Chicken! :p
Yep. Busy doing real work! :)

Yep. Busy doing real work! :)


Glad to hear you got the RS1 and are already working on the review!


:D

I have a light controlled (bat cave-black ceiling/deep red walls) home theater. When my wife and I watch movies we like all the lights off. However, when friends come over to watch HD Sports etc it is nice to have some ambient light (wall sconces) on so easier to get up move around/see when eating etc.

We are leaning toward to Sony Pearl and trying to decide between the SST or the ST130. Would I be ok with the ST130 or due to liking some ambient light would the SST be the better fit?


any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks

Wrong thread buddy!

i see the high gain screen debate has gone far. i'll repeat that it's a problem imho with all DLPs that have excessive dithering and rainbows.
with DILA/SXRD it isnt.
pj mounting vs the high gain screen is indeed important also: a Pearl mounted close to center of my 1.4 was brighter than when installed 2.5ft higher.

high gain or bright projectors are a problem with microperforated high gain screens.

Wrong thread buddy!

Yep, he actually said the "S" word in a JVC thread! :eek:

Yep, he actually said the "S" word in a JVC thread! :eek:


its the end of the world i guess....sorry to ask the question....i guess will need to start a separate thread since people are uptight

Who do you guys think is going to win the NBA three point shooting contest in Vegas tonight?

Yep, he actually said the "S" word in a JVC thread! :eek:

Now I feel dirty....

"I have 4 Berkline 090 recliners that span around 10 feet. My screen is about 8 feet wide. So when someone is sitting on one of the end Berklines they are outside the end of the screen. Is that far enough off center to have negative effects from a high gain screen?

"Yes."

I don't see how that question can be answered w/o knowing the viewing distance.

Re HP sparklies, I wonder if it is a mfg defect. The beads are not even visible up close to me; the screen just looks like it has an extremely fine texture, way smaller than a pixel.

"I have 4 Berkline 090 recliners that span around 10 feet. My screen is about 8 feet wide. So when someone is sitting on one of the end Berklines they are outside the end of the screen. Is that far enough off center to have negative effects from a high gain screen?

"Yes."

I don't see how that question can be answered w/o knowing the viewing distance.

.

14 feet.

Yes. But it will certainly be watchable. It will just be better in the center.

Tom, I for one found found your review very informative. Thank you. I hope you are thick skinned enough to hang around and contribute further.

That said, I want to nitpick this statment a little:

Well, I went through the math for that on the first page of this thread (now ancient history I know...)

I submit that in the best case the error is +/- 0.0005 not +/- 0.0004 fL. However, the real issue is that the error is likely to be much greater than that for readings down in the last one or two digits. There is a good chance that the 15000 CR spec is being met. I agree with Bob that it would be better to point the meter directly at the projector so that there are more digits in the black level reading. A stack of ND filters might be required to protect the meter for the white level reading....

Brent

I used the 0.0004 deviation as an example because had it been greater, it's likely that the meter would have rounded it off to another level. That is, if it were actually 0.0025fL, the meter might have read either 0.002fL or 0.003fL. If 0.0015fL, it might have read either 0.001fL or 0.002fL.

Obviously when we are dealing with such a small number, a difference of a few thousands can make a huge difference, as I've mentioned in the past in my reviews. When the readings were in the ballpark of 0.004fL or higher, as they still are with most projectors, this was not a major problem, but at lower levels we're now starting to see I plan to start making this measurement with a smaller image (as I did with the Sharp XV-Z20000). This will increase both the black and white levels, resulting in a black level that's easier to read accurately.

Tom Norton
Ultimate AV

:) Yeah it's unmistakable when you see it. It usually looks brighter than even a 100 IRE pixel because it collects light and focuses it into a single small but very bright area. It's a very different artifact from the sheen on a SS though.

I saw a FireHawk for the first time yesterday while at a local BB/Mini Magnolia. The screen was a 100" diagonal 16:9 SST version and was paired with a Sony Pearl. Every now and then I saw the exact same sparkly sheen on the FireHawk that I can occasionally see on my SilverStar with one very annoying difference.

