2.35:1 Projector Recommendation

[RedTopDown]

I've begun construction of a windowless dedicated HT room approximately 30' long by 18' wide. The screen would be on one 18' wall end where the ceiling height will be 11'. At the other end, the ceiling height is 9'. Three rows of seating at 12.5' (seats), 18' (seats), and 21' (bar/counter).

I am planning to do a scope screen with an a-lens. While for movies the light will be nil to dim, during the day or entertaining, I would like to have some controlled lights around/over the seats/bar so it doesn't feel like you're always in the dark.

I would like to do a AT screen to place the speakers behind, so that limits my max gain to 1.2. To me, the room size dictates a scope screen with a width of 144". If I go smaller to make the ft-lamberts go up, it seems like the screen is not going to have the proper impact/wow factor for that room.

So my questions are:

1) Using Bale's calculator, what level of ft lamberts do I need to be shooting for to make all this work?
2) While projectors give their max lumens, most run in a cinema mode of far less. Should I figure the lumen rating in the calculation for each?
3) I've been considering projectors in the $7k-$10k range (i.e. JVC, Sony), but I'm wondering if I'm going to have to step up much more to get enough light to support my requirements.
4) If I do find a projector that pumps out enough light, will I lose the "pop"/depth factor?
5) What am I missing?

Thanks!

[mike2060]

The new Epsons have modes that are around 1500 lumens. But I'm sure you can get a projector for $10k that has more lumens and a better picture.

Your screen is 60 square feet. So divide lumens by 60 and you get fL. Then multiply by 1.2 for your screen gain. You should be able to get a nice bright image on your screen, and you will probably have the ability to get 30 fL for when there's some ambient light.

[Jason Turk]

Working backwords, let's assume you want 12 footlamberts (most would want more but unless you have a huge budget it isn't going to happen). 12/1.2 (x 61.28 square feet) = 612.80 lumens. Now, what is your throw ratio from the screen? What lens are you planning on using?
Unfortunately though this seems like an easy target, when you take into consideration lamp dimming, lens light loss, etc... it can cause issues.

[RedTopDown]

I was hoping for a projector location of either 18' or 28' to best integrate into my woodworking on the ceiling, hiding the projector within a hushbox/enclosure.

[RedTopDown]

As far as an A-lens, I was looking at the ISCO III.

[Daniel Hutnicki]

The Isco III is a great lens and its one of the best although its expensive. There are several other lenses out there you may be interested in looking at but if you want the best, the Isco is the way to go

[RedTopDown]

So, unless I step up into the $20K-$30K for a projector range, this just isn't going to work for a 144" wide scope screen?

If so, am I better off building the screen to 12' wide and masking down to say 10' and then using a projector like the Panny HE4000 with zooming for scope to start off?

With technology changing so rapidly, it would be reasonable to assume that a projector to push the 12' wide scope would be around in a year or two at a much better price point.

If I drop down to the 10' wide screen, and do a JVC RS25 with an ISCO III, I'm looking at $15K, give or take against a Panny of $2,500. I understand that the a-lens may provide a better solution, but the projector is my issue at this point given the high lumen requirement.

Thoughts?

[Nasty N8]

Your considering a $6k lens but would settle for a Panny projector???? Logic???? Buy the best lens you can afford now it will work with any future projector. You could prob get good light on an 10'-11' screen out of the Sony, JVC, Planar projectors. I run an old Sony VW50 which has alot less lumens than the newer projectors with a Panamorph 440 Lens and a 10' 2.40 AT screen and it is plenty bright. Few more lumens and I think you could squeeze 11-11.5' out of it.

[RedTopDown]

You need to re-read my last post. I'm not comparing the two setup at all and I'm not trying to avoid the $15k price tag. The problem comes from the fact that to drive a 12' scope screen that I want I just can't get the proper lumens from the Sony, JVC, etc. I would need to be up in the $20-30k range according to most here.

Now, that being a reality of today, I don't want to give up the desire for a 12-13' wide scope screen because I feel the room dictates it and I want that wow factor. If I buy the $6k lens and the $8-9k projector and decrease my screen to 10' wide, that projector will never drive a 12-13' version in any future. Neither will the Panny.

So, my "logic" is asking why not go with the Panny now on the 10' and when a projector in the $8-12k range appears that can drive the 12-13', make the switch then to that projector and an a-lens setup. In non-depreciated dollars I would be out $2.5k and not $7-8k. I realize the a-lens would live on to the next projector.

