I'm a Pearl owner. Because I'm a tweaker (like many of us here) I tried every conceivable iris configuration over the months trying to dial in the perfect picture, but I never was completely satisfied. But for the last month, I've been using a new configuration -- and for the first time, I am completely at ease with my projector.

Here's what I did:

1) I switched from AutoIris to Manual Iris
2) I set the manual Iris at 45
3) I calibrated the picture for the new iris setting (its so much easier to calibrate when you're using manual iris)

Many of you are going to scoff at this if you decide to try it because manual iris is considerably dimmer than the autoiris modes in higher APL scenes. And if you decide to do an A/B comparison between AutoIris and Manual Iris, you will probably prefer the AutoIris to such an extent that you'll chuck the whole idea right out the window.

So don't do an A/B comparison.

In A/B comparisons, brighter almost always seems better, and POP almost always wins.

But the kicker is that the bright, poppy picture that wins the A/B comparison doesn't always provide the most long-term satisfaction. That was my problem --- I was making iris adjustments based on short-term observation instead of long-term trial.

With manual iris (set at 45), here's what I've noticed:

1) for the first time, blacks are completely satisfying. I mean, they're not truly black, but they are darn close for a digital.
2) Shadow detail is just about perfect post-calibration. I never find myself struggling to make out details in the shadowy parts of the image.
3) The higher APL scenes have higher contrast due to the tightened iris
4) The picture has a more satisfying, 3D effect (there's no dynamic gamma, which gregr mentioned a while back could effect the 3-dimensionality of the image)
5) Overall, the picture is just more satisfying in a long-term sense. (in the AutoIris modes, I was always nitpicking the image -- not any more).

But if you do an A/B comparison between manual and Auto, you'll be reluctant to stick with it. So I'm saying: skip the A/B. Try it for a week and do not judge based on your first day's viewing.

All this brighter-is-better mentality is contagious, and I believed it for a long time. I don't believe it anymore. Nor do I really believe that quick A/B comparisons are particularly helpful for judging overall image quality with regard to iris settings.


Anyway, this is just my two cents. Hopefully it encourages someone to check it out for a week.

P.S.

My room's a bat cave with a black ceiling and black carpet. Pearl is near max throw, 900 hours on the bulb. Your set up may yield different results.

45 may not be the optimal manual iris setting for you, but the lower you take it the higher your contrast will be.

Id love to have an auto iris on my HD1. While I dont dispute your observations, I believe the auto iris is supposed to give you the best of both worlds (max and min iris.)

Brighter Doesn't Mean Better

It does when it comes to IQ ;)

Id love to have an auto iris on my HD1. While I dont dispute your observations, I believe the auto iris is supposed to give you the best of both worlds (max and min iris.)


I guess the main point I'm trying to make is that brighter isn't always better (although it does tend to win in A/B comparisons), and that long-term trial is sometimes a better way to test a calibration than a quick A/B, largely due to the "brighter is better" mentality.

Regarding the benefits of the AutoIris, you have accurately captured the majority opinion. I disagree with said opinion. I have carefully observed the effect of dynamic gamma on the image and do not like it (a personal preference of mine). Switching to manual iris gets rid of dynamic gamma, and also allows for easier picture calibration using more "traditional" methods.

Not to mention the fact that I can assure a consistent BL performance over a wider range of APLs by using manual iris.

I know a lot of people around here love the autoiris (and that's fine), but there are quite a few who don't care for it. You can count me among them.

Of course, that doesn't mean that other people will agree with my observations, but I think they should try it for a week before they decide -- IF they're curious.

Note: People who are 100% happy with their picture right now should probably leave well enough alone. :)

It does when it comes to IQ ;)

Stupid is like Jello. There's always room for more. :D

Brighter Doesn't Mean Better

Try and tell Joe House that. :D

Note: People who are 100% happy with their picture right now should probably leave well enough alone. :)

And they should also run, not walk, away from the AVS Forum! We are NEVER 100% happy with our picture, our never-ending search for the holy grail of projection is our reason for being!! Contrary to popular opinion, we do NOT own these things so we can watch stuff on them. :D

Id love to have an auto iris on my HD1. While I dont dispute your observations, I believe the auto iris is supposed to give you the best of both worlds (max and min iris.)

Let's see if you say the same after watching the opening shot to the first Star Wars on an auto-iris projector. The scene starts with a black star field, and becomes brighter and brighter as the white spaceship passes overhead, filling the frame. The whole time, the star field in the background becomes a progressively milkier shade of gray as the iris opens up.

Let's see if you say the same after watching the opening shot to the first Star Wars on an auto-iris projector. The scene starts with a black star field, and becomes brighter and brighter as the white spaceship passes overhead, filling the frame. The whole time, the star field in the background becomes a progressively milkier shade of gray as the iris opens up.There is probably some of that effect with CRTs also, especially non-LC CRTs with lower ANSI CR. Also, I believe that with a good dynamic iris implementation, the more CR you start with the less the effect of the dynamic iris should be noticeable for something like that. There are of course tradeoffs with getting the higher dynamic on/off CR with a dynamic iris and sticking with the lower on/off CR of having the iris be static. There are scenes which will show the strength and weakness of each.

--Darin

I thought that as the scene got brighter, the iris would CLOSE not open.

??

I thought that as the scene got brighter, the iris would CLOSE not open.

??

Nope, that's backwards. As the scene gets darker, the iris clamps down, maximizing on/off contrast, which benefits lower APL scenes.

Let's see if you say the same after watching the opening shot to the first Star Wars on an auto-iris projector. The scene starts with a black star field, and becomes brighter and brighter as the white spaceship passes overhead, filling the frame. The whole time, the star field in the background becomes a progressively milkier shade of gray as the iris opens up.