The FireHawk had a couple of these "mini supernovas" that you've described and I found them quite distracting. When I saw the first one, moving my head a few inches to the right made it disappear. If I moved to far to the left a different one a couple of feet away from the first would appear. This made me feel like I was always ducking for cover because someone was directing a laser pointer at my eyes. ;)

This is something I've never seen with my SS in over two years of use and if I did, I would have gotten rid of the screen long ago. The sparkly sheen of the SS and FH were very similar and to me is an extremely minor artifact when compared to these always on "mini supernovas". I'll gladly keep the SS with it's sheen any day of the week before I'd buy a FireHawk with the same sheen + supernovas.

The Firehawk might have been mounted too close to the projector. A longer throw is better with FH.

I saw a FireHawk for the first time yesterday while at a local BB/Mini Magnolia. The screen was a 100" diagonal 16:9 SST version and was paired with a Sony Pearl. Every now and then I saw the exact same sparkly sheen on the FireHawk that I can occasionally see on my SilverStar with one very annoying difference.

The FireHawk had a couple of these "mini supernovas" that you've described and I found them quite distracting. When I saw the first one, moving my head a few inches to the right made it disappear. If I moved to far to the left a different one a couple of feet away from the first would appear. This made me feel like I was always ducking for cover because someone was directing a laser pointer at my eyes. ;)

This is something I've never seen with my SS in over two years of use and if I did, I would have gotten rid of the screen long ago. The sparkly sheen of the SS and FH were very similar and to me is an extremely minor artifact when compared to these always on "mini supernovas". I'll gladly keep the SS with it's sheen any day of the week before I'd buy a FireHawk with the same sheen + supernovas.

I too find the mini super nova really distracting, but many people don't. This goes to show the importance of using first hand experience to pick a product rather than to use the comments of others. I think the SS and the HP are amazing screens for what they do. From a technology standpoint the SS is particularly impressive as it's a super high gain screen but with a wide viewing cone. With reasonable (SMPTE recommended) projector illumination though I really like the ST130 because I've never seen any screen artifacts at all on it. If I needed a lot more brightness though I would consider a HP or SS.

I too find the mini super nova really distracting, but many people don't.
There is no way I can watch a screen that has that problem! Two of the worst screens I ever owned (Draper M2500 and Optoma Graywolf) both suffered from the "mini supernova" phenomenon. I used to try to find the individual granules that were causing the problems to see if I could scrape them off the surface, but it was a fruitless task...:)
This goes to show the importance of using first hand experience to pick a product rather than to use the comments of others.
After reading the comments from you and a few others in this thread, I get the feeling that screens, like projectors and cars, can be "good ones" or "bad ones". I was amazed to read that you saw mini supernovas with a High Power, as I have owned 4 of them and have never seen even one of them - ever. The only explanation I have is in the quality control. So even if a person goes to see one, unless it is the actual screen he is buying, a different screen may or may not exhibit the same traits.

Lastly there is no better front projector reviewer than Tom Norton, especially compared to that infamous brand loyalist Shane Buettner from the same magazine.

Tom Norton is definitely great, but in my opinion no one is better than Greg Rogers. Kudos to both of them, actually, since they both post on this forum!

The Firehawk might have been mounted too close to the projector. A longer throw is better with FH.
This was the SST version of the FireHawk and it's designed to go with a shorter throw pj. The Pearl was mounted about 12-14 feet from the screen.

After reading the comments from you and a few others in this thread, I get the feeling that screens, like projectors and cars, can be "good ones" or "bad ones". I was amazed to read that you saw mini supernovas with a High Power, as I have owned 4 of them and have never seen even one of them - ever. The only explanation I have is in the quality control. So even if a person goes to see one, unless it is the actual screen he is buying, a different screen may or may not exhibit the same traits.
Good point. It could of just been a bad screen but this doesn't speak well for Stewart's QC allowing a screen with "mini supernovas" to ship to a high traffic place like BB/MiniMag. Then again, BB/MM isn't usually known for having their pj's set up correctly as they generally have way too much ambient light so maybe they thought no one would notice. ;)

With reasonable (SMPTE recommended) projector illumination though I really like the ST130 because I've never seen any screen artifacts at all on it. Just to satisfy my curiosity I need to go take a look at one of these.

After reading the comments from you and a few others in this thread, I get the feeling that screens, like projectors and cars, can be "good ones" or "bad ones". I was amazed to read that you saw mini supernovas with a High Power, as I have owned 4 of them and have never seen even one of them - ever. The only explanation I have is in the quality control. So even if a person goes to see one, unless it is the actual screen he is buying, a different screen may or may not exhibit the same traits.

