

What I find amazing is that I post an update on fan noise from a completely neutral point of view, to give people a better idea whilst they are waiting for their units, and its completely ignored.

It seems people just want to seek the negative comments, and not embrace the positive ones. :confused:

I appreciate the feedback. made me feel better about things. How is the projector day three? So jealous.
Thanks,
Jason

For those interested in the convergence of the HD1 here is a photo taken from 20" of the Lumagen "CROSSHATCH" 100 IRE test pattern in 1080p. The convergence is uniform across the screen area.

In the second photo I shifted RED by 1 pixel to the right to show the effect of MC compared to the first photo.

The photo's were taken on an Olympus u-mini compact in auto and I'm no photographer.

Dazzer

Photo 1

http://www.avforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=47619&d=1170890687

Photo 2

http://www.avforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=47628&d=1170923660

I guess I'm not a member of the UK forums so I can't access the photos. But I take your word for it. :)

Is your HD1 table or ceiling mounted ?

Worries over. I jumped "the wagon" :)

hello

still no update on the hdmi input vertical stretch aspect ratio mode ?

I guess I'm not a member of the UK forums so I can't access the photos. But I take your word for it. :)

Is your HD1 table or ceiling mounted ?


We don't charge for membership. ;)

It's pedestal mounted about 1' above eye level.

Dazzer

We don't charge for membership. ;)

It's pedestal mounted about 1' above eye level.

Dazzer

Can you just post the pix here so I don't have to register?

Can you just post the pix here so I don't have to register?

Tom

I tried to attach the same photo's to AVS but it said the image size was too large. I didn't want to start manipulating the images but here they are reduced.

Dazzer

Tom

I tried to attach the same photo's to AVS but it said the image size was too large. I didn't want to start manipulating the images but here they are reduced.

Dazzer
Holy crap, I just about got so dizzy looking at that second picture that I almost fell out of my chair! :eek:

I've been in the RS1 camp for months, but recently have been following the Epson TW1000/Powerlite pro threads (never leave a rock un-turned).

Seems like a possible alternative to RS1, comparable contrast, not sure of lumens but I think I remember it being in same category, hdmi 1.3 (maybe just a buzzword on this). I've been one of the disappointed constant height group concerning the RS1, if the Epson does vertical stretch...do any of you consider it a challenger to the RS1?

Thanks in advance

Seems like a possible alternative to RS1, comparable contrast, not sure of lumens but I think I remember it being in same category, hdmi 1.3 (maybe just a buzzword on this). I've been one of the disappointed constant height group concerning the RS1, if the Epson does vertical stretch...do any of you consider it a challenger to the RS1?


Comparable contrast? Is it DI or native? If contrast is native and comparable, Id say its a challenger for me. Looked at it before, didnt think it was comparable at first glance, if I recall.

Holy crap, I just about got so dizzy looking at that second picture that I almost fell out of my chair! :eek:


That's just 1 red pixel shift to the right photographed 20 inches from the screen. The lines will tend to "blend" the further way you view. That said I had several Pearl's that had MC of more than 1 pixel in different parts for the screen.

The attached is a screen shot of the same 1080p test pat on a Pearl. The photo isn't good quaility but you get some idea.

Dazzer

Comparable contrast? Is it DI or native? If contrast is native and comparable, Id say its a challenger for me. Looked at it before, didnt think it was comparable at first glance, if I recall.

I'm pretty sure it's DI- seems to get much better remarks than the DI on the Mits 5000.

Didn't think about it being a DI (always good for me to ask questions around here :) )

Tom

I tried to attach the same photo's to AVS but it said the image size was too large. I didn't want to start manipulating the images but here they are reduced.

Dazzer

Yes. I commented in the UK forum but will repeat briefly here - this is simply incredible convergence for a 3 chip panel. Major kudos goes out to JVC for delivering such excellent convergence and panel alignment controls to enable one to dial in convergence to this degree. It is nearly perfect. This is the control so sorely needed by Ruby and Pearl.

Also it should be noted that the picture that shows red being shifted by one pixel - my understanding is that was done on purpose to give people an idea of how the controls work.

That's just 1 red pixel shift to the right photographed 20 inches from the screen. The lines will tend to "blend" the further way you view. That said I had several Pearl's that had MC of more than 1 pixel in different parts for the screen.

The attached is a screen shot of the same 1080p test pat on a Pearl. The photo isn't good quaility but you get some idea.

Dazzer

One can easily see just how much the Ruby/Pearl would benefit from a pixel convergence control like provided on the RS1. Wow would this have solved convergence issues for so many people.

Yeah Ric,

That does look amazing. I cant wait!

Ric, Im having a 136"Carada BW 2.35 setup done .. I was talking to funlvr last night and am just a little bit concerned about brightness. As a point of reference how much foot lamberts are we looking at, max, with the Sharp 10k/12k in high contrast mode, with a new bulb?

Im estimating on the Carada screen (1.4 gain) that ill have 18 to 20 foot lamberts, before even accounting for the light loss because of the panamorph. Im debating a shorther throw versus a longer throw.

I'm less concerned about fan noise than I am about light spill in the corners of the image as some have mentioned. Can we get some more elaboration on that?

Holy crap, I just about got so dizzy looking at that second picture that I almost fell out of my chair! :eek:

I was about to say the same thing! :eek:

We don't charge for membership. ;)

It's pedestal mounted about 1' above eye level.

Dazzer

Thanks for the info. Dare I ask if you've tried inverting the image in the menu to see if the fan speed increases?

That's just 1 red pixel shift to the right photographed 20 inches from the screen. The lines will tend to "blend" the further way you view. That said I had several Pearl's that had MC of more than 1 pixel in different parts for the screen.

The attached is a screen shot of the same 1080p test pat on a Pearl. The photo isn't good quaility but you get some idea.

Dazzer

My Perl sees not times similar to this picture. The konvergenze of my Pearl´s looks rather as with the JVC, perhaps i makes a screen SHOT this evening.

Ric, Im having a 136"Carada BW 2.35 setup done .. I was talking to funlvr last night and am just a little bit concerned about brightness. As a point of reference how much foot lamberts are we looking at, max, with the Sharp 10k/12k in high contrast mode, with a new bulb? Im estimating on the Carada screen (1.4 gain) that ill have 18 to 20 foot lamberts, before even accounting for the light loss because of the panamorph. Im debating a shorther throw versus a longer throw.Catdaddy67, per our discussion in the 2:35 thread, we have pretty much identical setups except my screen is 1.2 gain. This is the key issue in my mind too. IIRC, the *estimated* lumens in low lamp will be 800 or so. But I can't recall what the normal mode was. I was thinking that for 2.35 movies I would watch in low lamp in a totally light-controlled room. When i'm watching sports / 16:9 content I would flip to normal lamp - that and the lower sq.ft. of the 16:9 screen I'm hoping will provide enough fL's to satisfy both needs. Does anyone recall the normal lamp lumen estimate? Probably my bad, but I can't seem to find it.

My Perl sees not times similar to this picture. The konvergenze of my Pearl´s looks rather as with the JVC, perhaps i makes a screen SHOT this evening.

blackbird

I can only comment on the 4 Pearl units I had in my possession. The convergence was different on them all. Some parts of the screen area looked ok but none were consistently good over the whole screen area. I used the 1080p Lumagen white crosshatch test pattern as it's easy to spot MC.

I don't dispute there are good Pearls and maybe I was just very unlucky with the units that Sony supplied. :o

Dazzer

Hey Strange,

Im using Ekkehart's findings on his web site and from posts in this thread to come up with my numbers:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=752351&page=55&pp=30

post 1626 and at www.cine4home.com

I used 640 lumens at 1.8x throw, in high lamp mode, and came out with a 19.3 foot lamberts number. In normal lamp mode, 15.4 (20% less.) In high color temperature setting (20% more) high lamp mode, 23.16.

I know there will be some light loss because of the anamorphic lens. I believe Jeff estimated a "half a stop" loss, which he equated to about 20% because of the panamorph. Im weighing if I gain more in additional brightness than what i lose in PQ because of distortions from the lens being closer than 1.8x throw, at say 1.6x throw, to help offset the light loss from the lens.

Im thinking even at 8 foot lamberts (50% bulb at 1.8x throw with 20% loss because of panamorph in high lamp, normal color temparature) that the image would be brighter than any images I was looking at with my Sharp 12k in high contrast mode, even with a new bulb. If that is the case, then it might not be so much of a concern.

Numbers Im using from Ekkehart, Ric, and Jeff

Lumens in high mode:

720 at min throw (max aperature) to 525 at max throw (min iris)
Throw on RS1 - 1.4x to 2.4x

20% decrease to normal lamp mode, from high
20% increase for high color temp, from normal

factor in screen gain and loss from lens

Tom

I tried to attach the same photo's to AVS but it said the image size was too large. I didn't want to start manipulating the images but here they are reduced.

Dazzer

Thanks Dazzer! Those are cool pix. The convergence in the first pic looks very good.

What I find amazing is that I post an update on fan noise from a completely neutral point of view, to give people a better idea whilst they are waiting for their units, and its completely ignored.

It seems people just want to seek the negative comments, and not embrace the positive ones. :confused:

UT: I certainly noticed your post and was very encouraged to see it. It's very consistent with what I observed re the RS1 at the CES in Jan.

