Grayhawk & foot lambert calculation - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 7 Old 01-30-2001, 02:41 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
mflaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 1,529
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
In their AVS Special Guest thread, Don Stewart et al say that the Grayhawk is designed for projectors that put at least 11-12 foot lamberts on the screen. He also did a calculation for Lance, where he said that a Davis 450, with spec'd 500 lumens, would theoretically put 13.5 ftl (is that a real abbreviation?) on an 80" x 60" Grayhawk screen. He said realistically, you'd probably get about 10.

Now, I'm thinking about using a Davis DLX650 clone, which is rated at 800 lumens, on a 100" diag (89" x 48") 1.85:1 screen. I'm also considering using an anamorphic lens, vs. not using one. If I use an ISCO, I'll be using all 768 vertical pixels, whereas if I don't, I'll be using about 554 pixels, or 72%. So without the ISCO, I imagine I'll have 72% of the foot lamberts I would have *with* an anamorphic lens.

So now I'll try to get myself in trouble by scaling the 10 foot lambert number that Don quoted. If I take 800 lumens / 500 lumens * 72% * 10 foot lamberts, I get 11.5 foot lamberts. But I don't think that takes into account my wider screen... Do I adjust based on the linear width of the screen, or the increased area, or what? Or am I hopelessly lost? I'm sure it's the latter...

Mike
mflaster is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 7 Old 01-30-2001, 05:32 PM
Member
 
SofaCinema's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Little Rock AR USA
Posts: 175
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Mike here is what you need:

We generally follow the SMPTE standard that you need between 15-20 ft. lamberts of light reflecting of the screen to be acceptable. In order to figure this just plug the numbers into this simple equation.
(Projector Output / Sq. Footage of screen) x Screen gain = Foot lamberts
The Projector Output measurement must be in ANSI Lumens for this to work properly.
For example: Say your projector has a 1000 ANSI lumen rating and your screen is 6'x8'(48 sq. ft.) 1.0 gain. (1000/48)*1.0 = 20.8. If you were to use the new HC Da-Mat (0.8gain) you get: (1000/48)*0.8 = 16.6. Either one is acceptable for this application given there is no ambient light issues. If there are, the 1.0 or even 1.3 might be a better choice.

So in the case of a 800 lumen projector you would get:

without isco 800 x .75 = 600 lumen 600/30=20 20x.8=16 foot lamberts

with isco 800/30=26.5 26.5x.8=21.20 foot lamberts

hope this helps.
SofaCinema is offline  
post #3 of 7 Old 01-30-2001, 08:53 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
mflaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 1,529
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks very much! Yes, that was very helpful.

So if ProjectorCentral says my Davis 650 has 800 ANSI lumens (I guess manufacturer's spec), but then I set up the projector for home theater (i.e. maximum contrast), what do you think my real ANSI lumens will be? Don seemed to take about 75% - does 600 lumens sound reasonable?

Mike
mflaster is offline  
post #4 of 7 Old 01-31-2001, 10:35 PM
Advanced Member
 
Phil Olson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Port Angeles, Washington
Posts: 852
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Noting that light sensitivity is a log function, wouldn't it be true that although 16 fl is ideal, 8 fl would be a barely noticeable difference?

It would definitely not seem like half as bright to the eye.

Phil
Phil Olson is offline  
post #5 of 7 Old 02-02-2001, 06:54 PM
Advanced Member
 
steve5097's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 682
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
In a perfectly dark room, your eye will adjust so that an 8 f-l picture won't look half as bright as a 16 f-l picture. Add in even a little ambient light, and the 8 f-l picture will look bad compared to the 16 f-l image.


------------------
Steve

Steve
steve5097 is offline  
post #6 of 7 Old 02-02-2001, 09:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
KFung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I agree with that wholeheartedly, the G90 at the Faroudja booth was putting out 8 foot lamberts (according to Don Stewart, in that same thread I believe) and it looked plenty bright to me in a fairly dark room. Not to mention very beautiful.

Regards,

Kam Fung
KFung is offline  
post #7 of 7 Old 02-05-2001, 09:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
Phil Olson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Port Angeles, Washington
Posts: 852
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Thanks guys, that's kinda what I was thinking. I do have complete light control.

Phil
Phil Olson is offline  
Closed Thread Screens

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off