Folks have been asking what's the hold up in your Sim2 C3X 1080 projector. Don't you have it yet??? For how many weeks now have you been asking questions on this forum (and being overly anal per ONEOBGYN)?

Well, a few things:

I decided to big time renovate my dedicated home theater room originally built in 1997. My handyman's been doing lotsa work. Installed three 2" conduits. Moved some dedicated circuits behind my Aerial subs so power cords don't show. Installed a PS Audio Power Port in wall for my PS Audio Premier Power Plant. Patched lotsa drywall. Repainted entire room (same colors, black and dark grey). Building a riser platform for second row this week. Just finishing light sanding, repainting and clear coating my Michael Green component rack shelves. By mid this week, I'll be rebuilding my component racks (1.5" thick MDF shelves currently off the rods for repainting), then bringing components back into room and setting up. Lotsa work!!!!

Meanwhile, I arranged with AVS forum member GetGray (Scott Horton in real life), the Cineslide manufacturer as well as an ISCOIII dealer (my dealer, Mark Haflich/Soundworks is getting my ISCOIII and Cineslide from Scott) (AVS as well as Sim2 also directly sell them)

http://www.cineslide.com/

to ship him my projector and put it through its paces, checking different throws, light output, vignetting, pincusion, loss of brightness based on
throw, etc.

Either today or tomorrow, Scott will finish his testing, and we'll talk on I'll make my final decision based on his info re screen size, throw distance, etc.

My target is 14 fl. After bulb burn-in. When my light output gets below that, I'll replace the bulb. If one keeps a bulb as long as the manufacturer recommends, a conservative estimate would be 50% loss of light output.
But I will replace somewhat earlier, say at 40% loss. So we'll use that figure.

I'd like to go at least a 2:35 11' wide screen, 1.3 gain. But maybe as much as 12' wide depending on what Scott finds.

We will find out shortly.:D

This info should be helpful for AVSers doing new installs on this projector with an ISCOIII, too.

Scott already posted a little while ago his following finding concerning that use of the lens shift doesn't negatively impact picture quality:


HN:

I expect you realize this, but just in case. You know that you can get the Isco a little closer to the PJ if it is tilted, right? I've got one of our friends 1080's here with me now. I see no issues whatsoever with the lens shift causing any picture degradation. I understood you have your's dropped way down to make it so you have no lens shift. If you raise it up to where you can tilt the lens some, then you can get it a little closer to the prime. Not much I know, but if you are just barely exceeding....

And, maybe get some 90 degree cables (AC, HDMI) and get the C3X right up against the wall. If you are lucky and there is no stud right there, knock out a "pocket" and get it another 4" back.

Just trying to help.

Oh - UPS tried really hard to delay me further by breaking my projector.
But thanks to great foam packing and double boxing, GetGray has checked the projector out and all works fine with no damage. YEA! (There was no damage from Sim2 to my dealer Mark Haflich, only a shipped by Mark To Scott).

Photos of UPS handywork follow:

Scott already posted a little while ago his following finding concerning that use of the lens shift doesn't negatively impact picture quality:

Also my kudos to Scott for having helped my installers solve the problem with the Cineslide and the PJ for my high arched ceiling.


http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?vaslt&1049587927&read&3&4&

Also my kudos to Scott for having helped my installers solve the problem with the Cineslide and the PJ for my high arched ceiling.


http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?vaslt&1049587927&read&3&4&

My kudos to OB for putting up with me!!:rolleyes:

My kudos to OB for putting up with me!!:rolleyes:

As I said, some of my best friends are lawyers

As I said, some of my best friends are lawyers

Can I be one of your "best friends"????:confused::cool:

Back to the topic of this thread - Optimizing the projector.:o

Steve that almost looks like someone was trying to remove the content. Glad it arrived safe.

oneobgyn

Very nice room. Nice to see a balanced room with an equal blend of upper end equipment for both audio and video:)

Steve that almost looks like someone was trying to remove the content. Glad it arrived safe.

oneobgyn

Very nice room. Nice to see a balanced room with an equal blend of upper end equipment for both audio and video:)

thanks Alan

I'm not done with pincushion measurments yet, but here's a bone to chew on.

The linked spreadsheet lists the results of the measurments I took on Steve's C3X 1080. See notes at the end of xls for test parameters, etc.

I think I captured all the combinations and permutations of power, iris, and zoom

Steve:

I added a field you can change to what you believe the expected light output will be after some aging. I have it initially set at 0.6 (which means 60% of original output after aging). Change it to what you believe, or when you plan to swap bulbs.

Set your screen gain, too.

Next, look at the line with your preferred screen size. I marked your 11' in red, you can see what the effects of throw, iris, and power, as well as aging have on the ftL expected.

To be honest, I was a little surprised. I expected lower CR and lower output. I found neither. More light and more CR than I expected. Pretty nice really.

The measurments were taken on a 22" wide "screen" position (for both long and short zooms) so as to keep the meter close to the PJ. This aids in keeping the low light readings high enough to be less error prone.

Zooms were stop-to-stop.

If someone sees some gross error I made, let me know. I haven't checked it closely yet. But I figured Steve is anxious to start studying...

Cheers,
Scott


C3X Light Measurments:
Edit: XLS at version 4.0:
3.0: added 2.35 new and aged bulb ftL
4.0: added a couple of tabs with light vs zoom, light vs. power

Scott:

Was the unit calibrated to 6500 or straight out of box, which I think is defaulted to 8000

Good question, I meant to say. I will update my notes in the XLS.

The unit was not calibrated.

The unit was set to the Sim2 internal setting for D65 prior to taking the measurments.

So, however close Sim2 was is how close the numbers are. I did display a color ramp, the color *looked* right, with no visible color shifting through the range. The shift from the bluish default to D65 again *looked* about right. I would say that it is close enough that the measurment numbers are reasonably close.

When my unit was ISF calibrated it too was very close but not right on D65

Edit to XLS. ver 2.0: added aged 2.35 ftL calcs (worst case light drop),
2.x formatting...
3.0 added new and aged bulb ftL for 2.35 screen

Here's a summary of Scott's brightness findings at both 16:9 and 2:35 screen widths of 10, 10.5, 11, 11.5 and 12 feet. I am pondering as I determine my upcoming 2:35 screen width. What do you think?

Looking at these figures based on if I mount towards end of throw range (zoom far/max/narrow), my impression is that even in a dark room, a 10' wide 2.35 1.3 gain screen gives maximum flexibility, but that a 10.5" wide screen will still work very nicely. Funny - at the start of all this, I talked with both my dealer, Mark Haflich, and Jason of AVS, and they both advised sticking to a 10.5" wide screen to be safe. Gotta give both of them credit for knowing their projectors!!!!@@@ Maybe to OB too for calling me "overly anal". (TOO BAD but I am when I spend the biggie bucks on this projector, and screen, too!)

Going either of these screen sizes allows me, per Scott's figures, after 40% burn-in to still get 12 fl at say medium power with iris closed.

Here's are some burning questions:

Is closing the iris important with this projector, or are you better off leaving the iris open and going bigger, basing screen size on open iris calculations. Please explain?

The projector certainly is brighter moving up towards the front of the throw range, which would allow for a wider screen. Generally, how does brightness drop off as one moves from the front towards the end of the throw range? How linear is it? What are the pros and cons of mounting the projector with the ISCOIII closer rather than farther?

Looking at these figures based on if I mount towards end of throw range (zoom far/max/narrow), my impression is that even in a dark room, a 10' wide 2.35 1.3 gain screen gives maximum flexibility, but that a 10.5" wide screen will still work very nicely. Funny - at the start of all this, I talked with both my dealer, Mark Haflich, and Jason of AVS, and they both advised sticking to a 10.5" wide screen to be safe. Gotta give both of them credit for knowing their projectors!!!!@@@ Maybe to OB too for calling me "overly anal". (TOO BAD but I am when I spend the biggie bucks on this projector, and screen, too!)

Going either of these screen sizes allows me, per Scott's figures, after 40% burn-in to still get 12 fl at say medium power with iris closed.

Here's are some burning questions:

Is closing the iris important with this projector, or are you better off leaving the iris open and going bigger, basing screen size on open iris calculations. Please explain?

The projector certainly is brighter moving up towards the front of the throw range, which would allow for a wider screen. Generally, how does brightness drop off as one moves from the front towards the end of the throw range? How linear is it? What are the pros and cons of mounting the projector with the ISCOIII closer rather than farther?

go with the one I got and you will be very happy

go with the one I got and you will be very happy

OB, I luv ya. Thanks so much for the objective information!!!!:D

Yours is 10' wide. You've got a light painted room. My room is a black hole. So I can certainly go 10.5' wide minimum.:D

Considering I have an 11' 1.3 gain wide screen arriving this week, those are interesting (but also depressing) numbers.

I couldn't bare to run this projector in high power - it sounds like an airplane.

I should have went for a smaller screen. :-(

Where are my manners.... Thanks to Steve and GetGray for sharing these numbers!

You know Bob Sorrel has a meter identical to mine IIRC. And he had done a lot of work on measuring his bulbs and their hours-vs-brightness on some other PJ's. I *think* I remember reading somewhere he got a Sim2 PJ, maybe the HT3000? Anyway, maybe someone can PM him and ask for his input on the bulb aging. He may have an opinion or better yet, some data points to predict the expected bulb aging behavior. My XLS does have that parameter as a variable you can change to show/predict where you will be at various output %'s. I input a 40% loss (0.6 in the XLS) which may be conservative or liberal, dunno. The question I don't know is how fast do the Sim2's go down? Bob Might. Steve, you want to ask him?

Sim2 typically rates their bulbs for longer hours IIRC. So maybe it will take longer to get to that 40% loss mark. Long enough to get/rationalize a new bulb periodically. And, finding a cheaper source for the bulb might be doable, too.

My projector has 280 hours on it and has lost a fair bit of light - I use a CA813 and I haven't measured it lately but I will... it would be useful to look at it from a percentage point.

I just ordered a new bulb. I'm scared that with a 1.3 gain screen (currently using 2.8 which is obviously way too bright) I'll be changing every 100 hours. And at $899 a crack (or whatever it was - I forget), it's crazy expensive.

Where are my manners.... Thanks to Steve and GetGray for sharing these numbers!

Unless you want to keep somewhat of a higher gain screen!!!@@

Me, I'm pondering. Tonight Scott is gonna try the projector at different throw ratios, measure brightness, contrast and pincushion, and see what he thinks.

Scott told me that using the far throw, there is hardly any pincushion to correct with a curved screen. But there still may be an advantage if we can move up the throw some, get more brightness, but use the curved screen to correct pincushion. Stay tuned.

Scott:

Only one more thing, wouldn't the FtL for 16:9 and 2.35 height be close to the same with the Isco lens in place?

Scott:

Only one more thing, wouldn't the FtL for 16:9 and 2.35 height be close to the same with the Isco lens in place?

No. Say the screen is 56" high. 16:9 is 100" wide. 2:35 is 132" wide. The 2:35 screen is about 1/3 wider than the same height 16:9 screen. Thus the 2:35 screen is 1/3 less bright, plus the 2.1% loss due to anamorphic lens.

Lon, you are thinking of a 16:9 screen where the 2:35 portion is within that screen. In that case the brightness is the same.

You know Bob Sorrel has a meter identical to mine IIRC. And he had done a lot of work on measuring his bulbs and their hours-vs-brightness on some other PJ's. I *think* I remember reading somewhere he got a Sim2 PJ, maybe the HT3000? Anyway, maybe someone can PM him and ask for his input on the bulb aging. He may have an opinion or better yet, some data points to predict the expected bulb aging behavior. My XLS does have that parameter as a variable you can change to show/predict where you will be at various output %'s. I input a 40% loss (0.6 in the XLS) which may be conservative or liberal, dunno. The question I don't know is how fast do the Sim2's go down? Bob Might. Steve, you want to ask him?

Sim2 typically rates their bulbs for longer hours IIRC. So maybe it will take longer to get to that 40% loss mark. Long enough to get/rationalize a new bulb periodically. And, finding a cheaper source for the bulb might be doable, too.

There was a thread going discussing Sim2 projectors bulb burn-in but I forgot where it is. My memory based on that thread is that 40% is probably about right for 700-800 hours on the bulb. I recall both Art and Coldmachine commenting.

There was a thread going discussing Sim2 projectors bulb burn-in but I forgot where it is. My memory based on that thread is that 40% is probably about right for 700-800 hours on the bulb. I recall both Art and Coldmachine commenting.