Im estimating on the Carada screen (1.4 gain)...
I'm yet to read of anyone ever getting 1.4 gain out of their BW screen. I believe the true gain is much closer to 1.1 - 1.2 max.


Based on your numbers, screen size, lens, bulb aging,... I'd be a little concerned as well. It sounds like you might get by when the bulb is fresh, but you're looking at a pretty dim picture with a few hours on the bulb. I would look for a higher gain screen (assuming you need that size) or another PJ.

What I find amazing is that I post an update on fan noise from a completely neutral point of view, to give people a better idea whilst they are waiting for their units, and its completely ignored.

It seems people just want to seek the negative comments, and not embrace the positive ones. :confused:


my thoughts exactly...but this seems particularly a difference between US and UK forums....

I have always advised that the HD1 is quiet and continue to subscribe to that and am glad to see that the first end-users who have the product, are subscribing to that point of view/hear..

my thoughts exactly...but this seems particularly a difference between US and UK forums....

I have always advised that the HD1 is quiet and continue to subscribe to that and am glad to see that the first end-users who have the product, are subscribing to that point of view/hear..

Bart, I would bet that the reason you are seeing a difference between the US and UK forums regarding this is because the RS-1 is not out here yet. Rather than focusing on the positive a lot of people tend to zero in on the negatives mentioned about a product when it has yet to be released. Once the unit gets released over here I'll bet that 2/3rd's of the complainers will change their tune after having it in their home. (assuming that they get one of course). I only say 2/3rds because some people are going to find things to complain about no matter how good a product is.

Cat - I never measured my Sharp 10K on an aged bulb but I suspect I was getting about 3-4ftL on my 1.3 gain 106" diag Firehawk. Currenty I'm getting about 160 lumens with about 100 hours or so on the bulb which roughly works out just off the top of my head to something around 7-8ftL.

After about 500 hours I was getting 7.5ftL and found it still acceptable. YMMV.

That's just 1 red pixel shift to the right photographed 20 inches from the screen. The lines will tend to "blend" the further way you view. That said I had several Pearl's that had MC of more than 1 pixel in different parts for the screen.

The attached is a screen shot of the same 1080p test pat on a Pearl. The photo isn't good quaility but you get some idea.

Dazzer

Brandnew Konvergenze Picture from my Pearl

http://www.itl-net.at/download/Konvergenz_Pearl.jpg

! 3072*2048 pixel 3MB !

http://www.itl-net.at/download/Konvergenz_Pearl_vorschau.gif


Not bad at all :rolleyes:

Cat - I never measured my Sharp 10K on an aged bulb but I suspect I was getting about 3-4ftL on my 1.3 gain 106" diag Firehawk. Currenty I'm getting about 160 lumens with about 100 hours or so on the bulb which roughly works out just off the top of my head to something around 7-8ftL.

After about 500 hours I was getting 7.5ftL and found it still acceptable. YMMV.


Wow! Really? I have a little over 600 hrs. on mine (Sharp XV10000) with a 103" diag Firehawk. It still looks good to me. I can't wait to get the RS1.

Brandnew Konvergenze Picture from my Pearl

http://www.itl-net.at/download/Konvergenz_Pearl.jpg

! 3072*2048 pixel 3MB !

http://www.itl-net.at/download/Konvergenz_Pearl_vorschau.gif


Not bad at all :rolleyes:

The left side looks off.

Wow! Really? I have a little over 600 hrs. on mine (Sharp XV10000) with a 103" diag Firehawk. It still looks good to me. I can't wait to get the RS1.

Yea I've posted this before but I think you would be shocked to see how low the ftL is despite it looking so good. This happened to me. I thought my Ruby was bright and punchy still and was raving about how good a job the bulb was doing holding up. Then I got a light meter and measured and was surprised to see I was only getting about 7.5ftL.

This goes to show that in general I think people put way to much emphasis on meeting a spec of 12ftL, and that depending on personal preferences one can still be happy with lower in a light controlled room. I for one really prefer a bright and punchy picture which made this experience all the more bizarre. I would have guessed I was getting about 15ftL!

Brandnew Konvergenze Picture from my Pearl

http://www.itl-net.at/download/Konvergenz_Pearl.jpg

! 3072*2048 pixel 3MB !

http://www.itl-net.at/download/Konvergenz_Pearl_vorschau.gif


Not bad at all :rolleyes:

blackbird

Thank. Also spotted your post on AVF.

Couple of questions-

Is that a photo of the whole screen area ? If so how far from the screen was the photo taken ?

MC tends to blend as you move back from the screen hence taking photo's from less than 2 feet to highlight the problem.

Dazzer

Wow! Really? I have a little over 600 hrs. on mine (Sharp XV10000) with a 103" diag Firehawk. It still looks good to me. I can't wait to get the RS1.

Also its possible that if you do not have it calibrated to D65 you are likely getting much more light output than I.

I'm yet to read of anyone ever getting 1.4 gain out of their BW screen. I believe the true gain is much closer to 1.1 - 1.2 max.


Audioholics reported the gain at 1.4, in their screen comparison, which seemed very objective to me. But at 1.2, it is still acceptable .. but maybe a reason for a shorter throw .. to make up for that possible drop there, aswell.

Despite the much dimmer appearance of the Sharp 12k in high contrast mode, versus it in high brightness mode, I still found it a lot more pleasing than the brighter less contrast image. Anyway you slice it, the RS1 is gonna be a step up in brightness, contrast, and SIZE!



Like Strange, when watching sports ill have the lens off and will be watching it at 16:9 dimensions which should give it a lot more punch.

Even when it gets a little less punchy, like Ekkehart suggests in his review, you can always set the color temperature to high to get an extra 20% lumens boost. He mentions that the image is still acceptable (not his words .. but thats the gist.)

Numbers Im using from Ekkehart, Ric, and Jeff

Lumens in high mode:

720 at min throw (max aperature) to 525 at max throw (min iris)
Throw on RS1 - 1.4x to 2.4x

20% decrease to normal lamp mode, from high
20% increase for high color temp, from normal

factor in screen gain and loss from lensThanks Cat. Just so I'm clear, are you calculating the throw off the 136" 2.35? Or, as I think about it, you must be using the width of the stretched 16:9 image? Which would mean that your 16:9 width is ~94" and your PJ will be mounted at around 14' from the screen? Have I got the math right? Or should I be calculating off diagonal? If its width then looks like my throw will be just over 2.0 which seems high...

Thanks Cat. Just so I'm clear, are you calculating the throw off the 136" 2.35? Or, as I think about it, you must be using the width of the stretched 16:9 image? Which would mean that your 16:9 width is ~94" and your PJ will be mounted at around 14' from the screen? Have I got the math right? If so then looks like my throw will be just over 2.0


Yes, the throw is off the 16:9 width and the brightness is measure off of the entire 2.35 screen.


Also, now that I think about it .. it may actually have been Tryg's, or Projector Central's, measurements that showed 1.4. I know I was comparing the screens the Carada, with the Draper, Dalite, Stewart and a few others.

I am not sure now. 8/

I found a review of the Brilliant White screen which puts the gain at 1.4 8):

http://www.presentingsolutions.com/Manufacturers/Carada/Screen_Criterion_16x9/index.asp



Screen Brightness

The Brilliant White screen surface claims a gain of 1.4. As with screens with gain, brightness will diminish as you view the screen off access. I again measured the brightness of the projector on the light meter, and then, without the diffuser, measured light reflecting off the screen. This is not an accurate method of measure for several reasons, but the numbers yielded a gain of just under 1.3. Due to the slight off angle of the light meter, I expected the measurement to yield a lower gain than actual. Based on this, I find the 1.4 claim to be very reasonable.

Cat - I never measured my Sharp 10K on an aged bulb but I suspect I was getting about 3-4ftL on my 1.3 gain 106" diag Firehawk. Currenty I'm getting about 160 lumens with about 100 hours or so on the bulb which roughly works out just off the top of my head to something around 7-8ftL.

After about 500 hours I was getting 7.5ftL and found it still acceptable. YMMV.

I knew that most everyone else considered the numbers to be low, but we definitely found it acceptable, and actually preferrable to it in high bright mode. Thanks Ric.

Cine4homes review should be out very soon I would think. Has anyone heard anything? I am really curious to read the last part of the report.

@dazzer

Closup

http://www.itl-net.at/download/KonvergenzPearlClosup.jpg

Cine4homes review should be out very soon I would think. Has anyone heard anything? I am really curious to read the last part of the report.

If all goes well he should be very busy next week when the first shipment in Germany arrives.

No time for reviews, He should be calibrating mine. :) (C4H optimization)


There will also be an OEM'd version available.

http://www.grobi-web.de/opencms/system/galleries/pics/produkte/img_image_dreambee1.jpg

Source (http://www.grobi.tv/opencms/seiten/neuigkeiten/news-aktuell/jvchd1.html)

Maybe you're right regarding the 1.4 gain rating Cat. I've just never heard of anyone seeing those results other than the manufacturer.

Either way I'm sure everything will workout for you. I'd just think a higher gain screen would yield better results for you, but then again, there are trade-offs which might not be acceptable for your application...