It's possible that some screens are worse than others as far as not exhibiting this effect. With the HP that I own, the sparklies weren't from one bad bead as that would mean the same sparklie at the same spot at the screen and they would happen over many areas on the screen (although not at the same time). There might be a throw distance and/or projector/viewer orientation that comes into play. With my situation the projector was mounted on a soffit in the wall at about 19' from the screen. The top of the inverted projector was at the same height as the top of the screen. The viewer position was below the "sweet spot" for a retroreflective screen although the raised second tier of seating was more inline with the sweet spot. I don't know if this orientation contributes to seeing them or not.

Just to satisfy my curiosity I need to go take a look at one of these.

I had read a lot of the hype about high gain screens when the Silverstar first came onto the scene so I bought a HP just for this reason (for evaluation purpopses). The screen is inexpensive so a person can buy one just to try out. I also found that with my HT the high ft. lamberts raised the ambient lighting in my HT and elevated the blacks even though my HT is dark with a black ceiling and black side walls near the screen. If I had kept it, I would have added a ND filter to the projector to get the ft.lamberts down and preserve the blacks a little better. But the sparklies were a deal breaker for me. I couldn't be happier with my ST130 though. I also had a Stewart Greyhawk for quite awhile.

Just to satisfy my curiosity I need to go take a look at one of these.


I fell in love with the ST130/RS1 combo when I saw it at Cedia (my ST130 ships Tuesday :) ). This also seems to be the screen they demo the RS1 on the most from what I have read (of course there could be other reasons for this as well. who knows). Of course this screen will not work for everybody, but if you have a good environment and not overly large screen, this combo is amazing. I am sure the HP would be incredible as well though if you were going with a bigger screen or what not.

Bob,

". The only explanation I have is in the quality control. So even if a person goes to see one, unless it is the actual screen he is buying, a different screen may or may not exhibit the same traits."

Might be. I wonder if it could also be related to how many different positions one watches from. For example you said you have three seats. I have seven over two different heights. Maybe with more seats the chances of being in a position to see it?

Shawn

I had read a lot of the hype about high gain screens when the Silverstar first came onto the scene so I bought a HP just for this reason (for evaluation purpopses). The screen is inexpensive so a person can buy one just to try out. I also found that with my HT the high ft. lamberts raised the ambient lighting in my HT and elevated the blacks even though my HT is dark with a black ceiling and black side walls near the screen. If I had kept it, I would have added a ND filter to the projector to get the ft.lamberts down and preserve the blacks a little better. But the sparklies were a deal breaker for me. I couldn't be happier with my ST130 though. I also had a Stewart Greyhawk for quite awhile.

I had a Silverstar for a couple of years (the 120.5" version), and I personally won't go back. I didn't hate the screen by any means, and there is NO question that it provided some advantages, including the obvious: a brighter picture. Colors did seem a little more vibrant. Although I know the black levels were raised, it didn't appear that way, and contrast actually appeared to be slightly improved.

But the sparkle/sheen that could be seen in brighter scenes was something I could never completely get used to. It was an artifact that was always present. That could be a frustrating thing, especially when watching an otherwise very clean, artifact free source in HD! The sheen on the SS reminds me of the SSE (Silk Screen Effect) that you see on many of the RPTV's on the market. It made me feel like I was looking through a panel of glass to see the picture.

My wife was never bothered by it, even after pointing it out to her. I had several AVS members over, and they all liked the screen quite a bit, and were not nearly as bothered by the sheen as I was, though they did acknowledge its presence.

I definitely recommend a demo of the SS (or any screen for that matter, but particularly the SS) before buying it.

I am currently very satisfied with my Screen Innovations Reference Series 1.3 screen (referred to many as a "ST130 clone"). No screen artifacts! :)

The sheen on the SS reminds me of the SSE (Silk Screen Effect) that you see on many of the RPTV's on the market. It made me feel like I was looking through a panel of glass to see the picture.

That's what I keep reading and it's enough to make me cross the SS off my screen list. I see the "silk screen effect" like mad on RPTVs and it drives me bonkers. I have a hard time seeing past it once I've noticed it. A screen with no texture would be great. (Although I have viewed material on the Stewart Firehawk several times and don't remember noticing it's notorious sparkly texture...yet).



I am currently very satisfied with my Screen Innovations Reference Series 1.3 screen (referred to many as a "ST130 clone"). No screen artifacts! :)

I'm considering the Carada Brilliant White screen, for similar reasons.