The C3x 1080 is losing around 25-35%. The HT5000 seems to be around 25%, I believe Art had a 17% loss:eek: mine was under 30% with high hours.

Scott:

Only one more thing, wouldn't the FtL for 16:9 and 2.35 height be close to the same with the Isco lens in place?

If you leave the lens in place and scale for 16:9 (which is what I do) then yes.

Steve: So if it's 25-30%, plug that in the XLS as .75-.70. Obviously that would raise the numbers some.

LGJ: ftL is simply the lumens divided by the screen area times the screen gain (L*G/ft^2). So with a CIH setup, the 2.35 screen has more square footage, thus the corresponding drop in brightness.

According to my calculations, the ISCO reduces light output by approximately 24%. Not sure where the 2.1% is coming from.

If you leave the lens in place and scale for 16:9 (which is what I do) then yes.:eek::eek::eek:sacrelidge:eek::eek: ;)

According to my calculations, the ISCO reduces light output by approximately 24%. Not sure where the 2.1% is coming from.Light Loss and spreading it out giving lower ftL are 2 different things. Light loss of 2.1% is an estimation of loss through an Isco. It affects effective lumens, not ftL.

CM, what's Sim2 forecasting on bulb life on these puppies?

Scott and Steve:

Yep you guys are right, got a little confused. Thanks very much for sharing these numbers with the forum

Light Loss and spreading it out giving lower ftL are 2 different things. Light loss of 2.1% is an estimation of loss through an Isco. It affects effective lumens, not ftL.

If I measure lumens without ISCO in the path I get one reading. Put the ISCO in the path and measure again and it's 24% lower.

I've been keeping loose notes on lumens. For my first C3X1080 I lost the initial measurements, but have it from 100 hours through 287. My 2nd projector (it was replaced) is at 41 hours. I did experience some bulb issues (flickering etc) which may account for what I'm about to say, but it appears that light output dipped for a while and came back. Is this possible? Here are my notes

This is with NO ISCO in place, Low lamp (200 watts), D65 user setting, Iris OPEN.

100 hours = 170 lux = 613 lumens
120 hours = 130 lux = 469 lumens
175 hours = 122 lux = 440 lumens
287 hours = 150 lux = 541 lumens

New projector
41 hours = 177 lux = 639 lumens

Again, I can't explain the dip in lumens other than that I had some serious flickering issues for a while...

According to my calculations, the ISCO reduces light output by approximately 24%. Not sure where the 2.1% is coming from.

I believe loss is related to where your zoom is at on your projector.

Ian

Isn't the greater loss due to lighting up a larger 2.35 vs 1.85 size screen? I don't think you're referring to the loss of being at the "ends" of the throw, correct?

The only "loss" is that of the total light going into the lens, vs how much gets out. Lumens are what the PJ puts out, not what the screen measures.

Here's the measurments:

22" wide 2.35 screen measures 798.96 fc. This works out to 1142.67 lumens
22" wide 1.78 screen measures 622.44 fc. This works out to 1171.8 lumens

A lumen loss of 2.55% going from no lens to with lens.

Incidentally, these measurments were taken at the widest/shortest zoom.

Now this is different than reduction of brightness when going to 2.35. That is not a "loss". That happens becasue you spread the same lumens out over a larger square footage.

Ian

Isn't the greater loss due to lighting up a larger 2.35 vs 1.85 size screen? I don't think you're referring to the loss of being at the "ends" of the throw, correct?

Correct.

As promised I have some pincushion information. I already had my own data regarding pincushion with Isco's but I was looking to make it more generic and flexible. Member Aussie Bob has a lot of lens experience and had made a nice pincushion calculation spreadsheet. It was designed for a generic case but I wanted to test it against the Isco III.

Now this is a difficult parameter to measure empirically. It's difficult because one must balance the pincushion between the top and bottom of the image. And it is not an even mix when using lens shift. And if you aren't projecting onto a curve (I am not), you have to do it by trial and error "in space".

The method I use is pretty reliable however. I project a square grid on the screen while simultaneoulsy projecting a high end laser level line onto the screen. You align the laser beam with the center of the pincushion dip. Now move to the screen edge and hold a photo-graycard in front of the projected corner. Move the graycard toward the projector until the projected grid line and the laser meet. Measure how far that is from the screen (repeat on all 4 corners, tweak until they are all the same). This is the "depth" of the bowl.

PITA? You bet it is. And you have to have the PJ, lens and throw before you can start measuring. And it's still difficult.

Good news is that I believe Aussie Bob's geometric calculation spreadsheet to be very close. That is, plugging in my parameters into his XLS produced very close to the same result I got from emperical measurment. I tried it at several throw ranges. All were very close.

Becasue of the nature of pincushion, one is going to have to overscan a little no matter what. The pincushion actually bows the 1.78 image in the middle so one needs to start with the 1.78 image (no lens) slightly overscaned. Then when the lens is in place the center areas, top and bottom are edge to edge on the frame. Point is since one must overscan a little, and error from the real world curve required and AB's XLS should be small.

Now if you have the luxury of a curved screen, you can use this spreadsheet to calculate the curve required to elminate pincushion for the 2.35 image. However the caveat to this is that the removal of the lens on a curved screen has the opposite effect. A form of barrel distortion where the imge is fatter in the middle (top to bottom) with 1.78 and no lens being used. So, I think the best solution is to pick a curve/thorw combination that is a happy medium between these 2. Doesn't completely eliminate pincushion (full curve) and doesn't give perfect rectangle on 1.78 (i.e. with flat). I think a "partial curve" so to speak is probably best. But I don't necessarily think exactly 1.2 way is ideal becasue the effect isn't as big on the 1.78 area becasue the width where the curve is affecting the image is smaller.

Now, all this said, I have permission from Aussie Bob to post his spreadsheet on my website for others to use. Here is the link:

http://www.techht.com/Downloads/Aussie%20Bob's%20Omni-CIH%20Calculator2.xls

You plug in the throw and screen height, it tells you the curve the calculated to eliminate all pincushion. Nice.

Note that Stewart (don't know about the others) says they will make any curve radius you want. But I know they make at least a 30 and 40' radius "standard". So if you have a throw range that fits a 40' curve, might be a good choice.

Just for grins I checked the Lumens vs, throw in 10 click steps.

It is pretty linear:

Edit: Added graph to original spreadsheet instead of here...

If I measure lumens without ISCO in the path I get one reading. Put the ISCO in the path and measure again and it's 24% lower.No, you are reading lux or fc, not lumens (with a CA813). You derive lumens from lux or fc using the area of the projected image (which is different for 1.78 and 2.35). See? Measure them and convert to lumens and then you won't be 24% apart.

Is the 2.35 image dimmer to the eye, yes, it is. It it becasue of the Isco, yes, technically it is. But it's not becasue of 24% light losses. It's becasue the image is spread out by the lens. Same light (minus a very small real loss) projected to more area, looks dimmer.

But the blacks will be significantly better as well because the leaking light is spead out over the greater area of the 2.35 screen. The Isco gobbling up light at a rate of eating light 2.5 % also will slightly improve the blacks.

Scott discussed with me some additional spreadsheets that he had posted here, but apparently they were lost due to the AVS forum failure and having to resort to a backup some hours before. I'm sure Scott will repost when he has a chance.

In looking over the numbers and talking with Scott Horton (GetGray on AVS) and my dealer Mark Haflich, I decided to do the following:

1. My Stewart Cine-V (curved) screen with drop down side masking to 16:9 will be 54" high (approx 126.9" wide which varies a bit due to curve). 16:9 portion will be 96" wide.

2. Also I will mount where lens is a throw of 2.03125 (throw range for T2 lens is 1.75 to 2.4) or 16 feet 4 inches (196") from the screen (center of).

As Scott found at least with new bulb that brightness loss is pretty linear as you move back in throw with T2 lens, this gives me maybe 16-17% better brightness than mounting at the rear of the throw range. And there is no problem with the ISCOIII at this throw as verified by Scott. (Throw range not using first and last 6" is 174" to 224.4").

I posted the latest spreadsheet on the data I collected in the original post back at the beginning (post #10 this thread). Skip to it via:http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13021994#post13021994

I added the graphs for light vs throw and light vs power as tabs in the XLS. I found both to be pretty linear. So, if inclined one can extrapolate well to throws or power settings between teh extreems I listed.

Spreadsheet now also reflects throw ratios where original data was collected.

Prior to crash I had asked about Sim2's claims on bulb life and behavior (or similar), Coldmachine said it was at the beginning of this post. I said, Where?, I don't see it, and that's where that was left.

If I said anyting else... I forgot :)

No, you are reading lux or fc, not lumens (with a CA813). You derive lumens from lux or fc using the area of the projected image (which is different for 1.78 and 2.35). See? Measure them and convert to lumens and then you won't be 24% apart.

Is the 2.35 image dimmer to the eye, yes, it is. It it becasue of the Isco, yes, technically it is. But it's not becasue of 24% light losses. It's becasue the image is spread out by the lens. Same light (minus a very small real loss) projected to more area, looks dimmer.

OK, I get how the lumens don't change, but the footlamberts certainly do. Looking at your spreadsheet, ftL seem to drop around 24% going from 1.78 to 2.35. So considering that the ISCO is either in the light path all the time (with no cineslide) or most of the time (if you're a movie person), isn't the bottom line for determining adequate light output the footlamberts at 2.35?

OK, I get how the lumens don't change, but the footlamberts certainly do. Looking at your spreadsheet, ftL seem to drop around 24% going from 1.78 to 2.35. So considering that the ISCO is either in the light path all the time (with no cineslide) or most of the time (if you're a movie person), isn't the bottom line for determining adequate light output the footlamberts at 2.35?

YES, that is my bottom line here, the fl for 2:35 using the ISCOIII in the path.
Because the 16:9 portion without the ISCOIII engaged will be appreciably brighter anyway.

isn't the bottom line for determining adequate light output the footlamberts at 2.35?Yes. Just wanted to be sure it was clear that any light "loss" wasn't being casued by the lens, per se. The drop in ftL is due to the spreading of the light by the anamorphic expansion.

YES, that is my bottom line here, the fl for 2:35 using the ISCOIII in the path.
Because the 16:9 portion without the ISCOIII engaged will be appreciably brighter anyway.

Dont forget you will notice an increase in ANSI with the Isco out of the way as well.
All this talk, Steve when are you hanging this thing, we want pictures:)
Your project is quit a significant upgrade. This should put your upgrade bug on hold for a few years:)

Dont forget you will notice an increase in ANSI with the Isco out of the way as well. All this talk, Steve when are you hanging this thing, we want pictures:) Your project is quit a significant upgrade. This should put your upgrade bug on hold for a few years:)

This past year and now is biggie upgrade. Since 1997 had Aerial 10Ts (4), with CC5 (2000 replacing CC3) and three SW12s (when came out about 2000-2001). Also since 1997 had five Bryston 7b monoblocks. Last year replaced
10Ts (4) with Aerial 9s. Also replaced Brystons (5) with Theta Enterprise monoblocks. Now Mark Haflich (who has been giving me crap for years re my little Dwin CRT) finally proves the point as my dealer (we've been friends for many years) gettin' me into a new Sim2 C3X projector, Stewart Cine-V screen, and some assorted stuff. I'm driving him nutso by being "overly anal", as ONEOBGYN likes to say, with the funny thing is the end result is pretty much what Mark recommended in the first place re screen size. HA! But my benefit of all this is that thanks to Mark lining me up with Scott Horton (GetGray on AVS, the Cineslide manufacturer), we have determined I can move up some in throw which should increase my light output about 16-17%, no small feat indeed, yet still have outstanding pictue quality.

I am getting there!!!!:eek:

This may well quench the upgrade bug for years to come???

I am currently checking with Don Stewart re the following and then Mark Haflich will order my screen:

I have held off on finalizing the screen until now. My dedicated dark hole home theater room has been under renovation, installing and hiding cables/wires to new projector at a new throw distance, repainting, etc. And my initial Sim2 C3X 1080 (T2 lens)was defective and shipped back to Sim2 by my dealer, Mark Haflich/Soundworks. Then I had my replacement projector go over to Scott Horton, the Cineslide manufacturer, for some testing, so I could properly determine screen size and throw. This has just been completed.

I appreciate that generally the “safe” advise when using an ISCO III is to use the longest lens available and mount at the very rear of the throw range, as this ensures that the light from the projector doesn’t spill outside the ISCOIII lens and that the beam is the most perpendicular to reflect back to the viewer. But this “safe” advise may vary some depending upon the specific performance of the projector. So I decided to take some extra time to get my setup as perfect as possible.