If all goes well he should be very busy next week when the first shipment in Germany arrives.
Looks like the roving heads from War of the Worlds.

Maybe you're right regarding the 1.4 gain rating Cat. I've just never heard of anyone seeing those results other than the manufacturer.

Either way I'm sure everything will workout for you. I'd just think a higher gain screen would yield better results for you, but then again, there are trade-offs which might not be acceptable for your application...

Cant really go wrong with it at 1.2 1.3, 1.4. Obviously id prefer it at 1.5 1.6 but, Ill take it. 8)

I looked at the high power, but as I have 4 kids Ill be ceiling mounting and the Carada is at a nice price point for that size screen. My last screen was a 106 firehawk, and it was nice, but all in all there doesnt seem to be much difference between the ST 130 and the Brilliant White screen, except price.

Since, Im going for a complete 2.35 setup, lens, VP, along with the screen and PJ the savings from going with the Carada vs. the Stewart and the HDQ over the Crystallio 2 go a lot towards the wife aggro/acceptance factor of the package.

Since the RS1 already comes with the Gennum processor, most of what I need from the Lumagen is just the stretch and the inputs, both of which it does nicely. 8)

has anyone confirmed the lamplife yet?

Cant really go wrong with it at 1.2 1.3, 1.4. Obviously id prefer it at 1.5 1.6 but, Ill take it. 8)

I looked at the high power, but as I have 4 kids Ill be ceiling mounting and the Carada is at a nice price point for that size screen. My last screen was a 106 firehawk, and it was nice, but all in all there doesnt seem to be much difference between the ST 130 and the Brilliant White screen, except price.

Since, Im going for a complete 2.35 setup, lens, VP, along with the screen and PJ the savings from going with the Carada vs. the Stewart and the HDQ over the Crystallio 2 go a lot towards the wife aggro/acceptance factor of the package.

Since the RS1 already comes with the Gennum processor, most of what I need from the Lumagen is just the stretch and the inputs, both of which it does nicely. 8)

Are you saying that it is preferable to let the projector do the processing as opposed to the HDQ?

Are you saying that it is preferable to let the projector do the processing as opposed to the HDQ?

They are likely comparable. If I read Greg Rogers review right, it sounds like he might think that the Lumagen does a better job of deinterlacing than the Realta in the Yamaha PJ.

I get the best of both worlds. If it looks like the Lumagen does a better job I can let it or if not I can let the Gennum on the RS1 do it. When the Lumagen gets the 1080/24 output working then I would most likely be using that out into the RS1.

For those interested in the convergence of the HD1 here is a photo taken from 20" of the Lumagen "CROSSHATCH" 100 IRE test pattern in 1080p. The convergence is uniform across the screen area.

In the second photo I shifted RED by 1 pixel to the right to show the effect of MC compared to the first photo.

The photo's were taken on an Olympus u-mini compact in auto and I'm no photographer.

Dazzer

Photo 1

http://www.avforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=47619&d=1170890687

Photo 2

http://www.avforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=47628&d=1170923660

The convergence looks good and the image looks sharp. I hope that the convergence is this good on the unit that I receive. Thanks for posting!

@dazzer

Closup

http://www.itl-net.at/download/KonvergenzPearlClosup.jpg

Pretty typical of the Pearls I've seen. Looks like some red/blue MC on the horizonal axis but I seen far worse. :o

Enjoy :)

Dazzer

Here's a link to some simple convergence patterns, makes it easy to see any issues, with a noteable one below...

http://www.pbase.com/jackcnd/convergence

http://www.pbase.com/jackcnd/image/74129728/original.jpg

Pretty typical of the Pearls I've seen. Looks like some red/blue MC on the horizonal axis but I seen far worse. :o

Enjoy :)

Dazzer

I assume from your post that he posted a picture from a Pearl, not an HD1. Was wondering which it was so thanks.

I assume from your post that he posted a picture from a Pearl, not an HD1. Was wondering which it was so thanks.

Yes they are of his Pearl not HD1. UrbanT over on AVF is about to post some convergence pics from his HD1.

Dazzer

Yeah Ric,

That does look amazing. I cant wait!

Ric, Im having a 136"Carada BW 2.35 setup done .. I was talking to funlvr last night and am just a little bit concerned about brightness. As a point of reference how much foot lamberts are we looking at, max, with the Sharp 10k/12k in high contrast mode, with a new bulb?

Im estimating on the Carada screen (1.4 gain) that ill have 18 to 20 foot lamberts, before even accounting for the light loss because of the panamorph. Im debating a shorther throw versus a longer throw.

CAT,

When you read a screen's gain spec in a review, they are mearly repeating the manufacturer's spec.

There is no standard way to measure screen gain. The mounting location of the PJ can be very critical to the results, for one thing.

I have measured a variety of screens. The Carada BW is the most color accurate and uniform of any I have measured, even slightly better than the ST130 in this regard. It measures at 1.11 gain with a ceiling mounted PJ. The Carada is one of the easiest screens to mount and their quality of construction is top notch. The velvet covered frame is equal in beauty to the Stewart frame in my own HT.

The most important consideration in screen selection is achieving proper image brightness. Make no compromises regarding this. Most folks in my experience find screen images down to 7 fL to be bright enough, just as lovingdvd has posted. Below that folks begin to percieve the image as being too dimm. 5 fL is objectionably dim for most viewers.

I usually aim for an initial screen brightness of at least 14 fL with a new bulb, so that near the end of the bulb's life the image will still be 7 fL. In my experience it is common for bulbs to reach their "half brightness level" before their rated life is up.

Screen brightness uniformity can be a dissadvantage in a theater with white walls, ceiling, and floor in close proximity to the screen. More light is thrown onto those surfaces and is reflected back to the screen. This causes visibly more screen washout than using a screen with gain.

Glenn

Copied from AVF for those who haven't registered.

A quick update, and things are getting better and better. Just watched King Kong on HD-DVd again tonight, a film I've seen twice before. I hadn't intended to watch it, just have a look at some snippets, but the quality of the picture was mind blowing. Just the level of detail and information, as well as the colours and contrast in dark scenes. Although it had looked OK before, I never found it amazing, until now. I'm quite surprised.

Anyway, Photobucket is back up so here are some pictures.

This is my menu, to show convergence, pretty damn good.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y147/UrbanT/converg1.jpg

These are viewing forum text by web browsing on a PS3. The first is normal, the second is the effect of shifting blue (or was it red??) by one pixel. You get the idea anyway!

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y147/UrbanT/converg2.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y147/UrbanT/converg3.jpg

And finally I tried to take a picture of this test pattern, but the camera doesn't really tell the truth. These boxes are perfect, but the picture shows a sort of glow around the lines, thats my cheap camera again I'm afraid.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y147/UrbanT/converg4.jpg

It isn't perfect all over. The bottom 75% of the screen is perfect. The top 25% has the absolute tiniest push of green upwards, I would guess 1/4 pixel.

I was happy after several hours of ownership, but this JVC just seems to be getting better and better

Urbant,

A thanks to you for the time and effort you put in to this for US. Much appreciated. Keep it comin'.

Alex

Thanks UrbanT! Wow. The pixel shift feature is phenominal. This is such a nice thing to have and the advantage is obvious. Getting very excited! :D

Thank you for your time Urbant, glad your enjoying your Projector. It's getting really tough waiting for this projector! :)

Glenn,

Thanks for all the advice. Im going to look at this harder, because if I need to back into a 128" diagonal I still can, but I would rather not unless I had to.

Just an FYI regarding the 1.4 gain from the review:

When you read a screen's gain spec in a review, they are mearly repeating the manufacturer's spec.


I believe the reviewer actually measured it with meters. I linked it above. Ill cut and paste it here. Im sure there are several variables used that could effect the difference in numbers that the manufacturer and different reviewers come out with, so I dont discount at all your conclusions or his.

Thankfully, even at 1.1 gain my numbers will exceed 16 foot lamberts and passes your test as well.

Screen Brightness

The Brilliant White screen surface claims a gain of 1.4. As with screens with gain, brightness will diminish as you view the screen off access. I again measured the brightness of the projector on the light meter, and then, without the diffuser, measured light reflecting off the screen. This is not an accurate method of measure for several reasons, but the numbers yielded a gain of just under 1.3. Due to the slight off angle of the light meter, I expected the measurement to yield a lower gain than actual. Based on this, I find the 1.4 claim to be very reasonable.


http://www.presentingsolutions.com/Manufacturers/Carada/Screen_Criterion_16x9/index.asp

Do you think there will be much difference in distortions (CA, pincushioning, etc.) if I move my throw up from 1.8, say to 1.7 or 1.6, with a panamorph uh380?

Screen brightness uniformity can be a dissadvantage in a theater with white walls, ceiling, and floor in close proximity to the screen. More light is thrown onto those surfaces and is reflected back to the screen. This causes visibly more screen washout than using a screen with gain.

My room is completely light controlled with dark royal blue walls, blacked out windows - behind blinds and dark navy blue curtains 8), and I just had my white ceilings painted into a dark navy blue color to match my curtains and carpeting. 8)

am fully confident that the Carada Criterion, with it's Brilliant White 1.4 gain surface, has to be one of the very best values in fixed wall screens, available to consumers today. The combination of accurate color balance, virtually no hot spotting, a good amount of gain, and a wide viewing angle, combine with what appears to be very good construction. This would make this Carada screen a highly recommended projection screen if it sold for the prices typically offered by larger, better known brand names.