My experience with the HP is close to Bob's.

I have seen the "super-nova" effect on the Firehawk. That, and price :rolleyes:, are the reasons I don't have one of those. On my HP I have noticed only one or two sparklies in over a hundred hours of viewing. They were certainly not to the super-nove level and are a non-issue as far as I am concerned. And, I am picky. SDE bothers me. SSE on RPTVs bothers me. FPN on most LCDs (not Sonys) bothers me. "Dirt" on an Optoma GW bothers me. But nothing on the HP bothers me. I concur with what has been stated before - the HP just basically disappears (well, at least for me).

Projector located 16' back and within screen border (about 1' above centre).

Now, what does this have to do with HD-1 ?

Brent

My experience with the HP is close to Bob's.

I have seen the "super-nova" effect on the Firehawk. That, and price :rolleyes:, are the reasons I don't have one of those. On my HP I have noticed only one or two sparklies in over a hundred hours of viewing. They were certainly not to the super-nove level and are a non-issue as far as I am concerned. And, I am picky. SDE bothers me. SSE on RPTVs bothers me. FPN on most LCDs (not Sonys) bothers me. "Dirt" on an Optoma GW bothers me. But nothing on the HP bothers me. I concur with what has been stated before - the HP just basically disappears (well, at least for me).

Projector located 16' back and within screen border (about 1' above centre).

Now, what does this have to do with HD-1 ?

Brent


What projector are you using?

Samsung H710AE

I had read a lot of the hype about high gain screens when the Silverstar first came onto the scene so I bought a HP just for this reason (for evaluation purpopses). The screen is inexpensive so a person can buy one just to try out. I also found that with my HT the high ft. lamberts raised the ambient lighting in my HT and elevated the blacks even though my HT is dark with a black ceiling and black side walls near the screen. If I had kept it, I would have added a ND filter to the projector to get the ft.lamberts down and preserve the blacks a little better. But the sparklies were a deal breaker for me. I couldn't be happier with my ST130 though. I also had a Stewart Greyhawk for quite awhile.

It does seem a little insane to buy a high-gain screen and then use an HD filter to knock the brightness down! Talk about the worst of both worlds....

Samsung H710AE

Thanks! There was some comment about the incompatibility between CRT projectors and the HP screens.

It does seem a little insane to buy a high-gain screen and then use an HD filter to knock the brightness down! Talk about the worst of both worlds....Not if you want to improve room ANSI contrast. But, agreed, a directional screen that also is grey so the overall gain is back down to 1 ~ 1.5 seems like a better idea. This was the great hope for the Optoma Grey Wolf (which I also own). And it actually seems to work as advertised. But it also has its own set of issues.

Also, remember that it is a good idea to have some sort of control over total light output to account for lamp aging. An adjustable iris is prefered. But, failing that, using an ND filter while the lamp is new and removing it as the lamp ages seems like the next best alternative.

Brent

It does seem a little insane to buy a high-gain screen and then use an HD filter to knock the brightness down! Talk about the worst of both worlds....
I look at it as the best of both worlds.

A high gain screen is a great thing to have if you want some ambient light on in the theater (like watching sporting events with some of your buddies). It allows you to do this without the picture being totally washed out the way it is on a screen with minimal gain.

Using a high gain screen with a quality ND filter is an advantage in my book. When the lamp dims down after a few hundred hours you simply remove the filter and it's like you just put in a new lamp. Also, I will be able to use the lamp for a much longer period before it has to be replaced. When minimal gain screen owners are starting to notice their picture becoming to dim to be enjoyable, those with high gain screens will be happily kicking back with a nice bright image.

That's what I keep reading and it's enough to make me cross the SS off my screen list. I see the "silk screen effect" like mad on RPTVs and it drives me bonkers. I have a hard time seeing past it once I've noticed it. A screen with no texture would be great. (Although I have viewed material on the Stewart Firehawk several times and don't remember noticing it's notorious sparkly texture...yet).

I'm considering the Carada Brilliant White screen, for similar reasons.
I see in another thread that you are considering the FireHawk. As I posted earlier, I saw the same kind of sparkle/sheen on the FireHawk as I have on my SS. If you think the SS's sheen would bother you then so will the FireHawk. You'll be better off going with the Carada BW.