Scott Horton, in his testing of my projector, found that at the D65 factory menu setting (which is very close to a full ISF calibration at D65) Exceeds 1100 lumens, that light output linearly decreases using the zoom with further throw distance, and Scott felt that I would get similar but brighter picture quality by using a shorter throw which would work fine with the ISCOIII. And I decided on a Cine-V, Studiotek 1.3, 2:35 54” high solid (not AT) screen with drop down side masking.

The projector’s T2 lens throw range is 1.75 to 2.4. Not supposed to use first and last 6". We are using throw of 16.25' from screen. Throw ratio of 2.03125. Scott felt this would give me roughly 15-17% brightness increase with no significant loss of picture quality, as any pincushion is being taken care of with the curved screen. (At max throw there was hardly any pincushion period and a flat screen would have been ok.)

The question what should be the radius of the curved screen given the above factors?

Scott used Aussie Bob’s calculator and determined that a 40 foot radius (which I think is the standard radius you would recommend for this screen anyway) was appropriate. I know that Steve Williams recently got a Cine-V 120” wide with a 40’ radius and a 40.2” bowl.

However, Scott also mentioned that technically, the 16:9 portion of the screen would be bowed inversely a small amount, but that this would be corrected by a bit of overscan for the 16:9, and then the 2:35 would be perfect. But an alternative is to compromise the curve some between what works best for 2:35 and for 16:9. If I wanted to do that, Scott noted that I could consider a 46” radius with 3.7” bowl (a little less curve than necessary for 2:35 to accommodate 50% 1:78).

I kind of like the idea of a perfect 2.35 with 40’ radius, and don’t mind a bit of overscan for 16:9, provided that its not something I will notice.

Anyway, Don Stewart will be giving me his advise on this. What do you think, folks?

40' radius is a good match for the Isco 3. I have 2 Stewart curved screens. One is what I call a radical curve. I love it.
Heres a pic of a deep curved screen, great for gaming. Curved screens are cool looking even when nothing is projected on them.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c387/itsmeto/curvedscreenImage5.jpg

Steve

I may have missed this, but what screen material did you settle on or have you been anally retaining that decision at this point? :p Also, what is the thinking behind the necessity of curved screens that seem to be all the rage suddenly (OB?) ? Is this one upsmanship ? Have you seen actual visual improvements in depth of field that really make this a necessity for this size screen? Is it to eliminate pincushion primarily? A little pincushion just doesn't bother me as the screen edges tend to eat it up and really have to wonder if the additional expense to go curved is justified, especially around 10 ft screen sizes. Just askin' but I bet it looks pretty cool, too !

Steve

I may have missed this, but what screen material did you settle on or have you been anally retaining that decision at this point? :p Also, what is the thinking behind the necessity of curved screens that seem to be all the rage suddenly (OB?) ? Is this one upsmanship ? Have you seen actual visual improvements in depth of field that really make this a necessity for this size screen? Is it to eliminate pincushion primarily? A little pincushion just doesn't bother me as the screen edges tend to eat it up and really have to wonder if the additional expense to go curved is justified, especially around 10 ft screen sizes. Just askin' but I bet it looks pretty cool, too !


Studiotek 1.3 gain.

The curved screen takes care of pincushion. If I mounted at rear of throw range, Scott Horton determined pincushion was then negligble. But using a curved screen I can move up in throw a bit, even with the ISCOIII, and get increased brightness. Yea a curved screen does look cool. Yea one can simply overscan to eliminate pincushion but I am doing it the technically correct way. HA!

40' radius is a good match for the Isco 3. I have 2 Stewart curved screens. One is what I call a radical curve. I love it.
Heres a pic of a deep curved screen, great for gaming. Curved screens are cool looking even when nothing is projected on them.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c387/itsmeto/curvedscreenImage5.jpg


Alan, what games do you play on your radical curved screen??? What's the size of your radical curved screen?:D

Steve

I may have missed this, but what screen material did you settle on or have you been anally retaining that decision at this point? :p Also, what is the thinking behind the necessity of curved screens that seem to be all the rage suddenly (OB?) ? Is this one upsmanship ? Have you seen actual visual improvements in depth of field that really make this a necessity for this size screen? Is it to eliminate pincushion primarily? A little pincushion just doesn't bother me as the screen edges tend to eat it up and really have to wonder if the additional expense to go curved is justified, especially around 10 ft screen sizes. Just askin' but I bet it looks pretty cool, too !

The curved screen is absolutely spectacular when you play a 2.35 movie. No atrifact, pincushioning etc, etc
In fact when I first looked into screens and told Stewart the size I wanted and that I was going CIH, and told them a C#X that does 1080p, they immediately recommended the CineV for best effect and Firehawk screen as they said this provides the best viewing. Now that was my experience and even though my room is not the Bruzonsky cave, having seen video with the Isco lll at 2.35 I bet I could have gone with a Studiotek BUT I have absolutely no regrets. Nice thing about it is that the screen is easily replaced as all they do is snap in...MSRP for my size is in the range of $1000-1200

Obbviosly a curved screen will give one a sharper image away from the center of the screen. Most projector lenses have decent depth of focus field. This a design parameter because projection screens are large by any standard and with a lens centered horizontally on the screen the distances to various points on the screen from the lens will vary substantially. But if the lens is designed correctly the depth of focus field will permit sharp corner focus when the center or botom center or top center is also sharp. Put up a lens resolution test pattern and check out how good you lens is in this regard.

Now add an Isco lens or some other horizontal strech lens in front. The depth of field will be substantially reduced, You can see this by say placing a piece of paper in front of your screen and moving it from the screen surface closer to the lens. Without the Isco, the image stasys in good if not perfect focus for quite some distance. Add the Isco and as you move forward things rapidly go out of focus. Not awful but not as good as before.

How to combst this? Obviously as you move a point (ze lens) farther away from a plane (ze screen), the difference in measured differences from points on a plane and the because less ans less significant. Obviously the difference of plus or minus 4 inches is move significan when the center distance point is 10ft than it is at a center distance point of 20 feet. Thats one of the reasons to use maximum throw. Pincushion gets eliminated (mostly) and edge to edge focus is better beause one uses less depth of field. So a non curved lens is OK.


As you move closer then you need a curved screen to fight pincushioning and to get good edge to edge focus.


Now obviously different zoom lens have different zoom ranges which we will equate to the screen width multiplier to obtain throw distance. say one lens is 2.4 to 3.6 while another is 1.4 to 2.4. Assuming all else is equal, one will not get better results re pin cushioning by choosing the first longer lens experience has shown that once you get to a throw multiplier of 1.6 or greater and are willing to slightly overscan at 1.78, pincushioning will be essentially unnoticeable at 2.35. Allowing one to use a flat rather than curved screens.

There are a lot of factors here and using the longest zoom range will minimize use of the Isco glass. a good thing in theory.

The sex factor. the rreal reason most that can afford it choose a curved screen. Would you rather your woman be flat or curved especially if the curves are the right places?/ Well for many her, their HT is their sex now. Unfortunate but true. Scared to admit it?


As Alan says his curved screen looks good even with no image shining on it. Thanks for sharing that Alan. It tells us a lot. Gee. I guess I'll go out and look at my DTV antenna dish. It has a cool curved shape too and even though I can't see any images on it, I know all those great HD content stuff is being picked up even if my love, my projector, is not turned on.

Obbviosly a curved screen will give one a sharper image away from the center of the screen. Most projector lenses have decent depth of focus field. This a design parameter because projection screens are large by any standard and with a lens centered horizontally on the screen the distances to various points on the screen from the lens will vary substantially. But if the lens is designed correctly the depth of focus field will permit sharp corner focus when the center or botom center or top center is also sharp. Put up a lens resolution test pattern and check out how good you lens is in this regard.

Now add an Isco lens or some other horizontal strech lens in front. The depth of field will be substantially reduced, You can see this by say placing a piece of paper in front of your screen and moving it from the screen surface closer to the lens. Without the Isco, the image stasys in good if not perfect focus for quite some distance. Add the Isco and as you move forward things rapidly go out of focus. Not awful but not as good as before.

How to combst this? Obviously as you move a point (ze lens) farther away from a plane (ze screen), the difference in measured differences from points on a plane and the because less ans less significant. Obviously the difference of plus or minus 4 inches is move significan when the center distance point is 10ft than it is at a center distance point of 20 feet. Thats one of the reasons to use maximum throw. Pincushion gets eliminated (mostly) and edge to edge focus is better beause one uses less depth of field. So a non curved lens is OK.


As you move closer then you need a curved screen to fight pincushioning and to get good edge to edge focus.


Now obviously different zoom lens have different zoom ranges which we will equate to the screen width multiplier to obtain throw distance. say one lens is 2.4 to 3.6 while another is 1.4 to 2.4. Assuming all else is equal, one will not get better results re pin cushioning by choosing the first longer lens experience has shown that once you get to a throw multiplier of 1.6 or greater and are willing to slightly overscan at 1.78, pincushioning will be essentially unnoticeable at 2.35. Allowing one to use a flat rather than curved screens.

There are a lot of factors here and using the longest zoom range will minimize use of the Isco glass. a good thing in theory.

The sex factor. the rreal reason most that can afford it choose a curved screen. Would you rather your woman be flat or curved especially if the curves are the right places?/ Well for many her, their HT is their sex now. Unfortunate but true. Scared to admit it?


As Alan says his curved screen looks good even with no image shining on it. Thanks for sharing that Alan. It tells us a lot. Gee. I guess I'll go out and look at my DTV antenna dish. It has a cool curved shape too and even though I can't see any images on it, I know all those great HD content stuff is being picked up even if my love, my projector, is not turned on.

Now that Mark has tried to utterly confuse you - beware that Mark strongly recommended a curved screen to me from the very start. He told me I would not be very "deep" (get it -depth of field) without it.

40' radius is a good match for the Isco 3. I have 2 Stewart curved screens. One is what I call a radical curve. I love it.
Heres a pic of a deep curved screen, great for gaming. Curved screens are cool looking even when nothing is projected on them.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c387/itsmeto/curvedscreenImage5.jpg

Alan,

Some people collect coins, stamps, trains or even DVD's.

You have an amazing collection of projectors, screens and other pieces of HT gear! If you get bored with a setup, you can swap it out every few days. Awesome!

Regards,
Anthony

Anthony somewhere in my warehouse I have a 1 eye crt. Its monochrome, about 3 feet long 12" square, it works great and is one for the museum :)

Anthony somewhere in my warehouse I have a 1 eye crt. Its monochrome, about 3 feet long 12" square, it works great and is one for the museum :)

How is the 2.35 CIH CRT setup coming along?

Anthony somewhere in my warehouse I have a 1 eye crt. Its monochrome, about 3 feet long 12" square, it works great and is one for the museum :)

It ain't even a color one-eyed monster;). Even color one-eyed CRTs aren't too rare in the US, the Sony Vidimagic series pops up on ebay fairly regularly. Many probably made it out onto front lawns of former Avon ladies, cleaning the garage, as well. There are also the prisma three-tube models from Electrohome.

Anthony somewhere in my warehouse I have a 1 eye crt. Its monochrome, about 3 feet long 12" square, it works great and is one for the museum :)

I had to move it. Looks like a giant oscilliscope. :)

Not trying to confuse anyone. Curved is the best solution but if trying to save some money it is not necessary with the right set up perameters. Curved masked screens are expensive.

Obbviosly a curved screen will give one a sharper image away from the center of the screen. Most projector lenses have decent depth of focus field. This a design parameter because projection screens are large by any standard and with a lens centered horizontally on the screen the distances to various points on the screen from the lens will vary substantially. But if the lens is designed correctly the depth of focus field will permit sharp corner focus when the center or botom center or top center is also sharp. Put up a lens resolution test pattern and check out how good you lens is in this regard.

Now add an Isco lens or some other horizontal strech lens in front. The depth of field will be substantially reduced, You can see this by say placing a piece of paper in front of your screen and moving it from the screen surface closer to the lens. Without the Isco, the image stasys in good if not perfect focus for quite some distance. Add the Isco and as you move forward things rapidly go out of focus. Not awful but not as good as before.

How to combst this? Obviously as you move a point (ze lens) farther away from a plane (ze screen), the difference in measured differences from points on a plane and the because less ans less significant. Obviously the difference of plus or minus 4 inches is move significan when the center distance point is 10ft than it is at a center distance point of 20 feet. Thats one of the reasons to use maximum throw. Pincushion gets eliminated (mostly) and edge to edge focus is better beause one uses less depth of field. So a non curved lens is OK.