As an aside to this, the reviewer (who measured the carada screen as well) recommended the screen for the ff:

your home theater viewing environment doesn't require a screen that rejects a lot of side ambient light

your projector has good enough contrast and black levels to not need a gray surface

you need a wide viewing angle

you need a screen with modest gain (1.4) because your projector isn't particularly bright

you are on a limited budget

you want a screen that appears to be built very well

you want a good looking screen with large/wide light absorbing trim

Yeah, Urban T. Thanks for all your effort for us. I know its tough to have to break away from playing with your toy. We REALLY appreciate it. !

Urban T,
You da' man!

Great stuff! Nauseating and head hurting to view but useful none the less.

Here's a link to some simple convergence patterns, makes it easy to see any issues, with a noteable one below...

http://www.pbase.com/jackcnd/convergence

http://www.pbase.com/jackcnd/image/74129728/original.jpg

Those patterns look very cool. However I noticed these are not 1920x1080 but actually larger... ? This would mean it would not be pixel perfect. Yet I would think pixel perfect patterns (no scaling) is really a critical ingredient for a convergence pattern, no?

CAT,

When you read a screen's gain spec in a review, they are mearly repeating the manufacturer's spec.

There is no standard way to measure screen gain. The mounting location of the PJ can be very critical to the results, for one thing.

I have measured a variety of screens. The Carada BW is the most color accurate and uniform of any I have measured, even slightly better than the ST130 in this regard. It measures at 1.11 gain with a ceiling mounted PJ. The Carada is one of the easiest screens to mount and their quality of construction is top notch. The velvet covered frame is equal in beauty to the Stewart frame in my own HT.

The most important consideration in screen selection is achieving proper image brightness. Make no compromises regarding this. Most folks in my experience find screen images down to 7 fL to be bright enough, just as lovingdvd has posted. Below that folks begin to percieve the image as being too dimm. 5 fL is objectionably dim for most viewers.

I usually aim for an initial screen brightness of at least 14 fL with a new bulb, so that near the end of the bulb's life the image will still be 7 fL. In my experience it is common for bulbs to reach their "half brightness level" before their rated life is up.

Screen brightness uniformity can be a dissadvantage in a theater with white walls, ceiling, and floor in close proximity to the screen. More light is thrown onto those surfaces and is reflected back to the screen. This causes visibly more screen washout than using a screen with gain.

Glenn
Glenn, all good valid points. I usually see the ceiling as the worst at light contamination, mainly because it can be in the field of view, and the reflected light back onto the screen is in a position to reflect back to the viewer, much more than side walls. Even worse on the higher gain screens.

Glenn, all good valid points. I usually see the ceiling as the worst at light contamination, mainly because it can be in the field of view, and the reflected light back onto the screen is in a position to reflect back to the viewer, much more than side walls. Even worse on the higher gain screens.

With a high gain screen, then I suppose that it is best to keep it as low as possible (for the reasons you say); is that correct? Then wouldn't the high gain screen be better, since it will focus the light away from the ceiling?

With a high gain screen, then I suppose that it is best to keep it as low as possible (for the reasons you say); is that correct? Then wouldn't the high gain screen be better, since it will focus the light away from the ceiling?There isn't one simple answer. Yes, more distance between screen and ceiling could help, not guaranteed. Flat paint and a darker neutral color will generally do more. High gain screens are more affected by ambient light and are more prone to hot-spotting. As Glenn mentioned, it is important to get the screen for the proper foot-Lambert. Too much gain induces additional problems. A little paint is much cheaper than buying the wrong screen.

Glenn, all good valid points. I usually see the ceiling as the worst at light contamination, mainly because it can be in the field of view, and the reflected light back onto the screen is in a position to reflect back to the viewer, much more than side walls. Even worse on the higher gain screens.



Glen, all the paint in my media room is flat .. screen will be about 27 inches from ceiling and and the the floor, 17.5 inches from the walls.

Have you had a chance to measure the gain on the carada brilliant white?

Im a little flexible on the height for the PJ, as far as making sure I get the proper angle of the PJ to viewing to make sure i maximize the gain. I believe it is angular reflective, so it should be good ceiling mounted, right?

There isn't one simple answer. Yes, more distance between screen and ceiling could help, not guaranteed. Flat paint and a darker neutral color will generally do more. High gain screens are more affected by ambient light and are more prone to hot-spotting. As Glenn mentioned, it is important to get the screen for the proper foot-Lambert. Too much gain induces additional problems. A little paint is much cheaper than buying the wrong screen.

Is how much my present 73" rptv (Mits 1080p dlp) lights up the ceiling a useful indication of how much the RS1 off of a Dalite HiPower will do it? (Thanks for the feedback!) Bill (Black paint is not something the wife is going to warm up to!)

Based on your numbers, screen size, lens, bulb aging,... I'd be a little concerned as well. It sounds like you might get by when the bulb is fresh, but you're looking at a pretty dim picture with a few hours on the bulb. I would look for a higher gain screen (assuming you need that size) or another PJ.

Or buy 2 RS1's and stack 'em!

paul

has anyone confirmed the lamplife yet?

do you mean, has anyone actually managed to fit in 2000 hours of viewing on their RS1 yet? :p Even for this crowd of fanatics that's just not possible without time travel! :D

paul

Or buy 2 RS1's and stack 'em!

paul

I can't wait until somebody does this. I'm sure it will happen relatively soon too.

Originally Posted by paulnpcom
Or buy 2 RS1's and stack 'em!


2 RS1s. 2 Panamorph 380s. 2 HDQs.

I dont think my wife would go for that. 8)

Pretty typical of the Pearls I've seen. Looks like some red/blue MC on the horizonal axis but I seen far worse. :o

Enjoy :)

Dazzer
~0.5 pixel MC is outstanding!

"I usually see the ceiling as the worst at light contamination, mainly because it can be in the field of view, and the reflected light back onto the screen is in a position to reflect back to the viewer, much more than side walls. Even worse on the higher gain screens."

I don't think this applies to retroreflective gain screens; in fact, they should be better than a matte screen in this regard.

"High gain screens are more affected by ambient light and are more prone to hot-spotting."

Same as above; retroreflective do not hotspot (at least the HP doesn't), and could do either better or worse with ambient light depending on where it's coming from.

Copied from AVF for those who haven't registered.UrbanTiger, thanks for the early results, very interesting and encouraging. Perhaps you have mentioned this elsewhere, and my apologies if I missed it, but I'm wondering if you can confirm whether the RS-1 will / will not do the required vertical stretch for those of us doing 2.35 AR screens?

All screens suffer from any ambient light. All screens with gain have some sort of hot-spotting, the visibility depends a lot on the amount of gain, viewer and viewing position (some see it some don't). Whether a reflective, retro-reflective, or matt screen, they will all illuminate a room, some more than others. For the room, anything other than a "bat-cave" can have a negative effect on contrast ratio and black-level, no matter what type of screen. The goal it to find a "best fit."

DlenC. Bingo. The problem to many here is that the truth hurts. Better to believe that it only makes a little difference. Unfortunately it makes all the difference. For any poster who says his wife won't go with a black ceiling. Hell. Paint it black anyway. Your wife went with you. If she can stand you, getting used to a black ceiling should be a snap for her. Tell her to try it for a while. You can always paint it brilliant white again later. Right after you take out the trash and mow the lawn. TRUST ME. She will understand. If she doesn't, the worst thing you will have to do is get a new wife.

"All screens with gain have some sort of hot-spotting"

Sounds like you're unfamiliar with how/why retroreflective screens work.

DlenC. Bingo. The problem to many here is that the truth hurts. Better to believe that it only makes a little difference. Unfortunately it makes all the difference. For any poster who says his wife won't go with a black ceiling. Hell. Paint it black anyway. Your wife went with you. If she can stand you, getting used to a black ceiling should be a snap for her. Tell her to try it for a while. You can always paint it brilliant white again later. Right after you take out the trash and mow the lawn. TRUST ME. She will understand. If she doesn't, the worst thing you will have to do is get a new wife.
There are more aesthetically pleasing - to wives - colors than black that do nearly the same job. I have "Pleiades" on mine in flat. (And Merlot on the walls.) When the lights are on, there is nice color. When the lights are off, for all intents and purposes, the ceiling is black.

Check the last pic on pg 10 of my sig link.

I hope you haven't set yourself up for loss in the size argument by perhaps certain statements you may have made over the course of your relationship that size doesn't make any difference. :)

I got somewhat lucky with WAF. I let my wife choose the paint for the HT, after explaining what the goals were.

The good news: She chose a very dark brown/olive color for the walls & ceiling that does an outstanding job of controlling light, along with dark carpeting.

The bad news: She chose to use 'Venetian Plaster' for the paint. It looks great and is perfect for the projection environment, but I've got some major work to do acoustically.

You can't win 'em all.....

Isn't a projector supposed to be about 16 Ftl? I can only accommodate a 92" screen. According to Dalite's Model B Deluxe tension it would be: 45" x 80". So with a 700 lumen projector that would be: 700 / ((45 * 80) / 144) = 28 Ftl? Thats very bright? Over 12 Flt more than SMPTE? Move to maximum throw? The 700 lumens is for minimum throw distance? What would maximum get me and would that compromise image quality?