Below is a reprint of a post I made in reply to questions concerning screen choices for the RS1 specifically and about screens in general. There has been a lot of opinion posted about some of these screens in this thread. I thought that some of you might be interested in how they actually measure out.

"You also mentioned your tight budget. In a fixed frame, the Carada BW is one of the few screens that comes close to fitting in your budget. It is rated at 1.4 gain. I have measured this screen with my spectroradiometer. With a ceiling mounted PJ, I measure it at 1.1 gain. It has exceptional color accuracy, and brightness and color uniformity. It's velvet lined frame is equal in size and beauty to my Stewart screen. It is simple to install. One caveat: its high uniformity is a disadvantage in a room with white ceiling and walls. (In this case, I would recommend the Stewart Firehawk, which is triple the price.)

Another screen that is near your budget is the Da-Lite High Power, rated at 2.8 gain with a shelf mounted PJ. When coupled with a ceiling mounted PJ (mounted 16% the screen's height above the screen surface) I measure it at 1.17 gain, but this is going to vary depending on how high/low you mount it. It is available in fixed screen or pull-down. It is acceptably color accurate. It is almost perfect in terms of color and brightness uniformity. It has a wide viewing cone. The folks that have posted contradictory statements regarding its uniformity in the configuration that I have listed, are just flat out ignorant about this screen. I challenge them to back up their statements with facts by listing the measurements they have taken of this screen with a ceiling mounted PJ. (Don't forget to measure the PJ's uniformity first, so that you can subtract it from your screen measurements.)

Some folks, though not many, have reported an occasional sparkly on the HP. I don't know. Typically a sparkly will disappear from view if you shift your seating (or your head) to the side by an inch or less. The Firehawk is known to have this problem occasionally, and I have seen it on my own screen. I have read recommendations to color them over with a soft lead pencil on the Firehawk, but have never had cause to do this personally. I move the seating over an inch and it disappears from view. As far as eliminating them on the HP, Da-Lite may have some recommendations. I don't know.

Brightness uniformity measurements taken from the eyes of a viewer in the prime seat and from a seat 45% off center. Ceiling mounted PJ 2X screen widths away from screen:


SCREEN GAIN AT REDUCTION AT SCREEN CENTER FROM
SCREEN CENTER SCREEN EDGE SEAT AT 45% ANGLE
-----------------------------------------------------------
ST 130 1.3 -25% -40%
BW 1.11 -7% -29%
HP 1.17 0% -36%
VUTEC PW 1.84 -33% -65%
FH 1.14 -48% -71%



SCREEN COLOR SHIFT AT COLOR SHIFT AT COLOR SHIFT FROM
SCREEN CENTER SCREEN EDGE SEAT AT 45% ANGLE
------------------------------------------------------------
ST 130 -.0007/+.0013 +.0043/+.0049 -.0007/-.0033
BW -.0017/+.0003 +.0003/+.0019 -.0027/+.0003
HP +.0023/+.0043 +.0013/+.0049 +.0013/+.0033
VUTEC PW +.0003/+.0003 +.0003/+.0023 +.0003/+.0013
FH -.0027/-.0007 -.0057/-.0041 -.0091/-.0077

The ISF requires calibration equipment to have a color accuracy within .0040 in x and y in measuring D65. All the screens listed above meet that same standard when measured in the center from the eyes of the prime viewer. The BW and the PW meet it in all the configurations measured. The ST and the HP deviate only a small amount beyond that when measured in certain configurations.

I have measured 20-30 different screen samples. The screens listed above are not the only ones to perform well, but they are some of the best. I listed the Firehawk because it is not very uniform, yet in a white HT it will yield a better image (higher on screen contrast) than any of the others. I have experience with full screens of the ST, BW, and FH. I have only seen 2'X2' samples of the HP and PW.

In general, don't be misled by those who wring their hands over screen brightness uniformity. If you have to use a gain screen to get the proper brightness level, do it. Don't settle for too dim an image. I have experience with a lot of people seeing actual images on hot-spotting screens and almost no one notices with actual video. I fact, I am the only one I know personally who notices, and I only notice occasionally with actual video.