As you move closer then you need a curved screen to fight pincushioning and to get good edge to edge focus.


Now obviously different zoom lens have different zoom ranges which we will equate to the screen width multiplier to obtain throw distance. say one lens is 2.4 to 3.6 while another is 1.4 to 2.4. Assuming all else is equal, one will not get better results re pin cushioning by choosing the first longer lens experience has shown that once you get to a throw multiplier of 1.6 or greater and are willing to slightly overscan at 1.78, pincushioning will be essentially unnoticeable at 2.35. Allowing one to use a flat rather than curved screens.

There are a lot of factors here and using the longest zoom range will minimize use of the Isco glass. a good thing in theory.

The sex factor. the rreal reason most that can afford it choose a curved screen. Would you rather your woman be flat or curved especially if the curves are the right places?/ Well for many her, their HT is their sex now. Unfortunate but true. Scared to admit it?


As Alan says his curved screen looks good even with no image shining on it. Thanks for sharing that Alan. It tells us a lot. Gee. I guess I'll go out and look at my DTV antenna dish. It has a cool curved shape too and even though I can't see any images on it, I know all those great HD content stuff is being picked up even if my love, my projector, is not turned on.

What I would like to know is if the curved screen is so great then why did Art and Jeff go with flat screens?

What I would like to know is if the curved screen is so great then why did Art and Jeff go with flat screens?
Because like so many things there are trade offs no matter which way you go. Mark is correct that a curved screen reduced pin cushioning, but with a good lens such as an Isco and the correct throw distance, pin cushioning is so small as to be a non-issue for most. A curved screen is indeed sexy and I think another way to put it is that for some viewers it perhaps creates a psycho-visual phenomenon of greater immersion. For others it may create the exact opposite effect, and they may perceive it as a distortion. YMMV

What I would like to know is if the curved screen is so great then why did Art and Jeff go with flat screens?

I considered a curved but went with a flat.. As Mark mentioned above, my set up allowed me to do. I have a 32 ft throw and my pincushioning is neglidgeable.. Moreover, it was straight forward to build out the stage area for a flat screen for a more inetgrated look and my large baffle wall is well suited to the flat screen. I also worried about the few seats in my theater that are quite off axis. I am not dissatisfied in the least with my flat screen. CIH has been a fantastic option in my theater. I have less light output but the image is still plenty bright. The 14' size, to me, trumps the reduced light output... but that's me. I'll get a brighter projector someday but for now, I am still enjoying my Qualia..... glad it came with a 700W Xenon!

I considered a curved but went with a flat.. As Mark mentioned above, my set up allowed me to do. I have a 32 ft throw and my pincushioning is neglidgeable.. Moreover, it was straight forward to build out the stage area for a flat screen for a more inetgrated look and my large baffle wall is well suited to the flat screen. I also worried about the few seats in my theater that are quite off axis. I am not dissatisfied in the least with my flat screen. CIH has been a fantastic option in my theater. I have less light output but the image is still plenty bright. The 14' size, to me, trumps the reduced light output... but that's me. I'll get a brighter projector someday but for now, I am still enjoying my Qualia..... glad it came with a 700W Xenon!

Jeff, for you, that makes good sense!!!

For me, as I did with CRT (my little then 80" wide screen), I am being somewhat conservative with my screen size. Sure, I'd like to go bigger. But I don't want the fan noise on high power. I wan the DLP "pop" after bulb burn-in. And as discussed above we were able to move up just above mid throw range even with the ISCOIII to have better brightness yet maintain picture quality - but doing so gives a bit more pincushion but the curved screen takes care of that fine. And I do think the curve is sort of cool. But I don't have any factors like you do that contraindicate the curve, either.

It ain't even a color one-eyed monster;). Even color one-eyed CRTs aren't too rare in the US, the Sony Vidimagic series pops up on ebay fairly regularly. Many probably made it out onto front lawns of former Avon ladies, cleaning the garage, as well. There are also the prisma three-tube models from Electrohome.


I'm 40 and this stuff is before my time.

Going to a long throw, using near the longest end of your zoom, and overscanning slightly at 16 x 9, which of course means overscanning 2.35 too, minimizes most every problem and maximizes the blacks but does reduce brightness because of using the long end of the zoom.

Mark,

When you say 'long end of the zoom' are you refering the end where the picture is smallest or largest?

Curve, lens choice and thus throw ratio, zoom constraints and thus zoom position, power setting, secondary lens effects: As my C3X and AB's spreadsheets demonstrate, each one has direct on-screen effects in either geometry, brightness, and or CR. The best scenario with one parameter is often the worst case for another parameter. One must start with some defined constants and work toward them, finding the best fit for their room. As has been said many times on this forum, there is often no best solution. Although for a given projector, there is probably a range that I would consider a sweet spot.

For Steve, the goals communicated to me were 15ftL on an aged bulb, at 2.35, and as close to a 11' wide screen as practical. My recommendations to Steve are based on those specific constants, finding a good medium fit that allowed for some "adjustability" coincident with bulb aging. And to preserve as much of the high CR this PJ is capable of while still having a large(r) screen. This setup allows some flexibility via power and iris settings as well. There are other ways to do it of course, but they all have pros and cons.

And, some other customer might want 20ftL, which changes everything.

Cheers,
Scott

Going to a long throw, using near the longest end of your zoom, and overscanning slightly at 16 x 9, which of course means overscanning 2.35 too, minimizes most every problem and maximizes the blacks but does reduce brightness because of using the long end of the zoom. re "minimize most every problem": I contend that "reduce brightness" is one of the problems. Further it is one of the main problems when trying to get a large screen. If not for that, we'd likely all be using 1/4 cost RS2's on 14' screens :). So yes, low power, closed iris, max/long/narrow zoom does mostly cure the geometry problems, and it does provide great blacks and CR, but at a significant hit on brightness. Which prescribes a smaller screen size. Unless you are OK with 11ftL on 2.35 (for Steve's 11' wide 2.35), which some will be.

I think Scott is right - go smaller than 11'. I just tried my mine on a 11' Firehawk (less than 50 hours on bulb, low lamp, D65, iris open or closed, no ISCO in path, but at the end of the throw) and it was very dim. Movies were watchable, but TV looked dark. Reminded me of my old CRT when I was watching 6 ftL.

I need an HT5000 :D

Because like so many things there are trade offs no matter which way you go. Mark is correct that a curved screen reduced pin cushioning, but with a good lens such as an Isco and the correct throw distance, pin cushioning is so small as to be a non-issue for most. A curved screen is indeed sexy and I think another way to put it is that for some viewers it perhaps creates a psycho-visual phenomenon of greater immersion. For others it may create the exact opposite effect, and they may perceive it as a distortion. YMMV


Absolutely agree. When rebuilding my front I had the choice of curved or not. I don't like the look of curved screens. In a room like IMAX I understand. I have right around 1/2" of pincusion over 14'.Additionally, a curve requires quite a bit more depth when building a screen wall.

Art

Jeff. I mean the higher throw multiplier end. The image size to fill your 16 x9 portion of the screen before streching horizontally with a second lens. This position would maximize CR, minimize brightnes, improve across the screen focus, minimize pin cushioning, and use the least amount of glass in the second lens. I do agree that get gray has maximized what Steve and I are trying to accomplish with his set up. he knows a lot more than me.

My post specifically mentions the extreme position does cost a lot of light. that's why from the beginning I recommended a screen of 10 ft width. Willing to go to 10 1/2 too but no more.

Now I am a CRT guy like Steve was. I could be happy with 11 ft lamberts, hell I only get about 7 ft lamberts with my CRT. And yes, I have seen 13 foot lamberts at the Telluride film festival and think its the ideal brightness for film. I wish I could obtain that and still have close to CRT blacks with a digital. I'd sacrifice pin cushioning. it isn't noticeable in real life especially with some over scan. My tendency is to go small re screen size. Go gray to get better blacks. There really is no right choice but there are right choice ranges to get the wanted result. THAT WHAT GET GRAY HAS DONE. HE'S THE MAN HERE. Wants must be defined by an educated customer.For a couple of dumb f__ks like Steve and I, we have become somewhat educated. Its scary.

Absolutely agree. When rebuilding my front I had the choice of curved or not. I don't like the look of curved screens. In a room like IMAX I understand. I have right around 1/2" of pincusion over 14'.Additionally, a curve requires quite a bit more depth when building a screen wall.

Art

Art

perhaps it is because my screen is smaller than yours and or because of the black ASC sound panels on the front wall, in my room you cannot tell I am using a curved screen unless you get right up close to the screen

Absolutely agree. When rebuilding my front I had the choice of curved or not. I don't like the look of curved screens. In a room like IMAX I understand. I have right around 1/2" of pincusion over 14'.Additionally, a curve requires quite a bit more depth when building a screen wall.

Art


It sounds like pincushioning can only be seen on a test pattern and not really in actual video. If so, then why are so many people making a big issue out of this? If I had my choice I would rather have a flat screen.

If so, then why are so many people making a big issue out of this? If I had my choice I would rather have a flat screen.

I have never understood this ether other then this is the AVS forum the only place people complain or know about rainbows with 1 chip DLP.

Tilting the Isco 3 up or down allows you to spread the pincushion evenly top/bottom or add more to the top leaving the bottom perfect or vice versa.
On a flat screen properly aligned you might end up with less then an inch at both boarders. Know one will ever detect this.
A lot of things are very over exaggerated here.

....A lot of things are very over exaggerated here.

Isn't THAT the truth. There have been many A/V related concerns expressed here (forum in general) that quite frankly didn't amount to very much once you actually work with the issue.

I've always assumed it was just a product of forum members seeking "perfection," as if that really exists.

Jim

Isn't THAT the truth. There have been many A/V related concerns expressed here (forum in general) that quite frankly didn't amount to very much once you actually work with the issue.

I've always assumed it was just a product of forum members seeking "perfection," as if that really exists.

Jim


Come on. If forum members were seeking perfection, we would still be hanging heavy 9" modded CRTs, stacking them, and goin' nutso!!!:D:D

We are seeking relative perfection. There is a difference.:D

Come on. If forum members were seeking perfection, we would still be hanging heavy 9" modded CRTs, stacking them, and goin' nutso!!!:D:D

We are seeking relative perfection. There is a difference.:D

Actually we would all have Dwin PJ's;)

Mark, thanks. I can't take too much credit, I am a child compared to the collective experience floating around here. Experience is important in this arena.

re the curve: Yes, it's not a huge deal either way at long throws IMO. Flat *will* work fine and is not a requirment for this or any 2.35 setup, except for a short throw. Got a huge TR like Arts, definately not required. After all, even at Steve's current selection of a 54" screen and a 16.25 throw (TR~2.0), I think the pincushion calculation works out to about 0.6", so not too bad, even flat. But I love the way they look.

That is the pincushion prediciton from AB's tool, but FWIW, the test screen where I took Steve's measurments was 51.5" tall, 19' throw (TR~2.5), and it had 3/8" pincushion (measured), calculator says .385. The 0.01" Margin of error is easily due to measurment ability, which reading glasses I had on at the moment, and whether or not it was Margarita night :D

Steve, I have almost your exact setup. The lens is 16.8 ft from my 56 by 132 in. flat 1.3 screen and I have about .5 pincushioning on top and botton. My room is totally controlled and seems plenty bright, but I only have about 30 hrs on it so far. For me, I would not give up screen size for a little brighter picture. When my picture becomes to dim to enjoy, I will replace the bulb. Seems kind of strange to me that with 40K to 100k theaters , people are concerned about having to replace a $900 bulb every 400 or 500 hrs.

Steve, I have almost your exact setup. The lens is 16.8 ft from my 56 by 132 in. flat 1.3 screen and I have about .5 pincushioning on top and botton. My room is totally controlled and seems plenty bright, but I only have about 30 hrs on it so far. For me, I would not give up screen size for a little brighter picture. When my picture becomes to dim to enjoy, I will replace the bulb. Seems kind of strange to me that with 40K to 100k theaters , people are concerned about having to replace a $900 bulb every 400 or 500 hrs.

We each make our own decisions! The beauty of being a home theater nut.

I take it you have an ISCOIII???

Actually, your eyes mind may surprise you. As the picture dims gradually, you might not even realize the "pop" is party gone until you whip out a light meter and remind yourself. HA!

Which Aerial speakers do you have? I now have four 9s, one CC5, three SW12s. Using Theta Enterprise Monoblocks now. (Upgraded in past year from Aerial 10Ts and Bryston 7Bs).