EDIT

Maybe the 106" would be a better choice with this projector?

700 / ((92.3870069 * 51.9676914) / 144) = 20.995016 Ftl

Only one Ftl over the SMPTE 16 +/- 4 Ftl. I'm pretty sure I can make that 1 Ftl go away with some fancy PJ placement? I'll also have to figure out some fancy technique of getting that screen in the house too!

Don't forget to figure in your screen gain. The above calc is applicable to a 1.0 gain screen. no?

Originally Posted by UrbanTiger
What I find amazing is that I post an update on fan noise from a completely neutral point of view, to give people a better idea whilst they are waiting for their units, and its completely ignored.

It seems people just want to seek the negative comments, and not embrace the positive ones.

my thoughts exactly...but this seems particularly a difference between US and UK forums....

I have always advised that the HD1 is quiet and continue to subscribe to that and am glad to see that the first end-users who have the product, are subscribing to that point of view/hear..

Perhaps the difference in construction methods between the US and the UK are to blame? When I lived in Europe (I know it is not the UK), the construction was generally cement/masonry walls and ceilings with tile floors. Noise carried far and there were lots of echoes. Drywall is a little more absorbtive, I think.

Just food for thought. I know each country is a little bit different.

Mark

Anywhere I can see this in action in S. California area, particularly Ventura county. I would love to see a side by side with my sxrd projo, but I bet that's going to be imposible. My local Wilshire tv doesn't sell jvc, any ideas??????

I'm on the RS1 pre-buy list and will be replacing a Sony VPL-VW10HT (5-6 yr old LCD FP, hot stuff in it's time) with it.

I currently have a 120" diagonal Grayhawk screen in a light controlled room. The Sony 10HT has rendered adequate brightness for this screen although it becomes somewhat lacking with a 500 hr. plus bulb, I have never known what it's lumen output is but I don't think it's real high.

Can anyone here who has had a 10HT comment on what to expect brightness wise from the RS1 in comparison to the 10HT?

I have a StudioTek 130 screen that fits my Stewart frame rolled up that has been in my hot Florida attic for the last 5-6 years so I don't hold out much hope for it. From what I have read the ST 130 might be the better screen for the RS1? Would appreciate comments on this issue too.

Thank you.

While we're waiting for the arrival of the RS1's can someone explain to me what the big deal is about 'constant ht', or 2.35:1 screens? Is it only about getting rid of the black bars above and below (on a 1.78:1/9x16 screen) when viewing a cinemascope pic? I've heard that a CH screen 'uses all the pixels', but with a 1080p pj like the RS1, doesn't one already have 'plenty of pixels to spare'? I just don't get it (but then I'm a total novice!)

While we're waiting for the arrival of the RS1's can someone explain to me what the big deal is about 'constant ht', or 2.35:1 screens? Is it only about getting rid of the black bars above and below (on a 1.78:1/9x16 screen) when viewing a cinemascope pic? I've heard that a CH screen 'uses all the pixels', but with a 1080p pj like the RS1, doesn't one already have 'plenty of pixels to spare'? I just don't get it (but then I'm a total novice!)This is a great primer on CIH from forum member CAVX (http://cavx.blogspot.com/2006/11/marks-home-theatre-projects-cih.html)

In my case, because my ceiling height is limited, the tallest screen I can get is about 56" (without the back row obstructed). With a CIH setup, I can get full cinemascope at 132"W. Inside that 2.35 screen I get a 56"H x 100"W 16:9 screen (114" diagonal). If I just went with the 16:9 screen then I would be watching cinemascope movies on a much smaller screen. Hope that makes sense.

As for constant height, the first thing that happens is the image is stretched vertically by scaling (this is what a lot of people are upset about the RS-1 NOT doing). Then you use an anamorphic lens to bring the picture back to normal geometry but at 2.35 AR.

Anyway, take a look at CAVX's blog - its really quite good at explaining it.

Hey MauneyM...

My wife said "do what you want [with the decor and paint selection]. The room is yours. Buy whatever [HT equipment and gear] you like. You deserve it." And... not a hint of sarcasm. All she asked it that I help with the dishes. Seems like a fair trade. What do you guys think?

This is a great primer on CIH from forum member CAVX (http://cavx.blogspot.com/2006/11/marks-home-theatre-projects-cih.html)

In my case, because my ceiling height is limited, the tallest screen I can get is about 56" (without the back row obstructed). With a CIH setup, I can get full cinemascope at 132"W. Inside that 2.35 screen I get a 56"H x 100"W 16:9 screen (114" diagonal). If I just went with the 16:9 screen then I would be watching cinemascope movies on a much smaller screen. Hope that makes sense.

As for constant height, the first thing that happens is the image is stretched vertically by scaling (this is what a lot of people are upset about the RS-1 NOT doing). Then you use an anamorphic lens to bring the picture back to normal geometry but at 2.35 AR.

Anyway, take a look at CAVX's blog - its really quite good at explaining it.

Thanks for the reference; I've read it with interest. I could, in fact, fit a 138" 2.35 HiPower (126" W, 54" H) on my wall, or a 133" 9x16 (116" W, 65" H). With the 2.35 screen, I presume I would be able to display 2.35 dvd's fully, i.e., w/o any black bars, right? But then 9x16 HDTV would have side bars, effectively making the display a 110" diag 9x16 screen. Agreed? And since I watch ~ 50/50 HDTV and dvd's, I would loose with the 2.35 for HDTV. But with the 133" 9x16, when viewing 2.35 dvd's, with black bars on the top and bottom, I would have only 116" width compared to 126" width with the 128" 2.35 screen. Is this all correct? If so, it sounds like one needs to decide how much hdtv vs. 2.35 dvd's one watches.

You also forgot to mention that even if you did have the vertical height available, which you don't, by doing CIH you make the image area 2.35:1 so all light is only lighting the 2.35:1 area and not 16:9. This allows you to use all available light to only the 2.35 section of the film and not have to waste light outputting black bars to get a brighter picture for 2.35 movies!Yes. Forgot to mention that.

Hey MauneyM...

My wife said "do what you want [with the decor and paint selection]. The room is yours. Buy whatever [HT equipment and gear] you like. You deserve it." And... not a hint of sarcasm. All she asked it that I help with the dishes. Seems like a fair trade. What do you guys think?

I think it's obviously a set-up. Beware.

Hey MauneyM...

My wife said "do what you want [with the decor and paint selection]. The room is yours. Buy whatever [HT equipment and gear] you like. You deserve it." And... not a hint of sarcasm. All she asked it that I help with the dishes. Seems like a fair trade. What do you guys think?

that's one massive brownie point. i'd be wary. very wary...

I presume I would be able to display 2.35 dvd's fully, i.e., w/o any black bars, right?Yes.
But then 9x16 HDTV would have side bars, effectively making the display a 110" diag 9x16 screen. Agreed?correct.
And since I watch ~ 50/50 HDTV and dvd's, I would loose with the 2.35 for HDTV. But with the 133" 9x16, when viewing 2.35 dvd's, with black bars on the top and bottom, I would have only 116" width compared to 126" width with the 128" 2.35 screen. Is this all correct?Yes, you've got it.
If so, it sounds like one needs to decide how much hdtv vs. 2.35 dvd's one watches.Yes, that is important. But another major consideration is the layout of your room and front wall. If you've got unlimited height and you watch 50% 16:9 content I would be inclined to recommend a 16:9 screen. But, to be honest, the Cinemascope screens I have seen (my buddy has on and I'm building my theater right now so don't have mine up yet) are gob-smacked, jaw drop, stunning IMHO.

Since I'm restricted by screen, height (not to mention the fact that I find it gob-smack, jaw drop, stunning) Cinemascope is a no-brainer for me.

Hope that helps.
Craig.

I think it's obviously a set-up. Beware.I've fallen for that one before.

I've fallen for that one before.

Me too.

Fool me once, shame on me, err....you, fool me twice, shame on.....uh......you can't get fooled again!

Me too.

Fool me once, shame on me, err....you, fool me twice, shame on.....uh......you can't get fooled again!

Umn, where have I heard that before? :D

Umn, where have I heard that before? :D

I have no idea what you are talking about! :p

My wife said "do what you want [with the decor and paint selection]. The room is yours. Buy whatever [HT equipment and gear] you like. You deserve it." And... not a hint of sarcasm. All she asked it that I help with the dishes. Seems like a fair trade. What do you guys think? Geez, you should throw in taking out the trash as a "thank you, Honey." :D :D

Umn, where have I heard that before? You know, the wives have bunco where they scheme, scam, trash and dis us en mass. We have AVS! ;) :D

But another major consideration is the layout of your room and front wall. If you've got unlimited height and you watch 50% 16:9 content I would be inclined to recommend a 16:9 screen. But, to be honest, the Cinemascope screens I have seen (my buddy has on and I'm building my theater right now so don't have mine up yet) are gob-smacked, jaw drop, stunning IMHO.

Since I'm restricted by screen, height (not to mention the fact that I find it gob-smack, jaw drop, stunning) Cinemascope is a no-brainer for me.

Hope that helps.
Craig.