I've gone to considerable effort to determine which screens are the most uniform. So you might conclude that it is important to me. I recommend using the most uniform screens that fit the bill. However, if a non-uniform gain screen is what is required in your HT, you will likely be happy as a clam with it. Whereas you will not be happy with too dim an image, or with replacing a $500 lamp at frequent intervals. Or in the past you could always settle for a brighter PJ that has one half to one third the CR. With the RS1 those compromises don't have to be made, unless you want a pretty large screen. Then you need a higher gain screen. You owe it to yourself to see these before you reject them out of hand and settle for something less than what you desire."

Glenn

Glenn,

Thank you so much for that information. I am shocked the the DaLite 2.8 gain drops so dramatically with a pj mounted above the screen - it's good information to know about.

Have you ever tested acoustically transparent screens? I would love to see measurements on SandMan's SMX material as well as Screen Research CP2.

Below is a reprint of a post I made ...

You owe it to yourself to see these before you reject them out of hand and settle for something less than what you desire."

Glenn

great post, Glenn.

paul

Glenn,

Thank you so much for that information. I am shocked the the DaLite 2.8 gain drops so dramatically with a pj mounted above the screen - it's good information to know about.

Have you ever tested acoustically transparent screens? I would love to see measurements on SandMan's SMX material as well as Screen Research CP2.Sorry, but I haven't measured any acoustically transparent screens.

The DaLite HP's gain will be a little hard to estimate for any particular mounting position because the closer to the center of the screen, the higher its gain.

Glenn

Glenn,

Thank you so much for that information. I am shocked the the DaLite 2.8 gain drops so dramatically with a pj mounted above the screen - it's good information to know about.

Have you ever tested acoustically transparent screens? I would love to see measurements on SandMan's SMX material as well as Screen Research CP2.
Sandman has very good measurements on his stuff. He just got some new measurements on color accuracy and the his stuff is extremely good. The gain is 1.16 and I believe that Sandman has an expensive machine to measure his materials. As for the Screen Research, someone who's opinion I trust and who is considered an expert on this forum gave me a gain measurement of .83 for it. I do not wish to involve him in controversy so will not post his name. I will say that is opinion on this forum is seldom challenged and that's a bold statement. He is considered one of the best "experts" on the forum.

Glenn,
GREAT post as always. Thanks.

Mr. Norton, if you are still reading this thread, when can we expect the full review?

:)

The bulk of this thread was spent discussing how it was possible Tom Norton measured only around 380 lumens and 9,000:1 in Normal mode at mid throw, while others were measuring closer to 500 lumens and 13,500:1 with the same setup. All this pertains to D65.

Now here we are a few weeks later with some members having production units in hand, and this disparity continues as more people chime in with measurements...

For example Jason and cine4home are measuring about 500 lumens and 13,500:1 at mid throw in Normal mode. Yet Bob and myself are measuring just around 380 lumens and 9500:1 - very similar to what Tom reported.

Jason and Bob measured lumens the same way - both used the AEMC CA813 light meter and took measurements at the screen using a 100 IRE pattern sent by the Accupel generator. Same approach and same equipment.

I too used the CA813 but did this with the GetGray pattern disc upscaled through my Toshiba XA2 HD DVD player.

And interestingly Tom Norton did his readings off the screen - yet still came up with what Bob and I have.

Even if there is a variance as much as 10% (rumored) between CA813 meters, this doesn't account for the nearly 30% variance between those measuring high lumens and other measuring low.

I too am measuring just like Tom and Bob - coming out about 30% lower than those reports from Jason, cine4home, and Cam Man. Likewise I also recall a French reviewer who measured these lower lumens and reported on/off in the 9000:1 range.

So we have two "camps" here - those measuring high and those measuring low. There are very capable people in both camps. enough so to rule out operator error or equipment differences I believe.

Even when I switch over to the High mode I still only measure 11,000:1 vs. 15,900:1 reported by cine4home at mid throw.

I am also certain that I have my brightness and contrast set correctly (both at 0 actually as it turns out). As an example, just one click of contrast higher causes the -1% bar on the Contrast pattern to crush.

What do you guys think could possibly be going on here? Any suggestions for how we can go about troubleshooting this further? Certainly there are too many knowledgeable people in each "camp" for either group to be doing this wrong.