I take it you've got a flat screen. Side masking panels???

As I continue to maintain, a curved screen used with a horizotal stretch lens will give you sharper focus t the extremities than a flat screen.with the same set up. Can you see it while watching a movie? Who obsesses re the corners while watching?

Come on. If forum members were seeking perfection, we would still be hanging heavy 9" modded CRTs, stacking them, and goin' nutso!!!:D:D

We are seeking relative perfection. There is a difference.:D

I beg to differ ,as much as I loved my 9" CRT stack it was never going to reach perfection.

Art

.......We are seeking relative perfection. There is a difference.:D


Damn lawyers.:D

Damn lawyers.:D

Careful. Senator McCain told a bad lawyers joke today - I threw it away!!!

Some folks don't get it. Bad lawyers are like the movie "Bad Santa".

I beg to differ ,as much as I loved my 9" CRT stack it was never going to reach perfection.

Art

You took me seriously?

Einstein's Theory of Relativity

Bryzonsky"s Theory of Relative Perfection

Sonneborn's Theory of Perfection Personified

Haflich Theory of Somebody Refill Art's Wineglass and Bruzonsky Shut Up and Watch the Game

Careful. Senator McCain told a bad lawyers joke today - I threw it away!!!

Some folks don't get it. Bad lawyers are like the movie "Bad Santa".

Hey Steve, you know I'm just kidding.:) Hell, I still take interesting cases, but they've got to be VERY interesting to get me out of my theatre.:D

Jim

Hey Steve, you know I'm just kidding.:) Hell, I still take interesting cases, but they've got to be VERY interesting to get me out of my theatre.:D

Jim

I know. Mark's kidding, too. I'm kidding, too. I really bought a Sony:rolleyes:

Einstein's Theory of Relativity

Bryzonsky"s Theory of Relative Perfection

Sonnenborn's Theory of Perfection Personified

Haflich Theory of Somebody Refill Art's Wineglass and Bruzonsky Shut Up and Watch the Game

Mark are you still spelling my name wrong again because of my Halflich mistake that time ?

Sonneborn

PS Do you think that if I put that Sonneborn theory in my signature I'd make some more friends ?

Sorry. just a typo, nothing more.

All who have met you are proud to call you a friend, so I don't think a signature line addition would make any difference. I spent a day playing with the HT5000. A really nice machine (actually sold two of them). The HT5000 makes almost everything else I've sold look like toys. Its got the heft of a small CRT and a look inside and at the lenses makes one feel their getting their money's worth.

I do like the ring of perfection personified since absolute perfection like immaculate conception, to me, is not possible while perfection within a set of defined parameters could be obtained.


But if say a glossy magzine did an article on your HT, a good lead in tag would be Perfection Personified.


God. What dribble I sometimes post.

Sometimes?

OK.

Frequently

Sorry. just a typo, nothing more.

All who have met you are proud to call you a friend, so I don't think a signature line addition would make any difference. I spent a day playing with the HT5000. A really nice machine (actually sold two of them). The HT5000 makes almost everything else I've sold look like toys. Its got the heft of a small CRT and a look inside and at the lenses makes one feel their getting their money's worth.

I do like the ring of perfection personified since absolute perfection like immaculate conception, to me, is not possible while perfection within a set of defined parameters could be obtained.


But if say a glossy magzine did an article on your HT, a good lead in tag would be Perfection Personified.


God. What dribble I sometimes post.

Sometimes?

OK.

Frequently

The 1999 Stereophile Guide to Home Theater articel re my home theater was
titled "Tweaked to Perfection". Beat ya to it. HA!

It should have been Tweaked to Beyond Perfection! 110% of Perfection.

I am currently checking with Don Stewart re the following and then Mark Haflich will order my screen:

I have held off on finalizing the screen until now. My dedicated dark hole home theater room has been under renovation, installing and hiding cables/wires to new projector at a new throw distance, repainting, etc. And my initial Sim2 C3X 1080 (T2 lens)was defective and shipped back to Sim2 by my dealer, Mark Haflich/Soundworks. Then I had my replacement projector go over to Scott Horton, the Cineslide manufacturer, for some testing, so I could properly determine screen size and throw. This has just been completed.

I appreciate that generally the “safe” advise when using an ISCO III is to use the longest lens available and mount at the very rear of the throw range, as this ensures that the light from the projector doesn’t spill outside the ISCOIII lens and that the beam is the most perpendicular to reflect back to the viewer. But this “safe” advise may vary some depending upon the specific performance of the projector. So I decided to take some extra time to get my setup as perfect as possible.

Scott Horton, in his testing of my projector, found that at the D65 factory menu setting (which is very close to a full ISF calibration at D65) Exceeds 1100 lumens, that light output linearly decreases using the zoom with further throw distance, and Scott felt that I would get similar but brighter picture quality by using a shorter throw which would work fine with the ISCOIII. And I decided on a Cine-V, Studiotek 1.3, 2:35 54” high solid (not AT) screen with drop down side masking.

The projector’s T2 lens throw range is 1.75 to 2.4. Not supposed to use first and last 6". We are using throw of 16.25' from screen. Throw ratio of 2.03125. Scott felt this would give me roughly 15-17% brightness increase with no significant loss of picture quality, as any pincushion is being taken care of with the curved screen. (At max throw there was hardly any pincushion period and a flat screen would have been ok.)

The question what should be the radius of the curved screen given the above factors?

Scott used Aussie Bob’s calculator and determined that a 40 foot radius (which I think is the standard radius you would recommend for this screen anyway) was appropriate. I know that Steve Williams recently got a Cine-V 120” wide with a 40’ radius and a 40.2” bowl.

However, Scott also mentioned that technically, the 16:9 portion of the screen would be bowed inversely a small amount, but that this would be corrected by a bit of overscan for the 16:9, and then the 2:35 would be perfect. But an alternative is to compromise the curve some between what works best for 2:35 and for 16:9. If I wanted to do that, Scott noted that I could consider a 46” radius with 3.7” bowl (a little less curve than necessary for 2:35 to accommodate 50% 1:78).

I kind of like the idea of a perfect 2.35 with 40’ radius, and don’t mind a bit of overscan for 16:9, provided that its not something I will notice.

Anyway, Don Stewart will be giving me his advise on this. What do you think, folks?


Don Stewart said its a good idea to do a compromise on the curve betwen whats best for 2:35 and whats best for 16:9 so that both look good. So he and Scott are thinking along the same path here. Plus, I asked Scott if I optomize only for 2:35, then any captions toward the bottom of a 16:9 screen will be more likely to be overscanned away or noticeably distorted.
So I am doing the compromise, calculated at a 46 foot radius (40 foot radius was optimal for 2:35).

So its a Stewart Filmscreen Cine-V, Studiotek 1.3, 2:35 54” high solid (not AT) screen with drop down side masking!!

Projector will arrive (shipped by Scott Horton, who had been testing it) next week. Screen may be 4 weeks out, perhaps earlier. Will wait for screen to arrive before final install of everything.

Today, as I have precise mounting distance, my handyman is finishing the room renovation including finishing running wires and AC (a 10 guage Romex line from the rear of my component racks, where it will connect to an APC S15UPS Sinewave unit) by where the projector will be mounted, and then patch up the ceiling drywall, mud and repaint (mud and then repaint will take a few days of mudding and drying to be done right).

I just got done reassembing my Michael Green component racks (3), which I had disassembed and which were lightly sanded, repainted two coats and clearcoated two coats.

Handyman also finished a platform for the rear row of three leather recliners with dimmable rope lighting around borders. That platform will be carpeted a nice dark grey/silver pattern to match side walls tomorrow (rest of carpet is black).

I am gettin' there.

Just to throw awrench into things, I'dgo with the ideal curve for 2.35... 16:9 films are few and far between and are rarely up to the PQ of scope films - usually dialog driven.....optomize for scope films.

Just to throw awrench into things, I'dgo with the ideal curve for 2.35... 16:9 films are few and far between and are rarely up to the PQ of scope films - usually dialog driven.....optomize for scope films.

Hi Jeff

I have to agree with you here. At least for the movies I prefer most seam to fall into the scope category. At times I prefer leaving my setup in scope even for 16x9. As pointed out there is no right or wrong. What ever works for each of us is all that matters and thats what is correct.

Just to throw awrench into things Troublemaker :)

Hi Jeff

I have to agree with you here. At least for the movies I prefer most seam to fall into the scope category. At times I prefer leaving my setup in scope even for 16x9. As pointed out there is no right or wrong. What ever works for each of us is all that matters and thats what is correct.


I thought both you and Jeff "The Bland" use flat screens - so whether to set the curved screen's curve to optomize for 2:35 or 16:9 isn't an issue for either of you, is it? Or is my memory no good!!!

Alan, I know the other month you told me you were using a flat screen. Of course, you change out so much who knows, maybe you're using the big curved gaming screen you showed us in this thread??:)

The problen is say for watching espn on 16 x9, overscanning for pin cushion err blanking and then losing some of the text stuff on the screen botrtom. 46" is a good compomise and we are picking nits here. Very little difference between 40 ft radius and 46 ft radius for a 126 wide screen.

The problen is say for watching espn on 16 x9, overscanning for pin cushion err blanking and then losing some of the text stuff on the screen botrtom. 46" is a good compomise and we are picking nits here. Very little difference between 40 ft radius and 46 ft radius for a 126 wide screen.

Sorry. I've been picking nits nits nits nits nits.

Don Stewart and I've been having trouble connecting as we're both so busy.

Don just called.

They sell about 1,000 consumer curved screens per year now. Not enough to buy the expensive precision equipment to bend metal properly - curved screen bending is much more complicated to do right than standard "straight" flat screens. My Cine-V size is "popular" and they stock the parts already "bent" for standard popular curves of say 30 and 40. If I go with a non-standard curve, they're glad to do it, but it goes out to their Aerospace contractor and will take at least two extra weeks, maybe more.

I must admit I think I've been nitpickin'. (What else is new?) For 16:9, the text at the bottom may not be "perfect" lettering, but as we will be technically overscanning the 16:9 to not bow/pincushion at the bottom, and as text is usually up a tad from the very bottom, I probably won't even notice it. Don said they've never had complaints about this from anyone,
that the occasional complaint was improper placement of the projector perhaps a few inches too high which could cause some shadowing (he recommended placing the projector lens several inches below the top of the screen, not even with the top of the screen).

And I've been drivin' Mark nutso, too.

We'll just make the order for the "standard" 40 foot radius, which by chance happens to be just perfect for my 2:35. And that will make my "flat" brethren The Bland and Alan happy as they like that choice!!!@@

(But will I change my mind tomorrow?)

Sorry. I've been picking nits nits nits nits nits.

Don Stewart and I've been having trouble connecting as we're both so busy.

Don just called.

They sell about 1,000 consumer curved screens per year now. Not enough to buy the expensive precision equipment to bend metal properly - curved screen bending is much more complicated to do right than standard "straight" flat screens. My Cine-V size is "popular" and they stock the parts already "bent" for standard popular curves of say 30 and 40. If I go with a non-standard curve, they're glad to do it, but it goes out to their Aerospace contractor and will take at least two extra weeks, maybe more.

I must admit I think I've been nitpickin'. (What else is new?) For 16:9, the text at the bottom may not be "perfect" lettering, but as we will be technically overscanning the 16:9 to not bow/pincushion at the bottom, and as text is usually up a tad from the very bottom, I probably won't even notice it. Don said they've never had complaints about this from anyone,
that the occasional complaint was improper placement of the projector perhaps a few inches too high which could cause some shadowing (he recommended placing the projector lens several inches below the top of the screen, not even with the top of the screen).

And I've been drivin' Mark nutso, too.

We'll just make the order for the "standard" 40 foot radius, which by chance happens to be just perfect for my 2:35. And that will make my "flat" brethren The Bland and Alan happy as they like that choice!!!@@

(But will I change my mind tomorrow?)


you are being overly anal again

At 16:9 on my CineV there is absolutely perfect lettering.

Sometimes a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing:rolleyes:

you are being overly anal again

At 16:9 on my CineV there is absolutely perfect lettering.

Sometimes a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing:rolleyes:

Lets have a bit of fun. I am going to e-mail you Aussie Bob's spreadsheet. Plug in your throw and screen height and tell us what your perfect 2.35 curve is with his spreadsheet. Your screen curve is a standard 40 foot radius. And yes, you are right, it is fine. HA!