Craig, Thanks very much for the feedback--very helpful. So I have another decision to make! My available wall is 150" W by 100" H. As I said, I could go with 133" (116" W, 65" H) in a 9x16, or a 138" (126"W, 54" H) in a 2.35. I imagine I will stay with the more standard 9x16 screen, but the cinemascope screen is an interesting thought. I've lived with the 'black bars above and below' for a couple of years with my 73" rptv, however, and with the much better black level of the RS1 I imagine they will be even less noticeable. And with the two screen possibilties noted above, with the 9x16 I only go to 116" W for a 2.35 dvd compared to 126" W that I would have with the 'scope screen.

Me too.

Fool me once, shame on me, err....you, fool me twice, shame on.....uh......you can't get fooled again!
Come on Charlie Brown, kick the football! ;) :p

Me too.

Fool me once, shame on me, err....you, fool me twice, shame on.....uh......you can't get fooled again!Classic.

Hey MauneyM...

My wife said "do what you want [with the decor and paint selection]. The room is yours. Buy whatever [HT equipment and gear] you like. You deserve it." And... not a hint of sarcasm. All she asked it that I help with the dishes. Seems like a fair trade. What do you guys think?

Oh boy. Hold on here guys. Better consult the WAF glossary for this (yes, such a thing really exists, of course!). See http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=759494

In particular I think you need to pay particular attention to #4 ("Go ahead") and #6 ("Thats Okay").

Please do us a favor - in about a months time after you have found out how you wound up paying for this permission, please add a #17 as "You deserve it (said without sarcasm)" and let us know what this really turned out to mean. I have a feeling that response will consist of your story of what happened with a punch line of "see - I TOLD YOU you deserved it!" :D

My wife didn't interfer with my 12 seat HT at all. She was the one who wanted me to replace the small 5 seat HT we used to have. She did question the use of mahogeny trim to cover fabric seams (chair rail and base board and mahogeny inside doors (partially covered with sound absorbing panels)) but once she saw how they warmed the black pit, she had no problem. We do consult with each other about paint colors around the house, buts he has the final say. I have the final say about AV stuff and the HT. I think one spouse must yield to the other's expertise on occasion. If I say it has to be this way or the results will be compromised, she will yield just as I will in matters of her expertise. She doesn't want me to spend money and then not receive the maximum results. Its very simple actually. By yielding to her on other matters (to which even if you didn't yield would still happen) you will be in the HT driver's seat. Believe me you will also appreciate the removal of the piece of string tied to your John Henry that she holds. You will no longer be young female cat whipped either.

So it looks like there's no real diff between the RS1 and the HD1 except supposedly better support and a black box. Now the question is: How do I go about not spending big money to be able to do 2.35:1?

"So it looks like there's no real diff between the RS1 and the HD1 except supposedly better support and a black box. Now the question is: How do I go about not spending big money to be able to do 2.35:1?"

I have no interest in a 2.35 setup. However, it would seem to me that you could zoom the lens until the top and bottom black bars are off the screen. Given that the bars are supposedly very black they should not be discernable. There is probably a good reason why this won't work but I can't think of one. But if you don't have enough zoom then your out of luck. Fortunately the RS1 has plenty of zoom.

"So it looks like there's no real diff between the RS1 and the HD1 except supposedly better support and a black box. Now the question is: How do I go about not spending big money to be able to do 2.35:1?"

I have no interest in a 2.35 setup. However, it would seem to me that you could zoom the lens until the top and bottom black bars are off the screen. Given that the bars are supposedly very black they should not be discernable. There is probably a good reason why this won't work but I can't think of one. But if you don't have enough zoom then your out of luck. Fortunately the RS1 has plenty of zoom.

No, what you suggest will work also. It is known as the "poor man's CIH" around the forums. The only drawbacks as I understand it are that you won't get the advantage of using the projector's full resolution, you won't gain the potential brightness increase and you will have to deal with the inconvience of zooming and probably shifting the image when changing ratios. I am strongly considering going this route until I can afford to get a scaler and lens. I will likely go ahead and build the screen just to see what it is like, since it won't cost me much to build the screen anyway. I suspect that the RS1's black level will make this a very tolerable approach for awhile.

I have this "poor man's constant height" and I urge you to go ahead and try it. I would add extra masking or "drop" both above and below your screen, and you will need to be able to reach the PJs lens shift control.

If you plan your screen size and seating distance with the 2.35 image in mind, resolution loss won't be an issue with a high res, no SDE projector like this. Of course more resolution is always better, but if that were our only concern, we could easily project our images at 42 inches diagonal.

In my experience, the light loss from the poor man's set up is not an issue to be concerned with. It is very difficult to notice without a side by side comparison.

I'm not knocking anamorphic lenses, but remember that they can steal a bit of light also, as well as adding a bit of distortion, diffusion, and chromatic abberation.

Until we have projectors with 2.35 panels, anything we do to mate them with a 2.35 screen will involve some trade-offs. But I don't think you will find anyone who has tried it eager to return to 16:9.

Pip

reio-ta,
I thought you only wanted to spend $1500 on a pj. This is going to be a little bit out of your price range.

The Carada BW should work quite well for you. Your dark room will negate the dissadvantages associated with a highly uniform (brightness uniformity) screen.

Sorry but I don't know how mounting at different throws will affect distortions. Within the narrow range that you posted, I doubt that you would detect any difference, though.

The BW measured at 1.1 gain with a ceiling mounted PJ (fixed offset of 16%). The PJ was mounted above the top of the screen material a distance equal to 16% of the height of the screen. The PJ was mounted about 2X the screens actual width (not diagonal) from the screen. I measured the screen with a spectroradiometer, not a light meter. The spectroradiometer was mounted in same location as the eyes of the prime viewer would be, a distance of 1.5x the screens actual width away from the screen. I measured the PJ from the lens with both a spectroradiometer (with cosign corrector) and with a light meter. That same spectroradiometer measured an ST 130 at 1.3 gain, which is what it is rated.

The reviewer that you quoted has nailed the issues right on the head.

Glenn

Glenn,


Thankfully, even at 1.1 gain my numbers will exceed 16 foot lamberts and passes your test as well.

Do you think there will be much difference in distortions (CA, pincushioning, etc.) if I move my throw up from 1.8, say to 1.7 or 1.6, with a panamorph uh380?



My room is completely light controlled with dark royal blue walls, blacked out windows - behind blinds and dark navy blue curtains 8), and I just had my white ceilings painted into a dark navy blue color to match my curtains and carpeting. 8)



As an aside to this, the reviewer (who measured the carada screen as well) recommended the screen for the ff:

your home theater viewing environment doesn't require a screen that rejects a lot of side ambient light

your projector has good enough contrast and black levels to not need a gray surface

you need a wide viewing angle

you need a screen with modest gain (1.4) because your projector isn't particularly bright

you are on a limited budget

you want a screen that appears to be built very well

you want a good looking screen with large/wide light absorbing trim

Glenn, all good valid points. I usually see the ceiling as the worst at light contamination, mainly because it can be in the field of view, and the reflected light back onto the screen is in a position to reflect back to the viewer, much more than side walls. Even worse on the higher gain screens.

I think that the operative principle is proximity to the screen. Because the ceiling is commonly closer to the screen than the side walls or floor, it commonly has a greater affect.

At least theoretically, a higher gain screen (at least an angular reflective one) should cause less washout due to cross light reflections as compared to a low gain screen which is much more uniform. It concentrates the light sent back to the viewer and sends less light out towards the periphery to be reflected back to the screen. For example the Carada BW sends almost as much light out at a 30 degree and at a 45 degree viewing angle as it does to the prime seat. Whereas a 1.8 gain screen might send out only a third as much light at a 45 degree angle as compared to what it sends to the prime seat.

Glenn

Glen, all the paint in my media room is flat .. screen will be about 27 inches from ceiling and and the the floor, 17.5 inches from the walls.

Have you had a chance to measure the gain on the carada brilliant white?

Im a little flexible on the height for the PJ, as far as making sure I get the proper angle of the PJ to viewing to make sure i maximize the gain. I believe it is angular reflective, so it should be good ceiling mounted, right?

The Carada BW is the screen whose measurements I posted above. As long as the walls and ceiling are dark and non-reflective, there is no dissadvantage to the BW's high degree of brightness uniformity, only advantages. Yes, it is perfect for ceiling mounting the PJ.

It is angular reflective. Because it is very uniform, and because it is angular reflective, the mounting position of the PJ will have only a small affect when compared with other mounting positions. The larger differences will come from how much brighter a PJ might be when mounted in the front of its throw as compared to the rear of its throw.

Now a screen like the Firehawk, which has a high gain optical coating and is consequently not very uniform, is greatly affected by the location of the PJ relative to the screen. For the Firehawk, the farther the PJ is from the screen, the better.

Glenn

"I usually see the ceiling as the worst at light contamination, mainly because it can be in the field of view, and the reflected light back onto the screen is in a position to reflect back to the viewer, much more than side walls. Even worse on the higher gain screens."

I don't think this applies to retroreflective gain screens; in fact, they should be better than a matte screen in this regard.

"High gain screens are more affected by ambient light and are more prone to hot-spotting."