Exactly!

I actually owned a Ruby, before my RS1. So I am quite familiar with the effect. 8)

Id still like the dynamic iris option, if possible. You can always turn it off, and like Darin states, hopefully with a machine with the already much higher native CR of the RS1 it can be implemented to minimize that effect.

Believe me I much prefer the native contrast route. As bright as the RS1 is though, I wouldnt mind at all being able to get even blacker blacks without an ND filter or grey screen. 8)

I agree - I went from high brightness mode on my 12kII to low bulb mode and now I'm using an ND2 (all with iris fully closed) - once you get over the high impact of a high brightness mode and actually allow your pupils to adjust to the lower light settings, you dont miss the higher brightness at all. The lower black levels are appreciated and the whites don't seem any less bright. Intra-scene contrast seems better too, although I will have to look into black velvet curtains or something soon to get that last bit of incremental improvement.

Of course people with ambient light may think differently, and I can appreciate the usefulness of the extra lumens in that situation.

Yeah, Seth, when I had my Sharp 12k I watched it in low lamp high contrast too. I did miss the pop of the high brightness, but man were those blacks satisfying.

With the RS1 now, I feel like I get to have 99% of the best of both worlds but there is something to be said about black black blacks. Im seriously contemplating selling off my 128" Carada BW for a Firehawk G3 to help with the blacks and with ambient light rejection. My new media room is not a batcave anymore, so as good as my image looks now Im fairly sure, having owned a 16:9 one, the Firehawk will make it look that much better.

I know a lot of people around here love the autoiris (and that's fine), but there are quite a few who don't care for it. You can count me among them.
I started out using Auto1, then switched to Auto2, and finally ended up at Off. It has been Off for several months now, and so far I don't miss Auto1 or Auto2 enough to try them again. It is near max throw, by the way.

To improve the shadow detail, I created a custom gamma curve (which I mentioned in a previous post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9346921&&#post9346921)). In my opinion, it improves shadow detail more than DI does, and it makes enough improvement that I don't want to get more improvement by also using DI. In addition, it does not cause brightness compression like DI can.

Perhaps this thread should be retitled to "Dynamic Iris Doesn't Mean Better".

It wasn't the brightness Gremmy doesn't like, but the DI.

Perhaps this thread should be retitled to "Dynamic Iris Doesn't Mean Better".

It wasn't the brightness Gremmy doesn't like, but the DI.

"Brighter Doesn't Mean Better" is an appropriate title, since the main point I'm trying to make is that the "brighter is better" mentality often skews the results of quick A/B testing, making long-term testing a more satisfying method for testing certain things (like the DI).

While it's true that I'm not a big fan of the DI, I sure as heck didn't want to start a thread titled "DYNAMIC IRISES SUCK" since we've already heard way too much of that around here already, and that wasn't my point at all.

My point is that in short term A/B testing, brighter almost always appears better, and the picture with more POP almost always wins. This holds true for everything from projectors to screens to iris settings.

As Alan said many months ago, "Brightness is very seductive."

But just because something seduces you doesn't mean you'll enjoy it longterm (read: my first girlfiend, my projector, my iris settings, etc.)

Especially with regard to settings where a bright setting is being compared to a dim one, long-term trial is preferable to short-term A/B testing. That was my point.

Spinning color wheels, dancing mirrors, irises opening and closing the wrong way, color pumped up like bodybuilders on steroids, painfully birght bulbs and highly reflective screens that cause skin cancer - jeepers, what's next?

HT has become more like Las Vegas. Screw plain ol' reality, I want reality that's JACKED UP, BABY! WOOHOO!

what's next?


What's next? How 'bout Movies filmed in "feel around"? Wait that's already been done already:

http://www.mutantreviewers.com/rkfm.html

What's next? How 'bout Movies filmed in "feel around"? Wait that's already been done already:

http://www.mutantreviewers.com/rkfm.html

I'm sure some Adult Film company is going to try this out. :D

""Brighter Doesn't Mean Better" ..... oh yes it does.

Unless you are sacrificing contrast for that brightness. I think that is what you meant.
Otherwise, the brighter the better.
I am sure that at some point there is a brightness that would be excessive and still have great contrast, but no pj even close yet.

""Brighter Doesn't Mean Better" ..... oh yes it does.

Unless you are sacrificing contrast for that brightness. I think that is what you meant.
Otherwise, the brighter the better.
I am sure that at some point there is a brightness that would be excessive and still have great contrast, but no pj even close yet.

What I meant to say is exactly what I did say: Just because a picture is brighter does not automatically mean it's better.

Loss of contrast is *not* the only thing that can keep a brighter picture from being better. If we consider my Pearl for a moment, the brighter picture suffered from dynamic gamma (which I've already said I don't like), minimal BC, and even the very rare breathing of the iris -- and a bunch of other "hard to pin down" problems -- in addition to a loss of maximum dynamic range in certain scenes.

But the point I'm making is not restricted to my Pearl.

Brightness is just ONE picture parameter. A picture is composed of many parameters -- any variables between the brighter and dimmer pictures may serve to make one picture less pleasing than the other irrespective of brightness.

And contrary to popular opinion, I actually believe that brighter doesn't automatically mean better even when all other things are equal -- but that's not really my point. My point is that all other things rarely are equal, and the seductive powers of brightness should not be ignored when making quick A/B comparisons, since the quick A/B comparison could cause the viewer to miss important (but less immediately noticeable) flaws.

This is precisely why I'm advocating longer-term trials for brighter vs. dimmer configurations.

I tested and i like it very welll. Thanks for the tip.