Could there be as much as a 30% variance in lamps? Doesn't seem likely. Note we really don't have people coming in with numbers in between - its either at 380ish or 500ish with the mid throw setup. Something is bizarre here...

lovingdvd
It must be difficult to compare between different setups and tools. I would thing more of it if you used Jason´s proble for example. Measure another display that you have and see how it compares with RS1. Next see how Jasons reviews compares in relative terms.
If it looks dim it is dim.
If it looks bright it is bright.

lovingdvd
It must be difficult to compare between different setups and tools. I would thing more of it if you used Jason´s proble for example. Measure another display that you have and see how it compares with RS1. Next see how Jasons reviews compares in relative terms.
If it looks dim it is dim.
If it looks bright it is bright.

Thanks. Jason and I are both using the AEMC CA813. I can't imagine there's 30% variance in there. If Bob, I, and others were just 10-15% off that seems like variance you can just write off to such differences - but at 30% I can't help but think something else is involved here.

Thanks. Jason and I are both using the AEMC CA813. I can't imagine there's 30% variance in there. If Bob, I, and others were just 10-15% off that seems like variance you can just write off to such differences - but at 30% I can't help but think something else is involved here.


Thanks for trying to figure out this lumen/CR thing lovingdvd. This definately bothers me that there seems to be this much difference between units. I hope there is some simple explanation, or common setting to those who are getting the low numbers that would be easy to adjust, but we will see.

Thanks for trying to figure out this lumen/CR thing lovingdvd. This definately bothers me that there seems to be this much difference between units. I hope there is some simple explanation, or common setting to those who are getting the low numbers that would be easy to adjust, but we will see.

The difference seems consistent enough to make it so that its unlikely a variance but more of a setup matter. For instance as I described the two "camps" (those measuring high vs. those measuring low), those in the low camp are consistently about 30% lower. If it was a big variance thing then I'd expect to see people all across the range, rather then at norm vs. norm minus 30%.

I am very confident in my method and in my light meter, as I've used this technique successfully with other pjs to get known good results. Same approach with the RS1 should not suddenly result in bad measurements. At the same time I am confident in Jason and cine4home and others who are in the higher camp. Too many members in each camp for one camp to be wrong. Only logical conclusion at the moment is that there is something else gong on here that we haven't picked up on yet...

Too many members in each camp for one camp to be wrong. Only logical conclusion at the moment is that there is something else gong on here that we haven't picked up on yet...
I wouldn't be surprised if the variance is in the bulb. It was so bad a couple of years ago with Optoma that some H79 bulbs were blowing after only 500 hours. If manufacturing variations can cause some bulbs to blow 2,500 hours below spec (I don't mean dim, but blow), than a 30% variation in bulb light output, due to manufacturer quality control, doesn't seem out of the question.

Now here we are a few weeks later with some members having production units in hand, and this disparity continues as more people chime in with measurements...

Is it possible that they shipped units with different bulbs (i.e. different wattage)? Optoma did that when they sent a batch of lower wattage replacement bulbs then the standard bulb for the H72 (200 vs 220W)...

Is it possible that they shipped units with different bulbs (i.e. different wattage)? Optoma did that when they sent a batch of lower wattage replacement bulbs then the standard bulb for the H72 (200 vs 220W)...

Good though but I don't think that would be the case. Some folks were measuring high lumens months ago well before production units where shipping so its unlikely they'd have a mix of different wattage bulbs in circulation.

Good though but I don't think that would be the case. Some folks were measuring high lumens months ago well before production units where shipping so its unlikely they'd have a mix of different wattage bulbs in circulation.


Also it seems those who are getting low lumens are also getting the low CR as well. As GregR has been talking about in the RS1 owners thread, if it was a bulb issue, the CR would not be affected to any great degree. It seems as though something is putting a bottleneck on the some of the RS1's that reduce lumens and CR to a good degree.

No longer a sneak peek, the full review is up with measurements:

http://www.guidetohometheater.com/videoprojectors/207jvchd1/index5.html


I measured a peak contrast ratio of 8752:1 and a modified ANSI contrast of 139:1, both with the Lamp on Normal. (I also ran these measurements on the Sony Pearl under the same conditions, in Auto Iris 2, Low lamp, and obtained readings of 5949:1 and 133:1, respectively.)

This review stated that the case color of the RS1 is all black rather than the black and gray we have seen in most photos. Can those who have the projector now verify this?

The RS1 is all black. The pictures you're referring to are of the HD1, which is black with a silver front and band along the top.

The RS1 is all black. The pictures you're referring to are of the HD1, which is black with a silver front and band along the top.

Thanks, Mike. I liked the look with the silver, but I suppose all black is best for less light reflection.