Same as above; retroreflective do not hotspot (at least the HP doesn't), and could do either better or worse with ambient light depending on where it's coming from.

The HP actually has absolutely zero measurable hotspotting when measured with a ceiling mounted PJ in the configuration I described above for measuring the Carada BW. The gain was pretty low though, 1.17 gain.

Glenn

Glenn,

"The HP actually has absolutely zero measurable hotspotting when measured with a ceiling mounted PJ in the configuration I described above for measuring the Carada BW. The gain was pretty low though, 1.17 gain."

Thanks for corroborating that. My pj is 7' high behind the back wall, and I estimate I'm gettin 1.8 -2 gain, and no visible hotspottong.

"At least theoretically, a higher gain screen (at least an angular reflective one) should cause less washout due to cross light reflections as compared to a low gain screen which is much more uniform."

Why the caveat re screen type?

Again, a retroreflective screen will reflect side and ceiling ambient ligh towards the source, whereas an angular reflective will reflect it into the viewing area.

reio-ta:

Page 48 of the manual lists all of the analog and digital input signals supported by the RS1

Marcel J Dumeny

I am firmly in the camp that says when the wife says do what you want... it doesn't really mean do what you want.

However, I really have done a lot. The room has extensive black DIY acoustic treatments (including a 4' x 8' ceiling cloud). The front wall is chocolate brown, the ceiling a slightly lighter shade, and the side and rear walls are 1' wide vertical stripes of two even slightly lighter shades of brown. I even installed a big IB subwoofer. When I was willing to get the Panasonic AX100, she said "just go for the JVC. I know you won't be happy unless you do".

Now I'm trying to decide what to do for source material. I'll probably go for the PS3 as it easy reasonably affordable, outputs the native resolution of whatever disk is used, has a built in web browser and allows gaming (not a big priority but a nice throw in). But, that is for another thread ;).

Unfortunately we still have lots of time to ponder what we'll pair to our RS-1s.

Given that the high power maximizes its gain the closer it is to the level of your eyes, what kind of mount would be best for a ceiling anchored set-up?

A typical inverted mount or a "cage" like this where the projector is "right side up"?
Thx :confused:


LCDA Series Non-Inverted LCD/DLP Projector Ceiling Mount http://www.chiefmfg.com/store/detail/?product_id=80727 (http://)


LCDA
A universal solution for mounting upright LCD/DLP projectors, the LCDA Series Mount holds projectors on an adjustable tray and allows you to tighten the mount around your projector for a secure fit. The LCDA provides you with Chief’s classic independent adjustments for quick, easy registration. Use the LCDA Series Mount when you want to install a portable projector in the ceiling and take it down frequently for traveling.

Glenn,

"At least theoretically, a higher gain screen (at least an angular reflective one) should cause less washout due to cross light reflections as compared to a low gain screen which is much more uniform."

Why the caveat re screen type?

Again, a retroreflective screen will reflect side and ceiling ambient ligh towards the source, whereas an angular reflective will reflect it into the viewing area.

Noah,

My only experience with the HP is with a 2 foot square screen sample. What I posted about it was what I know to be true because I measured it. Having no experience with watching video on a full screen made of the HP under a variety of different conditions, I was avoiding further comment on its ability to reject cross light reflections. Hence the caveat. I don't disagree with you, it is only that I haven't had the opportunity to observe it personally.

Over the years, I have read comments from HP owners that it is decent at suppressing cross light reflections, though not to quite the same degree as the Firehawk.

Glenn

I am firmly in the camp that says when the wife says do what you want... it doesn't really mean do what you want.

However, I really have done a lot. The room has extensive black DIY acoustic treatments (including a 4' x 8' ceiling cloud). The front wall is chocolate brown, the ceiling a slightly lighter shade, and the side and rear walls are 1' wide vertical stripes of two even slightly lighter shades of brown. I even installed a big IB subwoofer. When I was willing to get the Panasonic AX100, she said "just go for the JVC. I know you won't be happy unless you do".

Now I'm trying to decide what to do for source material. I'll probably go for the PS3 as it easy reasonably affordable, outputs the native resolution of whatever disk is used, has a built in web browser and allows gaming (not a big priority but a nice throw in). But, that is for another thread ;).

Unfortunately we still have lots of time to ponder what we'll pair to our RS-1s.

Do you already own a projector?

I'm asking because your color scheme is very much like the one I'm contemplating (in trying to get as dark as possible, but still passing the Wife Factor). If you have a projector can you comment on how well it works with the wall/ceiling color choice you made?

Thanks.

Good news..

We finally got a real "serial model", so we can complete our review very soon ;-)

Regards,
Ekkehart, Cine4Home

Hey Ekkehart! How's that review coming along? :D :D No pressure, just that I've been checking your webpage every 10 seconds!! ;)

Rich... still waiting on my first PJ. I've known for the last year or so I'd be getting a PJ sometime around Christmas (give or take a few months) so I've been slowly modifying the room in anticipation. Since everything was DIY, the cost was limited significantly (less than $1000) and will make the increased native CR of the JVC attainable (and well worth the wait). It also make the room sound damn good! Can't wait to get the RS-1 :). If you're interested, I'll post pics in a seperate thread when the room is done. That will likely be by the end of the month.

Hey Ekkehart! How's that review coming along? :D :D No pressure, just that I've been checking your webpage every 10 seconds!! ;)


Review will most likely come this week...

:)

Regards,
Ekkehart

Review will most likely come this week...

:)

Regards,
Ekkehart
yeeehaaa! :D :D

Review will most likely come this week...

:)

Regards,
Ekkehart

Good news! Thanks Ekkehart. Looking forward to it.

Me too! :)

Cant wait for the cine4home review. I reall want to know how the "serial" unit compared with the pre production unit they had. Did the serial unit come in at the same lumens, and contrast (D65) in both low and high bulb mode?

I have this "poor man's constant height" and I urge you to go ahead and try it. I would add extra masking or "drop" both above and below your screen, and you will need to be able to reach the PJs lens shift control.

If you plan your screen size and seating distance with the 2.35 image in mind, resolution loss won't be an issue with a high res, no SDE projector like this. Of course more resolution is always better, but if that were our only concern, we could easily project our images at 42 inches diagonal.

In my experience, the light loss from the poor man's set up is not an issue to be concerned with. It is very difficult to notice without a side by side comparison.

I'm not knocking anamorphic lenses, but remember that they can steal a bit of light also, as well as adding a bit of distortion, diffusion, and chromatic abberation.

Until we have projectors with 2.35 panels, anything we do to mate them with a 2.35 screen will involve some trade-offs. But I don't think you will find anyone who has tried it eager to return to 16:9.

Pip

Very interesting! Let me see if I understand this correctly. Because of where my RS1 will be mounted, the largetst 9x16 screen I can manage is 133" diag, i.e., 116"W, 65" H. So the largest 2.35 screen I could fit in would be 116"W, 50"H (50 = 116/2.33), right? So if I were watching hdtv, I would zoom DOWN to a 89" W (89 = 50 x 1.78), 50" H screen, with black bars on the sides. Then, when showing a 2.35 dvd, I would zoom all the way out to have 116" W, 50" H, with the horizontal black bars on the top and bottom now off the screen.

The primary downside I see is that I have a much smaller screen for hdtv (9x16), ~ 102" diag versus 133" diag. I would find it more interesting if I could put my RS1 further back, to be able to get an image as wide as 135"; the ht for 2.33 would then be 58", about the ht for a 119" diag 9x16; this wouldn't be so bad.

Review will most likely come this week...

:)

Regards,
Ekkehart

Please also let me know if this JVC BRIGHT enough for 134" 1.3 Gain screen in total dark HT room.

THANKS

Review will most likely come this week...

:)

Regards,
Ekkehart


That would be great! :) Thanks Ekkehart!

The HD1 is going to be carried by the big box stores.

Review will most likely come this week...

:)

Regards,
Ekkehart

Will be interesting to compare measurements to Tom Norton's...

Will be interesting to compare measurements to Tom Norton's...
Are there any reviews of production units out yet?

Are there any reviews of production units out yet?

http://www.ultimateavmag.com/videoprojectors/207jvchd1/

Are there any reviews of production units out yet?

end user reviews appearing on the UK forum

UK forums (http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=470757)

also HCC choice a leading HC Mag in the UK has reviewed it in their April issue
PM me your email address and I'll send to you, as I believe I am not allowed to post it on here

The Norton review refers to "highly tweaked versions" from Me3ridian/Faroudja. Is there a list of these tweaks somewhere and are they - or any of them - things that mere mortals can do to the JVC model? And. for those familiar with the M/F units, the question is what is the performance difference with the follow-up being, in a side-by-side comparison, would it be immediately obvious, subtly obvious or only in the minds of those who sprung for the tweaked version? :)

"Which big box store do you recommend for being semi-competent at setting up the RS1/HD1?"

Beats me, but the situation should be a lot better with the JVC than the the Ruby/Pearl, which apparently are easy to set up poorly.

The JVC seems to be very close right out of the box, so if you can just get them to close the doors and turn the lights off in the room (if it's even in one), you should get a reasonable demo.