I feel fortunate that video is not the end all be all to me... OTherwise I would have over analyzed as well. I got my info from Alan and Art... They liked flat screens and my situation was completely ammenable to such.. Whatever you get, you'll love..

Just ask OB... he had no idea whjust how great things would look until all was installed..... and look how it all turned out. If you step back from it all, there are really no bad options here.

I feel fortunate that video is not the end all be all to me... OTherwise I would have over analyzed as well. I got my info from Alan and Art... They liked flat screens and my situation was completely ammenable to such.. Whatever you get, you'll love..

Just ask OB... he had no idea whjust how great things would look until all was installed..... and look how it all turned out. If you step back from it all, there are really no bad options here.

HA! You over analyze??? If anyone over analyzes, its OB, when it comes to stereo. But on video OB is just like most of you (and me except for when I'm overly anal which lately has been all too often), you tell me how to do it and do it. I don't wanna know all the gory details. Asking too many whys just gets more confusing, that's for darn sure!!!

But if not for being overly anal, Scott wouldn't have helped me by testing my projector and helping me make a good decision re moving up throw distance some, giving me better brightness, and thus as my bulb dims my theater shoujld go brightly!~@@@

I feel fortunate that video is not the end all be all to me... OTherwise I would have over analyzed as well. I got my info from Alan and Art... They liked flat screens and my situation was completely ammenable to such.. Whatever you get, you'll love..

Just ask OB... he had no idea whjust how great things would look until all was installed..... and look how it all turned out. If you step back from it all, there are really no bad options here.

you just have to have faith

Honestly I am in awe as to how good mine looks. If my good friend Steve B waits to order his screen and customizes the curve by sending it out to the aerospace engineers I will not only be on my 3rd bulb by the time he is ready to install his but the expense of the screen tweak will be in the ozone. IMO at some point one has to consider the Law Of Diminishing Return. I predict that he will see no appreciable difference...Ha@@@

Stupid me. After all I have known Steve for what? Almost 10 years. I called Stewart this morning and said final decision. 46 ft radius. That's what the customer wants. He won't be changing his mind. Sure Right OK to start the special drawings for the 46 ft radius. Now first thing Monday I'll call and change it again. Ugh.

you just have to have faith

Honestly I am in awe as to how good mine looks. If my good friend Steve B waits to order his screen and customizes the curve by sending it out to the aerospace engineers I will not only be on my 3rd bulb by the time he is ready to install his but the expense of the screen tweak will be in the ozone. IMO at some point one has to consider the Law Of Diminishing Return. I predict that he will see no appreciable difference...Ha@@@


HA! Ossie Bob's spreadsheet shows that for a 2:35 height of 51" (OB's),
you get a 40 foot radius with a 16.4 foot throw!!! OB can't tell the difference. If its ok for him its ok for me! I'm getting the 40 foot radius, too.

I think OB's throw was something like 12.8 feet? If so, the spreadsheet shows 32.5 foot radius as optimal. Of course, to compromise between 16:9 and 2:35 approaching 40 foot would be about right. Not that OB or I would visually understand the difference - that takes a John Gannon type.:D:eek:

Stupid me. After all I have known Steve for what? Almost 10 years. I called Stewart this morning and said final decision. 46 ft radius. That's what the customer wants. He won't be changing his mind. Sure Right OK to start the special drawings for the 46 ft radius. Now first thing Monday I'll call and change it again. Ugh.

Yes, stupid you for listening to me again!!!

Pity my poor poor wife.

HA!!!!

(But this AM I didn't know that it would be several weeks extra delay to be the go between radius screen man with the odd 46 foot radius!!!!! Cause probably I'm the first nutso to request that. HA!)

Diminishing returns? We are talking a $32,500 projector and a megabuck Stewart curved mask screen and now you talk about some stupid law? The only thing that is diminishing is my sense of humor and I am still laughing. Besides we have about 60 hours until Stewart reopens and Steve has plenty of time to further reflect. My day off on Sunday will be hosting a shoot out between my CRT, a Sony VPL-vw200, and an RS2. After I drive a quick RT 200 miles to see a customer for 15 minutes.

OTherwise I would have over analyzed as well. I got my info from Alan and Art... .


Smart guy ! I love my video it is all but end all be all. :D

Mark,
I thought the name thing was a trend since you called me Art Sonnenburg at my house when you were announcing winners at the drawings.

Art

Diminishing returns? We are talking a $32,500 projector and a megabuck Stewart curved mask screen and now you talk about some stupid law? The only thing that is diminishing is my sense of humor and I am still laughing. Besides we have about 60 hours until Stewart reopens and Steve has plenty of time to further reflect. My day off on Sunday will be hosting a shoot out between my CRT, a Sony VPL-vw200, and an RS2. After I drive a quick RT 200 miles to see a customer for 15 minutes.

Maybe I should just get a flat motorized screen which drops from the ceiling???

(KIDDING?)

Or just a flat screen to be like The Bland.

(ABSOLUTELY KIDDING!)


Mark likes to talk about "field of depth", like with a camera, and how the curved screen helps to put the outer edges of the picture in focus.

But I have a better way to communicate this in plain English. HA!

Take your home theater audio. You set ms delays if some speakers are a different distance from the main listening position. Getting this right can noticeably improve the sonics, or shall we say get you the sound that the director intended rather than mismoshing the sound.

Well, with the advent of wide and wider 2:35 Cinemascope screens, as your
digital projector beams outward and the beam gradually increases in size to fill the screen, the outer edges/parts of the beam reach the screen later than
the inner portion because the distance is further. A straight line is shorter than a longer line to the sides of the screen, DUMMY!

WOOPS. Does this analogy make sense. Sound travels at - the speed of sound. Light travels at - THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Can that tiny wormhold of
iddty bitty delay cause the sides to be out of focus??? Is this a benefit of a curved screen.

Poor Mark will be up all night trying to explain this one.

This is a perfect example of overly anally analogizing everything isn't it???

Smart guy ! I love my video it is all but end all be all. :D

Mark,
I thought the name thing was a trend since you called me Art Sonnenburg at my house when you were announcing winners at the drawings.

Art

Sonnenburg better than SonneBUG!

Steve...your screen is so small the out of focus potential is neglidgeable....

Just order something!!:D

Curved or flat? I prefer flat but I love the looks of a curved screen.

Alan, that preferwnce is going to givce Steve insomnia tonight...:D

HA! Ossie Bob's spreadsheet shows that for a 2:35 height of 51" (OB's),
you get a 40 foot radius with a 16.4 foot throw!!! OB can't tell the difference. If its ok for him its ok for me! I'm getting the 40 foot radius, too.

I think OB's throw was something like 12.8 feet? If so, the spreadsheet shows 32.5 foot radius as optimal. Of course, to compromise between 16:9 and 2:35 approaching 40 foot would be about right. Not that OB or I would visually understand the difference - that takes a John Gannon type.:D:eek:

Steve--I must have missed why you and OB went with the Cine-V rather than the CineCurve screen? It seems most everyone is planning on the Cine-V and a bit of overscan rather than variable masking... Perhaps I am being obtuse, but I can't seem to figure this out--even using Aussie Bob's spreadsheet...;)

I know, I know!!! Cause the CineCurve is about a 1/2 order of magnitude more $$$ ? :D:D But man those Stewardt VistaScopes/CineCurves are sweeeet.

I love the Cinecurve and it's sister the Vistascope. With the CineV you lose the ability to maks all aspects, mainly 4:3 for old stuff. But for the fundamental switch between 2.35 adn 1.78, it's not a bad choice. Certaintly better than a unmasked solution. Not as asthetic or speedy a mask change, but once changed, who cares.

Indeed they are. I love automating them during installs along with your slide. Talk about impressive!

Curved or flat? I prefer flat but I love the looks of a curved screen.

Are you talkin' about screens or gals???

Steve:

Constant Area, good night

Steve--I must have missed why you and OB went with the Cine-V rather than the CineCurve screen? It seems most everyone is planning on the Cine-V and a bit of overscan rather than variable masking... Perhaps I am being obtuse, but I can't seem to figure this out--even using Aussie Bob's spreadsheet...;)

simple

The CineCurve is for those AVS members with two Ferraris in their garage :)

Well that certainly isn't me....although if anyone has a couple spare Ferrari's they wanted to donate, I'll take 'em. :)

I'll get a CineCurve if someone will split a Ferrari with me.

Steve:

Constant Area, good night


Narrow width, must use constant area. Bad planning!!!!@@:p

GetGray,

How is Steve's projector? Did it recover from the drop? I know you said the case did not break but were you able to inspect the inside before you shipped it to him?

GetGray,

How is Steve's projector? Did it recover from the drop? I know you said the case did not break but were you able to inspect the inside before you shipped it to him?

That is too funny

GetGray,

How is Steve's projector? Did it recover from the drop? I know you said the case did not break but were you able to inspect the inside before you shipped it to him?

Right. Scott is so overly anal that although everything worked absolutely fine, he took days to take everything apart and inspect it under a microscope.
And he determined that there was plenty of room inside that little, tiny case that Health Nut complains about all the time! HA!

Sonnenburg better than SonneBUG!

Hey nothing wrong with Sonnenburg some of my best friends are Sonnenburgs, but it ain't my name.;)

Steve, I don't think you will see enough corve on that size screen to make your audio analogy meaningful, just MO.

Art

I know, I know!!! Cause the CineCurve is about a 1/2 order of magnitude more $$$ ? :D:D But man those Stewardt VistaScopes/CineCurves are sweeeet.

I love the Cinecurve and it's sister the Vistascope. With the CineV you lose the ability to maks all aspects, mainly 4:3 for ls stuff. But of r the fundamental switch between 2.35 adn 1.78, it's not a bad choice. Certaintly better than a unmasked solution. Not as asthetic or speedy a mask change, but once changed, who cares.


Scott, I didn't know that all this time. I have hundreds of pre 1953 films on my shelf.:eek: Dumb luck since I would have assumed they both went down to 1.33:1.

An interesting experience : Last weekend I watched The Hustler with Newman and Gleason. This is the only scope AR black and white film I've seen. I'm sure there are others but it was interesting.



Art

GetGray,

How is Steve's projector? Did it recover from the drop? I know you said the case did not break but were you able to inspect the inside before you shipped it to him? Shhhhh. I'm still trying to figure where this screw came from> DOH!, just came to me.... :eek::eek:

Shhhhh. I'm still trying to figure where this screw came from> DOH!, just came to me.... :eek::eek:

Now is that why they say that Steve has a "screw loose?";)

Now is that why they say that Steve has a "screw loose?";)

Right. Scott took apart my projector, all looked ok, but he couldn't figure out how to put it back together. So he shipped it to me in pieces. A Humptdy Dumpty puzzle for me to fit back together.:):D

simple

The CineCurve is for those AVS members with two Ferraris in their garage :)

And here I was thinking of opening a medical day spa so I could get some ML3's...;)

On the Stewart, last time I checked it was only $10k more or so for the CineCurve. In this "hobby" that's just a night out at the strip club. :cool:

And here I was thinking of opening a medical day spa so I could get some ML3's...;)

On the Stewart, last time I checked it was only $10k more or so for the CineCurve. In this "hobby" that's just a night out at the strip club. :cool:


OK I give up...you got me

I must say though that since my theater and screen went in I have been spending more time listening to audio and I must say that the ML 2.1 is superb in every way and should one never hear the ML 3 he (me) would be infinitely happy. I still maintain that the screen possibly has truly improved the sound in my room.

On the Stewart, last time I checked it was only $10k more or so for the CineCurve. In this "hobby" that's just a night out at the strip club. :cool:


My great friend OB does not need a night out at the strip club!

He's probably seen enough Ti*s, A** and P***y to last ten lifetimes.

Unfortunately, several Gynecologists I know have complained to me that the job isn't all it's cracked up to be. One Gynecologist told me (I don't remember if it was OB?) the job doesn't pay as well as everyone thinks and that he was always "in the hole".

I'm not sure what that means.

My great friend OB does not need a night out at the strip club!

He's probably seen enough Ti*s, A** and P***y to last ten lifetimes.

Unfortunately, several Gynecologists I know have complained to me that the job isn't all it's cracked up to be. One Gynecologist told me (I don't remember if it was OB?) the job doesn't pay as well as everyone thinks and that he was always "in the hole".

I'm not sure what that means.

I guess that is why I am retired

Narrow width, must use constant area. Bad planning!!!!@@:p


Au Contraire, Pierre, so so Contraire

OK I give up...you got me

I must say though that since my theater and screen went in I have been spending more time listening to audio and I must say that the ML 2.1 is superb in every way and should one never hear the ML 3 he (me) would be infinitely happy. I still maintain that the screen possibly has truly improved the sound in my room.

OB. your amps and speakers are the best. Your curved screen steers more of that fatabulous sound back at you in the sweet chair, so you hear an infintismal higher volume and it sounds better. Yet its all the same sound. HA!

But put your chair out just outside your screen and it won't sound as good!!!:cool:

I can't wait for my new screen to improve the sound in my room. That is why I am buying it. On OB's recommendation to improve my sonics!!! OB is my hero!

I still maintain that the screen possibly has truly improved the sound in my room.

It's hard to believe there is any way to improve upon your incredible audio system!

A typical Home Theater uses heavy dampening to control dozens of reflection points from multiple speakers. In some cases, "Less is More". A listening room optimized for two channel listening will utilize both dampened reflection points, combined with a higher gross area of reflective surface. This type of room will have enough control of reflection as necessary without over dampening, thus preserving some liveliness.

Your Wilson X2's have better rear firing drivers than most loudspeaker manufacturers use on their front baffles. The X2's rearward facing "ambience drivers" combined with the new, large, reflective surface of your screen are the most likely reasons for your perceived improvement in sound quality. The music probably sounds more "live", which is good thing.

It's hard to believe there is any way to improve upon your incredible audio system!

A typical Home Theater uses heavy dampening to control dozens of reflection points from multiple speakers. In some cases, "Less is More". A listening room optimized for two channel listening will utilize both dampened reflection points, combined with a higher gross area of reflective surface. This type of room will have enough control of reflection as necessary without over dampening, thus preserving some liveliness.

Your Wilson X2's have better rear firing drivers than most loudspeaker manufacturers use on their front baffles. The X2's rearward facing "ambience drivers" combined with the new, large, reflective surface of your screen are the most likely reasons for your perceived improvement in sound quality. The music probably sounds more "live", which is good thing.


my room is heavily damped so IMO has to be reflection from the curved screen focussed at my ears

Its wrong to heavily damp a room. The trick is a mixture of damping and difussion and reflection with a heavy heavy dose of base absorption. FACT A room can not be optimized for 2 channel and multichannel HTat the same time. A highly reflective screen between the left right speakers is NEVER a good thing. I am not getting into all this here. But damping behind the screen is generally the right thing to do.

Steve. Just think how the sound will change when the masks are down and your scren is 1.78 instead of 2.35. Another freekin tone control. Next we will be tweaking the masking.i

Its wrong to heavily damp a room. The trick is a mixture of damping and difussion and reflection with a heavy heavy dose of base absorption. FACT A room can not be optimized for 2 channel and multichannel HTat the same time. A highly reflective screen between the left right speakers is NEVER a good thing. I am not getting into all this here. But damping behind the screen is generally the right thing to do.

Steve. Just think how the sound will change when the masks are down and your scren is 1.78 instead of 2.35. Another freekin tone control. Next we will be tweaking the masking.i


Well next time you're in the SF Bay Area give me a call and I might prove you wrong with an audition at my place I am very anal about my 2 channel set up and I can tell you that there was no compromise after the installation of the screen. In fact I was so concerned about this that I was going to do a drop down screen as I had in my old theater

Its wrong to heavily damp a room. The trick is a mixture of damping and difussion and reflection with a heavy heavy dose of base absorption. FACT A room can not be optimized for 2 channel and multichannel HTat the same time. A highly reflective screen between the left right speakers is NEVER a good thing. I am not getting into all this here. But damping behind the screen is generally the right thing to do.

Steve. Just think how the sound will change when the masks are down and your scren is 1.78 instead of 2.35. Another freekin tone control. Next we will be tweaking the masking.i

I need to balance my renovated home theater room due to the new SO WIDE screen with large drop drown masks.

I will wear my Zorro outfit and mask for 2:35 movies to balance the Masks.
I will take it off for 16:9 movies!!!:D

I know what Mark will say. That will not be a pretty sight - me, with my mask and who knows what else off. Don't worry. I'll wear pink underwear under my Zorro costume.

Well next time you're in the SF Bay Area give me a call and I might prove you wrong with an audition at my place I am very anal about my 2 channel set up and I can tell you that there was no compromise after the installation of the screen. In fact I was so concerned about this that I was going to do a drop down screen as I had in my old theater

OB, generally I agree with Mark. But one trick doesn't work always for all. I'm sure yours works great for you.

OB, generally I agree with Mark. But one trick doesn't work always for all. I'm sure yours works great for you.

As long as you don't show up at my house with pink panties and your Zorro cape and mask

Its wrong to heavily damp a room. The trick is a mixture of damping and difussion and reflection with a heavy heavy dose of base absorption. FACT A room can not be optimized for 2 channel and multichannel HTat the same time. A highly reflective screen between the left right speakers is NEVER a good thing. I am not getting into all this here. But damping behind the screen is generally the right thing to do.



Hello Mark,

I believe we have made some of the same points, however your explanation is more eloquent sounding.

"A room can not be optimized for 2 channel and multichannel HTat the same time." Agreed!

As I stated in my previous post, multi channel rooms are acoustically different beasts, versus two channel. A room's acoustics must be engineered according to the intended primary purpose.


"A highly reflective screen between the left right speakers is NEVER a good thing". You are 100% correct. Except in OB's case! OB has perceived an overall improvement in sound quality with the screen installed. If he likes it, it's a good thing!


"damping behind the screen is generally the right thing to do". I do agree, with you.

This post is starting to sound too much like a Greenwich Village style love fest. I'm making myself disgusted agreeing with someone so damn much!


Behind solid screen material I prefer to use foam "egg crate style" acoustic panels.

101731


While I like the Chief RPA mounts quite a bit, they are certainly not over-built. As a perfectionist (STEVE B Are you reading?), the RPA mount's "quick disconnect feature" leaves me with a nagging feeling that the projector can accidentally be knocked off of the mount.

Of course I use the security bolts. As an added measure I always use safety cables when mounting projectors. On a C3X installation, I use three safety cables mounted between the projector's adapter plate and the upper RPA mount. On a Sim 2 300 Series, I use two safety cables. The larger the projector, the heavier gauge cable I use. The cables are vinyl coated steel cable and we braze heavy duty rings on the ends, finished off with heat shrink. What safety measures do you utilize when mounting projectors?

101732

Hello Mark,

I believe we have made some of the same points, however your explanation is more eloquent sounding.

"A room can not be optimized for 2 channel and multichannel HTat the same time." Agreed!

As I stated in my previous post, multi channel rooms are acoustically different beasts, versus two channel. A room's acoustics must be engineered according to the intended primary purpose.


"A highly reflective screen between the left right speakers is NEVER a good thing". You are 100% correct. Except in OB's case! OB has perceived an overall improvement in sound quality with the screen installed. If he likes it, it's a good thing!


"damping behind the screen is generally the right thing to do". I do agree, with you.

This post is starting to sound too much like a Greenwich Village style love fest. I'm making myself disgusted agreeing with someone so damn much!


Behind solid screen material I prefer to use foam "egg crate style" acoustic panels.

101731


While I like the Chief RPA mounts quite a bit, they are certainly not over-built. As a perfectionist (STEVE B Are you reading?), the RPA mount's "quick disconnect feature" leaves me with a nagging feeling that the projector can accidentally be knocked off of the mount.

Of course I use the security bolts. As an added measure I always use safety cables when mounting projectors. On a C3X installation, I use three safety cables mounted between the projector's adapter plate and the upper RPA mount. On a Sim 2 300 Series, I use two safety cables. The larger the projector, the heavier gauge cable I use. The cables are vinyl coated steel cable and we braze heavy duty rings on the ends, finished off with heat shrink. What safety measures do you utilize when mounting projectors?

101732

bear in mind that my front wall is covered from side to side with ASC sound panels so there remains some damping factor. As for your theory that the X-2's are rear firing and this is what the improvement is due to IMO is wrong. The X-2's are front ported and have absolutely no effect. There is an ultratweeter on the top of the speaker but also of no consequence due to its high frequency response (32Khz).

bear in mind that my front wall is covered from side to side with ASC sound panels so there remains some damping factor. As for your theory that the X-2's are rear firing and this is what the improvement is due to IMO is wrong. The X-2's are front ported and have absolutely no effect. There is an ultratweeter on the top of the speaker but also of no consequence due to its high frequency response (32Khz).

I never said the X2's are rear ported. I surmised that the rear firing ambience drivers may be interacting with your new screen in a very amicable manner:)

I never said the X2's are rear ported. I surmised that the rear firing ambience drivers may be interacting with your new screen in a very amicable manner:)

Perhaps...I just don't have an answer

Bear in mind that the change although present is not overwhelming but subtle

Perhaps...I just don't have an answer

Bear in mind that the change although present is not overwhelming but subtle

I may have to fly to CA for some double blind testing.

First, we listen to several passages of music.

Next, we go out for steaks and get drunk.

Then, we listen to more music while severely inebriated and adding some Remy to the mix. Hence, the double blind part. Of course, we will not figure out why things sound better in your room but it could be fun nonetheless.

I may have to fly to CA for some double blind testing.

First, we listen to several passages of music.

Next, we go out for steaks and get drunk.

Then, we listen to more music while severely inebriated and adding some Remy to the mix. Hence, the double blind part. Of course, we will not figure out why things sound better in your room but it could be fun nonetheless.

Anthony

I keep inviting you but you always have an excuse. You even have an upcoming installation in Redwood city and you passed on my offer

As long as you don't show up at my house with pink panties and your Zorro cape and mask


Perfect compliment for your Batgirl wife!!!@@@:eek:

Anthony

I keep inviting you but you always have an excuse. You even have an upcoming installation in Redwood city and you passed on my offer

OB, folks with brains DO NOT want to demo your system. First, they won't want to ever leave. COUCH POTATOES in training. Second, when they get home they'll throw out all their crap. Sometimes its better to live in igorance and to ignore someone else's bliss. Hard enough to ignore you in the forum. But in person with your fantastic system - now that would be hard to ignore!!!! You're my HERO!!

Audiodynamics, thanks, but my dealer Mark already has me covered on all that jazz.
I also have a Smell-O-Rama bomb which explodes if anyone without my DNA comes within two feet of the projector - it will smell-o-rize anyone within two feet, except me, into hallucinating that they are on the Oceania flight that crashd on The Island so they forget about stealing my projector.

For reference regarding curved screens, i tried to capture the radius on film. I was hoping it would show the difference between a 20 and a 40' radius. The 20 (7 feet wide ) has a decent curve to it. The 40 is 8 feet wide.

Heres a 40. Very slight curve.
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c387/itsmeto/IMG_6774.jpg

Heres a 20.
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c387/itsmeto/IMG_6783.jpg

Audiodynamics, thanks, but my dealer Mark already has me covered on all that jazz.
I also have a Smell-O-Rama bomb which explodes if anyone without my DNA comes within two feet of the projector - it will smell-o-rize anyone within two feet, except me, into hallucinating that they are on the Oceania flight that crashd on The Island so they forget about stealing my projector.

Good to see that you are a fan as well of one of my favorite TV shows (Lost)

Good to see that you are a fan as well of one of my favorite TV shows (Lost)

OB, you are my HERO. I would be "LOST" without you.;)

10.7" wide Screen Coming!!!@@@

You are shrinking Steve. Pity@@@@@Ha

10.7" wide Screen Coming!!!@@@

You are shrinking Steve. Pity@@@@@Ha

If only my bod was shrinking instead of my screen.

But my projector and screen will still be bright long after your
12 footer has darkened!!!

yeah right Homeboy:)@@@@@@@HA!

yeah right Homeboy:)@@@@@@@HA!


Its HOMETHEATERMAN, you bozo!!!@@:mad::D

No, HOMETHEATERMAN is trade marked by Peter Cineramax

Anthony

I keep inviting you but you always have an excuse. You even have an upcoming installation in Redwood city and you passed on my offer



I'll be using a sub-contractor to complete the Daly City install when that happens. I would really love to visit. I can never get away though and can't even get any vacation time with the family. You know I work for a maniac that never gives me a break!

I'll be using a sub-contractor to complete the Daly City install when that happens. I would really love to visit. I can never get away though and can't even get any vacation time with the family. You know I work for a maniac that never gives me a break!

Right


that maiac is "YOU":)

I also have a Smell-O-Rama bomb which explodes if anyone without my DNA comes within two feet of the projector - it will smell-o-rize anyone within two feet, except me, into hallucinating that they are on the Oceania flight that crashd on The Island so they forget about stealing my projector.

Steve,

Don't joke about the Smell-O-Rama. It's for real and it's not for the faint of heart.

Don't let these guys get to you. After all of your obsessive planning, plan changes, further changes, equipment orders, revised orders and sleepless nights, you're going to have a top notch system.

Seriously, it's better to do it right the first time and get the results you want. Once it's done you can forget about all of this crap and enjoy the movies! Please post Pics!

Like you, I tend to obsess over small details. While commercial projector mounts are adequate, we install safety cables on every overhead projector installation to minimize my paranoia about a projector falling on someone. I'm not worried about the person below, I'd hate to see a beautiful piece of equipment damaged. Once you get a chance to see the stock projector mount (which is a very nice piece by the way), it's quick disconnect feature and how the projector's mounting plate flexes with a load on it, you'll be demanding that your installer add the safety cables! :)

As for theft, that's why we have alarm systems, hand guns, trained attack animals and insurance.

OB, folks with brains DO NOT want to demo your system.

I don't think you are referring to me. If I had brains I'd go into a different line of work.


Second, when they get home they'll throw out all their crap.

Until recently, OB and I had a lot of the same crap. I've sold my personal set of Lamm amps and recently let my EMM Signature combo go. It was time for a different sound so went to an all Cary setup.



You're my HERO!!

When it comes to audio, OB is a hero. He manages to find the best of the best and anyone who copies what he does will end up in audio bliss.

Good news! Projector arrived and all is fine. Set up on a table yesterday, at about the planned ceiling mount throw range of 16.25'. Projecting on black wall for now. Set to
iris open (thanks to black textured wall), 200 watts - low bulb, D5, and picture looks darn good. Running 16:9 picture at same size it will be with my new screen, 96" wide.
I wonder what my "gain" is using my black wall - .5? Sort of like a heavy ND filter? Mark Haflich said I should play "ghost" and put up a white bedsheet. But the picture looks awful good as is. HA! Except for the wall texture and two black painted wood beams extending across the screen.

Screen may take up to four weeks to arrive. Then we'll ceiling mount, etc.

Glad it made it allright. I meant to tell you the other day that the Isco IIIS arrived while your C3X was going out the door. Would have loved to see if it would have worked with that panel, too late! :) Chances are almost nil however. I posted some photos of it in the 2.35 forum.

Steve. You big dummy. Your screen size will not be 10.7 INCHES as you posted. It will be 10 FEET plus 7 INCHES. That's why the shrinking posts.

I'd really like to order a Stewart screen that was 10.7 inches wide with a 40 inch radius. I think they would call it a screen material sample.

Steve. you big dummy. Your screen size will not be 10.7 INCHES as you posted. It will be 10 FEET plus 7 INCHES. That's why the shrinking posts.

I'd really like to order a Stewart screen that was 10.7 inches wide with a 40 inch radius. I think they would call it a screen material sample.

Woops. Gotta fix my AVS signature. HA!

Woops. Gotta fix my AVS signature. HA!

Doh!

Check out MY new signature!

Mark, you are NOT funny!!!@@@

Mark, you are NOT funny!!!@@@



funny!!!@@@ :eek:

Mark is posting little nothings here in the 20K forum and here's his new AVS signature:


"mark

STEVE

Theta Digital, Aerial Acoustics, Granite Audio cabling and power cords!

Sim2 C3X 1080 & Lumagen Radiance Here. 2:35 Stewart Cine-V 127" Wide Screen On Way! "


I called Mark and told him if he's gonna copy my signature, he needs to ditch that JVC RS-1 and get a real projector, the Sim2 C3X 1080. Mark was speechless and said he had to get back to work (I assume to earn some $$$ to buy the new projector)!!!!:D

Tell him he can one up you by purchasing the HT-5000. The new MSRP for that projector with lens is $61K.

Tell him he can one up you by purchasing the HT-5000. The new MSRP for that projector with lens is $61K.


Yea. Mark makes the big bucks. He's a Radiologist. He can write off the projector to view x-rays in his home office on the biggest baddest clearest screen with accurate black and white colors that make the x-rays fly off the screen.

Mark will be in Phoenix in less than a month. He already is making excuses that we have to meet for dinner and he won't have time to come over cause he doesn't want to see what he's missing by having that lowly JVC projector!!!!!!

Hey good idea 1080p write off

The RS1 is no slouch. I own it along with a C3X1080 and both have their merits. In fact it's often painful watching the RS1 after having watched the Sim and realizing what high contrast adds to the picture.

The RS1 is no slouch. I own it along with a C3X1080 and both have their merits. In fact it's often painful watching the RS1 after having watched the Sim and realizing what high contrast adds to the picture.

Mark should follow your lead!!!

Its really crazy owning multiple projectors and driving yourself crazy by continually switching between them. but not as crazy, as crazy Darinm as owning multiple screens and continually switching between them. Much saner to watch different source material.

Its really crazy owning multiple projectors and driving yourself crazy by continually switching between them. but not as crazy, as crazy Darinm as owning multiple screens and continually switching between them. Much saner to watch different source material.

Its really crazy that you posted the above at what 4 AM Maryland time???
YEESH!!!:eek:

Its really crazy owning multiple projectors and driving yourself crazy by continually switching between them. but not as crazy, as crazy Darinm as owning multiple screens and continually switching between them. Much saner to watch different source material.

I guess I'm also crazy then. I have 3 different 11' screens (identical sizes) and have been switching between them to try to find the optimal partner for my C3X1080. Very educational :D

I guess I'm also crazy then. I have 3 different 11' screens (identical sizes) and have been switching between them to try to find the optimal partner for my C3X1080. Very educational :D


Now add a few 10.5 and 10 foot screens to the equation for you to try and you'll really be nutso. And here OB thought I was "overly anal". HA!!!:D

I thought you were finding you liked the 1.3 gain screen the best but that you were considering going somewhat smaller???

Mark is posting little nothings here in the 20K forum.....
I called Mark and told him if he's gonna copy my signature, he needs to ditch that JVC RS-1 and get a real projector, the Sim2 C3X 1080. Mark was speechless......

I believed you until you said Mark was speechless I'd believe Bin Laden had become a Jesus freak at lot more easily.;):D

Art

Now add a few 10.5 and 10 foot screens to the equation for you to try and you'll really be nutso. And here OB thought I was "overly anal". HA!!!:D

I thought you were finding you liked the 1.3 gain screen the best but that you were considering going somewhat smaller???

I would have liked to have gone a bit smaller - 10.5' would be an ideal compromise in terms of staying large and maximizing footlamberts, but unfortunately I had ordered the two Stewart screens well before Scott's helpful spreadsheet. Even beforehand I thought about going smaller but I was limited by throw distance (because I wasn't ceiling mounting my throw was limited to 2.1 which was just behind my 2nd row; smaller screen would entail moving the projector closer).

I have been driving my wife crazy asking for her help in switching between the FH and the ST every 2nd day or so. Lately was preferring the FH, but yesterday I had it calibrated by Jim Doolittle (who insisted on using the ST) and it sure looks great now with the ST.

I have 100 hours on the bulb and am just getting 14.1 footlamberts, so I don't have much wiggle room. Ironically I'm leaning towards ceiling mounting so I could have gone with a slightly smaller screen...

I believed you until you said Mark was speechless I'd believe Bin Laden had become a Jesus freak at lot more easily.;):D

Art

Art knows Steve is prone to exaggerate, I wasn't speechless, my cell phone died:):eek:
I'm happy with the RS-1 cause I remember how dim my properly calibrated NEC XG135 on a 4:3 100 inch diagonal screen looked compared to my present set up. When the RS-1 get replaced, I'm sure I'll buy Sim2 C3X 1080p :p

Art knows Steve is prone to exaggerate, I wasn't speechless, my cell phone died:):eek:
I'm happy with the RS-1 cause I remember how dim my properly calibrated NEC XG135 on a 4:3 100 inch diagonal screen looked compared to my present set up. When the RS-1 get replaced, I'm sure I'll buy Sim2 C3X 1080p :p

By that time it will be a Sim2 C10C 1080p???

God. Why is it that my customers continually are engaging in long Johnson contests? I keep telling them that width counts just as much especially considering the age of and wear they have put on their women.

Whoops. Steve. Please. This is not aluding to screen width. Your screen width is perferct. If only you were.

The motto for you guys should be walk softly but carry a big stick.

Hört, Hört! Hear, hear! Steve will be perfect one day.

Not

Not

I will ALWAYS be just as perfect as I am right now!!!@@@
I even ripen with age!:D

Ripen is exactly the right word. To ripen, the sweetness must increase. Many fruits, Steve is not a fruit, ripen in that they become sweeter with age. A peach is as sweet as it is when picked. A peach may soften with age, but it does not become sweeter. So I conclude that while Steve may be becoming sweeter with his advancing old age, he is no peach.

Ripen is exactly the right word. To ripen, the sweetness must increase. Many fruits, Steve is not a fruit, ripen in that they become sweeter with age. A peach is as sweet as it is when picked. A peach may soften with age, but it does not become sweeter. So I conclude that while Steve may be becoming sweeter with his advancing old age, he is no peach.

You saying I'm a "Hard Ass"?

You and I wish we had the hard asses of our youth. I am say we along with our good friend Dr. Burnstein are indeed asses.

Hard Assess:)

Next we will start asking did you hear the one about the two Jewish lawyers and the Jewish doctor?

I need some of what you guys are drinking. <virtually swawying with buddies>

Hard Assess:)

__________________
mark

STEVE

Theta Digital, Aerial Acoustics, Granite Audio cabling and power cords!

Sim2 C3X 1080 & Lumagen Radiance Here. 2:35 Stewart Cine-V 127" Wide Screen On Way!




What are hard at assessing? How to misappropriate my NEW AVS signature
(I decided to let you have my last one that's above. HA!)

Or when you are getting a real 3 chip DLP projector?

Or when you will stop being a hard assess (either you can't spell, or you are a multiple A-S-S?)

___________________________________


My final step in OPTIMIZING my projector will be to get my screen someday per Mark's order. Meanwhile, my BLACK wall ain't bad and you don't need no masking system with a dark hole and a bright enough projector to light up a black wall.

Hard Asses Mark H and B plus the extra s for EWE!!

Forgive me for saying this but, This all seems like a lot to do when both Runco and Vidikron have all of this already worked out.

Forgive me for saying this but, This all seems like a lot to do when both Runco and Vidikron have all of this already worked out.


Explain???

Yes, please explain Steve.

Yes, please explain Steve.

I don't understand, Mark. Please explain?

What he said to you Steve, please explain.

What he said to you Steve, please explain.

Who said what? Please explain! How many times do I have to ask you?:(

Huh?

Huh?

The dick and the stooge.

I'm still trying to figure out who's who;)

He's both :)

The question is "who is 'he'"?

Doh, he is the one with the anal preoccupation with his Stewart Screen and choice of lens for his Sim 1080p!:)

Doh, he is the one with the anal preoccupation with his Stewart Screen and choice of lens for his Sim 1080p!:)


But Mark..he is an attorney...the facts speak for themselves. You are a doctor...shame on you:o

You are correct OB, I withdraw my objections about my friend Stevie B. Just burning up a little bandwidth here, sorry :) Does your Gothom set up cause any shaking of your lens system??

Who's on first? What's on second?This is a free ad on AVS from the firm of Sonneborn, Burnstein, Bruzonsky, and Haflich. Call if you have been in an on the job accident accident and need surgury and teeth straightening.

You are correct OB, I withdraw my objections about my friend Stevie B. Just burning up a little bandwidth here, sorry :) Does your Gothom set up cause any shaking of your lens system??

Mark...the PJ is mounted so securely that even a California earthquake will cause no shaking of the lens system

Thanks

The dick and the stooge.

Doc,

A lot of people are following this thread.

If you're into gay porn, try to keep that to yourself.

Who's on first? What's on second?This is a free ad on AVS from the firm of Sonneborn, Burnstein, Bruzonsky, and Haflich. Call if you have been in an on the job accident accident and need surgury and teeth straightening.

Better yet if you are wrongfully dead. Sometimes I think my AVS friends here are brain "dead"!

Think?

Think?

Know!!@@@:cool:

A one word question evoking the correct answer. Great legal technique if I do say so myself.

A one word question evoking the correct answer. Great legal technique if I dosay so myself.

There is only one word to describe me!

Big - No I've seen bigger but not been bigger

Dumb - No tho I act that way too much

Ass - No altho mine is big

BRILLIANT - Absolutely if I must say so myself!!!:D