[elmalloc]

I have a sim2 PJ that I'm donig 129" wide 1.78 on a white wall and it's perfectly fine in brightness - that would be 171" wide scope (14.3 feet).

My PJ is not a 3K in cost, but it's nowhere near 20K. I haven't done scope yet, but I plan to within the next year. I'm sure it will be plenty bright even for 14' wide.

I don't think you have to spend as much as people are saying.

[RedTopDown]

elmalloc

You're projecting a 65 sq ft image which would be a 12.5' 2.40:1 equivalent when talking sq ft of display.

I think the big issue is the throw, losing lumens going through an a-lens, and wanting to have ambient light during the day and watching TV/sports.

I wish I could get a good feeling of how to proceed.

Thanks.

[CT_Wiebe]

RedTopDown -- That is not correct (post #9). The Epson 9500UB (the price hasn't been announced yet, but around $3500 to $4000 MSRP) should put out over 1100 Lumens in it's Cinema Day mode and over 1300 Lumens in it's Vivid mode (based on last years units).

For a 144", 2.35:1, gain = 1.2, screen, that will give you just over 20ft-L in the Cinema Day mode, and just over 25ft-L in the Vivid mode. That is a lot brighter than in a movie theater. Those numbers are at the mid-point throw distance of about 22' for the Epson 9500UB. If you move the 9500UB closer (16' 3" to 17' 3") you will get about a 30% brighter image. Those numbers are from last years 7500UB model (http://www.projectorreviews.com/epso...nce.php#bright), and the new 9500UB has about the same lumen output.

Therefore, your needs can be satisfied with an Epson 9500UB for the basic PJ, while staying under $5K for the PJ alone. I agree, that the current, $5K to $10K PJs won't do the job, you also don't have to go to the over $20K professional (movie theater) PJs to do it either.

Per Jason Turk's post, the equation for figuring the needed Lumens = ft-L x screen area in square feet / screen gain = 20 x 61.28 / 1.2 = 1021.3 Lumens. The THX recommendation (the last time I looked) is between 12ft-L and 16ft-L for watching movies. Around 20ft-L to 22ft-L is better for a brighter image (more "pop" - a grossly overworked and misused term) and for watching sports. BTW, all sports programming is in the 16:9 format (or 4:3), so you won't be using the full 2.35:1 screen area and the image will be brighter just due to that fact.

[Vern Dias]

You can get a very good cinema comparable image on a 144" screen with the JVC projectors. In a totally light controlled you you certainly don't need more than 16 fl and even a 12 fl image will look brighter than what you will see in the great majority of commercial theaters.

I'm running a JVC RS20 on a 5'x13' 1.0 gain screen and it's plenty bright on low lamp with an Iris setting of 8 and 250 hours on the lamp.

I'm using an Isco lens, which has maybe a 2% to 3% light loss which is far more than ofset by using the entire vertical area of the DILA panel.

Yes, you may need to relamp at 1000 hours rather than 2000 hours, but lamps aren't that expensive....

Vern

[phisch]

Originally Posted by Vern Dias

You can get a very good cinema comparable image on a 144" screen with the JVC projectors. In a totally light controlled you you certainly don't need more than 16 fl and even a 12 fl image will look brighter than what you will see in the great majority of commercial theaters.

I'm running a JVC RS20 on a 5'x13' 1.0 gain screen and it's plenty bright on low lamp with an Iris setting of 8 and 250 hours on the lamp.

I'm using an Isco lens, which has maybe a 2% to 3% light loss which is far more than ofset by using the entire vertical area of the DILA panel.

Yes, you may need to relamp at 1000 hours rather than 2000 hours, but lamps aren't that expensive....

Vern

I agree. Any of the JVC RS projectors should work very well with a 144" wide scope screen in a dedicated room. I'm using a JVC pj on a 120" wide AT screen on low lamp with several hundred hours on the bulb and I still have lumens to spare.

[RedTopDown]

Originally Posted by Vern Dias

You can get a very good cinema comparable image on a 144" screen with the JVC projectors. In a totally light controlled you you certainly don't need more than 16 fl and even a 12 fl image will look brighter than what you will see in the great majority of commercial theaters.

I'm running a JVC RS20 on a 5'x13' 1.0 gain screen and it's plenty bright on low lamp with an Iris setting of 8 and 250 hours on the lamp.

Thanks for the info. What throw do you have and are you using a curved screen? While I believe that it could work for movies in a low/no light situation, how do you think it will perform when I want to put the lights up 12'-30' back from the screen when I want to entertain during TV and sports or just not always want to sit in the dark?