The Norton review refers to "highly tweaked versions" from Me3ridian/Faroudja. Is there a list of these tweaks somewhere and are they - or any of them - things that mere mortals can do to the JVC model? And. for those familiar with the M/F units, the question is what is the performance difference with the follow-up being, in a side-by-side comparison, would it be immediately obvious, subtly obvious or only in the minds of those who sprung for the tweaked version? :)
William Phelps is the man responsible for those tweaks. It is going to depend on if he has access to the LUTs.

William Phelps is the man responsible for those tweaks. It is going to depend on if he has access to the LUTs.
And that, if I've been following this thread closely enough, remains to be determined (by us), right?

Could someone clear up what 'optical part' will need replacing, is it covered under warranty, do the panels degrade as some LCD projector owners are finding?

RS1 Manual Quote:

Parts Replacement
This unit contains parts (optical part, cooling fan, etc.) that
require replacement to maintain its functioning. The
estimated time for parts replacement varies greatly
depending on the usage and environment. Please consult
your authorized dealer for replacement.

Could someone clear up what 'optical part' will need replacing, is it covered under warranty, do the panels degrade as some LCD projector owners are finding?

RS1 Manual Quote:

Parts Replacement
This unit contains parts (optical part, cooling fan, etc.) that
require replacement to maintain its functioning. The
estimated time for parts replacement varies greatly
depending on the usage and environment. Please consult
your authorized dealer for replacement.

The only thing that might need replacement would be the air filter. By all accounts from other people that have owned JVC projectors. None of them have mentioned having to replace 'optical parts'.

This could be some CYA'ing. :)

William Phelps is the man responsible for those tweaks. It is going to depend on if he has access to the LUTs.

It's Amazing to me at this late date that we still don't have an answer as to whether or not the LUT's will be accessible :(

It's Amazing to me at this late date that we still don't have an answer as to whether or not the LUT's will be accessible :(
I'd have to agree with that as there are JVC'ers on this thread . . .

It's Amazing to me at this late date that we still don't have an answer as to whether or not the LUT's will be accessible :(

Any word on that from our friends across the pond?

Here's a report of a unit shut down. :( http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4296029#post4296029

http://www.ultimateavmag.com/videoprojectors/207jvchd1/

I found Mr. Norton's comments/review to be VERY interesting.

Here is someone who was able to put into words much better than me what I experienced when I demoed a Pearl and Ruby:

Most of the criticism of past LCD and LCoS projectors has focused on their blacks, with good reason. But the LCD and LCoS projectors I've reviewed in the past have also had a tendency to look a little faded on bright scenes as well, which reduces their punch and dimensionality. This effect is subtle on the best of these projectors, but never completely absent. Many of these displays were equipped with auto irises, and while an auto iris can greatly enhance dark scenes, once it opens up on a bright scene you're left largely with the naked, native contrast of the panel and light engine.

The DLA-HD1 suffers less from this bright scene fading than most LCD and LCoS designs I've seen, even without an iris. That's likely due to improvements in the chip and light engine described above. The fading isn't completely absent, however, though I'm still sorting this out with extensive comparisons to good DLP projectors, which don't suffer from this effect at all. Oddly, some bright scenes look more faded and 2-D on the JVC than on a DLP, while on most such shots the effect, if present, is unnoticeable.

By far, without any question, the thing that bothered me the most about the Pearl and Ruby was this look of "bright scene fading" that Norton refers to in this mini review.

He says the JVC doesn't suffer to the same degree, but it isn't completely absent either. Given my apparent sensitivity to this issue, I hope it won't be a problem for me.

I found Mr. Norton's comments/review to be VERY interesting.

Here is someone who was able to put into words much better than me what I experienced when I demoed a Pearl and Ruby:



By far, without any question, the thing that bothered me the most about the Pearl and Ruby was this look of "bright scene fading" that Norton refers to in this mini review.

He says the JVC doesn't suffer to the same degree, but it isn't completely absent either. Given my apparent sensitivity to this issue, I hope it won't be a problem for me.

Hard to say what effect he is describing. I'm guessing it's due to the lower ANSI contrast inherent in LCOS compared to DLP.

Hard to say what effect he is describing. I'm guessing it's due to the lower ANSI contrast inherent in LCOS compared to DLP.

Just for clarification, I personally believe that I know exactly the effect that he is describing, as I clearly saw this when I saw the Ruby and Pearl.

It would seem reasonable to assume that this may be due to the lower ANSI contrast inherent in LCOS vs DLP.

This has always been the biggest concern/issue for me with LCoS vs DLP, even more than "sharpness" (which certainly doesn't appear to be an issue with the JVC anyway).

Thankfully Norton says the JVC is much better than the Pearl in this regard. Believe me, if it wasn't, I would be canceling my preorder.

Just for clarification, I personally believe that I know exactly the effect that he is describing, as I clearly saw this when I saw the Ruby and Pearl.

It would seem reasonable to assume that this may be due to the lower ANSI contrast inherent in LCOS vs DLP.

This has always been the biggest concern/issue for me with LCoS vs DLP, even more than "sharpness" (which certainly doesn't appear to be an issue with the JVC anyway).

Thankfully Norton says the JVC is much better than the Pearl in this regard. Believe me, if it wasn't, I would be canceling my preorder.

It's too bad that the HD1 isn't delivering the 300-350:1 ANSI contrast that JVC said they have measured in the lab. As it stands now the HD1/RS1 should have more depth in dark scenes than the best DLP while the opposite will be true in bright scenes.

It's too bad that the HD1 isn't delivering the 300-350:1 ANSI contrast that JVC said they have measured in the lab. As it stands now the HD1/RS1 should have more depth in dark scenes than the best DLP while the opposite will be true in bright scenes.

Exactly.

It's too bad that the HD1 isn't delivering the 300-350:1 ANSI contrast that JVC said they have measured in the lab. As it stands now the HD1/RS1 should have more depth in dark scenes than the best DLP while the opposite will be true in bright scenes.

Did I miss something? Were there ANSI contrast measurements in that review?

The only thing that might need replacement would be the air filter. By all accounts from other people that have owned JVC projectors. None of them have mentioned having to replace 'optical parts'.

maybe "optical parts" is a very loose translation of "bulb"? :confused:

paul

Did I miss something? Were there ANSI contrast measurements in that review?

Wm and others are measuring around 260:1 which is similar to Sony's SXRD but short of the 800:1+ of the best DLP's.

"Bad news

I think that the HD1 doesn't correctly handle 480i/576i over HDMI with YCbCr 4:4:4 and RGB 4:4:4 colour-spaces. Aaaaaarrrrgggg!!!

The feed from my Oppo HD970 looks completely awful and I think it's the chroma. Basically, when scaled by the HD1 all images come through with massive stair-stepping and vertical pixel bands.
"


Just saw a production unit of the HD1. The Sony Blu-ray S1 feeding HDMI 480i DVD playback has the same awful vertical pixel banding. Real blu-ray discs in 1080i does look great.

The overall on/off and ansi contrast does not feel as great as all the hype suggested IMO. Though I guess it's still the best in town for a 3 chip 1080p, consider the price.

regards,

Li On

the oppo is utter crap compared to a 3910 for instance
and Li everyone knows youprefer yr lcd Pana :D

the oppo is utter crap compared to a 3910 for instance
and Li everyone knows youprefer yr lcd Pana :D

I guess you know more than those that wrote the book on DVD testing:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/cgi-bin/shootout.cgi?articles=all&function=search

I own neither but have demo'd both. Sure the 3910 has all the bells and whistles but the Oppo is equal in picture quality and does it at less that 1/4 the price of the Denon.

I would also add that you need a "compatible" display with the 3910, or you can get the well known macroblocking. I had to sell my Denon because of this. It looked horrible with my Panny 900.

You guys are OT with this 3910/oppo stuff . . .

Cine4home writes that at about 6500k on/off is 15,200 while at about 8000k it's 18,300. Given that, wouldn't it be expected ANSI would jump from 260 to about 313 at 8000k? ...... It is likely, with the additional lumens at 8000K the ANSI CR could decrease, not increase.

For those of you looking to squeeze out every last bit of contrast and lumens from the RS1 - do not forget it will probably be a viable option to use a color corrected filter. My guess is that this would increase the lumens and on/off CR by 15% or so. This would, however, likely come at the expense of some color accuracy.

well there's something about those 3910 3930 that really create that depth and better mpeg2 decoding especially on a large screen.

anywa, Cine4home clocked the HD1 at 830ansi lumens and 18000:1 at 7500K if i remember correctly. in Japan they also like colder temps but higher contrast ratio and lumens.

Not to sound ignorant. But what does lumen output have to do with color temperature? By making a higher color temperature all you're doing is making the light bluer. The human eye can't distinguish blue as well as green and less is red. By pushing blue, it seems possible to increase contrast, just like Cine4home stated? I know its possible to mess with blue with CRT projectors for instance, which done properly will increase sharpness.



Increasing greyscale would also increase contrast?

IIRC Cine4home measured ~800 lumens @ 800K. I'm not sure if this would help or hurt the ANSI CR.

Yep. I think the Japanese like 9200k. I have no idea why its called "colder" when the temperature is higher. :confused:
.

Because the higher kelvin reading means there is more blue light. Blue = cool.

Back on the thread topic...

I thought for sure, that we would have these in time for March Madness. I am now, officially, beginning to worry! :(
OOPS! Wrong Thread! :rolleyes: