Benq w6000 - Page 19 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #541 of 2424 Old 12-12-2009, 03:46 PM
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronco70 View Post

Received the Star Trek BD from netflix today and watched those trailers. With that viewing and other BD discs that have scenes of rapid changes from very low to high APL's and back again, I'm convinced that the DI works very well with FW v.1.0. I'm more than satisfied.

Sitting close enough with audio muted I have been able to hear the iris action. Not a real issue. With any reasonable audio playing it is a complete non issue.

One can also see the DI working if you really look for it. I truly believe non AVS addicted types would never notice.

The lumen output on this pj is quite amazing. At this point all I have had time to do is adjust black/white level, color, tint and sharpness.

After watching a few familiar films on BD my thought is that with a little work the greyscale tracking and CIE points will look most impressive.

Joe

The reason I asked was because of the "fade to black" being used so frequently in those trailers. The DI seemed like it couldn't keep up- like it was always behind, trying to catch up. It was awkward and distracting to watch during those trailers.

Have you played with the DB max/min settings in the service menu?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronco70 View Post

These are scenes from Star Trek? I'll be watching it tonight for the first time. I also have the HQV and Spears & Munsil BD's to evaluate that sort of stuff.

Nice work on your HT, must have been a fun project. A labor of love?

Joe

The Dark Knight I believe is what he was referring to. I watched that recently, and the IMAX scenes were spectacular. I'll have to watch again to look closely for jaggies...
LilGator is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #542 of 2424 Old 12-12-2009, 05:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Anthony A.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada EH?
Posts: 2,539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
thats correct, the dark night (ie. batman).

Anthony A. is offline  
post #543 of 2424 Old 12-13-2009, 04:01 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles R View Post

How do you think the sharpness compares between the AE4000 and W6000?

I've spent very little time watching the AE4000 in the last couple of weeks and none in my theater room, and have hardly spent any time actually watching the W6000 (most of which was looking at contrast ratio kinds of things or screen texture issues), and the W6000 was way brighter than how I would normally watch the AE4000, so I couldn't really say with a lot of confidence. I would need to see them closer on the same screen and close to the same ft-lamberts with and without detail enhancement on on the AE4000 and with the fake frame interpolation off to really say. Even things as small as moving to closer or further viewing ratios can affect perception of sharpness. This W6000 does have some chromatic aberration that can be seen up close to the screen and that along with other factors can definitely affect this kind of thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles R View Post

Also why are you concerned about seeing above whiter than white (using PC levels)? For Blu-rays it shouldn't be an issue should it?

There have been some long debates about whether this really matters, but I believe there is some material with levels above video 235 and I lean toward leaving a small number of them visible. I don't think it is a huge deal to clip at 235 though. I think it would be pretty idiotic to design a system with reference white set below the peak in order to avoid hard clipping on whites and then have the sources get clipped at that point, but I get the impression that this is what has happened with a fair amount content, although it was one group creating the standard and then others interpreting the standard as meaning they should hard clip at 235. Anyway, that is a discussion for other threads (I believe there is at least one on the calibration forum), but not all Blu-rays are hard clipped at video level 235 (and people could argue about the percentages that are or aren't).

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #544 of 2424 Old 12-13-2009, 04:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,292
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Darin - "Fake frame interpolation"??? Isn't it implicit in the word "interpolation" that it is fake? Isn't it implicit in the word "acting", for example, that it isn't real, but faked? Should we refer to acting as "fake acting" or to all movies (except documentaries maybe) as "fake movies"?
Deja Vu is online now  
post #545 of 2424 Old 12-13-2009, 11:56 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post

Darin - "Fake frame interpolation"??? Isn't it implicit in the word "interpolation" that it is fake? Isn't it implicit in the word "acting", for example, that it isn't real, but faked? Should we refer to acting as "fake acting" or to all movies (except documentaries maybe) as "fake movies"?

Good point.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #546 of 2424 Old 12-14-2009, 02:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bronco70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:


awkward
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

The reason I asked was because of the "fade to black" being used so frequently in those trailers. The DI seemed like it couldn't keep up- like it was always behind, trying to catch up. It was and distracting to watch during those trailers.


You're right that all those fades are unusual and a bit much. I watched both with DI on and off. Exact same result. Just to convince myself that all is well I also watched on my 50" Panny plasma. Same result. One thing that did surprise was the W6000 is brighter on my 133" screen than the Panny!

Quote:


Have you played with the DB max/min settings in the service menu?

I've been in the service menu but have not played with any settings. Need to do a full calibration first. Did a quick measure with my eye-one.
Brightness +50, Contrast +50, Color +51, Tint 0, Sharpness +3. Economic lamp, Black Level 0 IRE, Gamma 2.2, color temp warm, BC off, DB on. All gains and offsets at factory default: +50. The greyscale was a bit cool running about 6700-6900K from 10-100 IRE. Gamma a little low at about 2.1. The CIE diagram had the REC. 709 primary and secondary points fairly close with the factory defaults. RGB luminance shows the expected: Green too high, Blue a little low and Red a bit lower than Blue. With adjustments to gains and offsets, I'm sure things will fall into line quite nicely.

Quote:


The Dark Knight I believe is what he was referring to. I watched that recently, and the IMAX scenes were spectacular. I'll have to watch again to look closely for jaggies...


Don't have that disc. I did use the jaggies test on the HQV benchmark BD. The W6000 passed with the max score of 20.

Joe
Bronco70 is offline  
post #547 of 2424 Old 12-16-2009, 01:22 PM
Member
 
SauceXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm looking for thoughts from anyone who had a W5000 and upgraded to the W6000?

I have this on my short list. My biggest beef with the W5000 was the lumens once calibrated. It just wasn't enough for me. The W6000 looks like it will solve that problem. But based on posts in this thread the noise from the DI and the fan seem like issues. I'd really like to read a comparison of the black levels and contrast too. As info the image noise was a non-issue for me unless BC was on. And even then it was only occasional. The color changes with BC on was much more of a problem. Again something that the W6000 seems like it would remedy.
SauceXX is offline  
post #548 of 2424 Old 12-16-2009, 02:06 PM
Member
 
tskalecki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Poland Gdynia
Posts: 72
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
any screen shot of this one will be nice,i am choosing between this one and optoma hd 8200,which one will be better in contrast ansi and shadow details
tskalecki is offline  
post #549 of 2424 Old 12-16-2009, 02:12 PM
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by SauceXX View Post

I'm looking for thoughts from anyone who had a W5000 and upgraded to the W6000?

I have this on my short list. My biggest beef with the W5000 was the lumens once calibrated. It just wasn't enough for me. The W6000 looks like it will solve that problem. But based on posts in this thread the noise from the DI and the fan seem like issues. I'd really like to read a comparison of the black levels and contrast too. As info the image noise was a non-issue for me unless BC was on. And even then it was only occasional. The color changes with BC on was much more of a problem. Again something that the W6000 seems like it would remedy.

I had both the W5K and W20K. I wish I could be helpful, but they were used so differently, I'm not sure I can draw any comparisons. The W5K/20K were both used on a white 1.0 gain 84" screen- and my current W6K is blasting a 159" High Power.

My W5K/20K were 1ft behind my head, and now the W6K is a good 10ft behind my head. In both cases the iris and fans never bothered me.

I turn BC off at night in cinema mode, and turn it on with standard mode during the day time (sports)- I don't notice excessive image noise either way.

The only thing I have issue with is the iris, it seems more aggressive than the previous models. This probably helps contrast a bit, and full blackouts on this machine are insanely black (something I wasn't expecting), but the movement is visible when I'm not fully immersed in a movie (so it rarely bothers me).

Dark scenes are the biggest weakness of this projector. Strong lumen output in best mode is it's strength.

If you're looking for a W5000 but a lot brighter, there's really nothing I can think of that this machine doesn't do the same or better.
LilGator is offline  
post #550 of 2424 Old 12-16-2009, 03:10 PM
Member
 
SauceXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

I had both the W5K and W20K. I wish I could be helpful, but they were used so differently, I'm not sure I can draw any comparisons. The W5K/20K were both used on a white 1.0 gain 84" screen- and my current W6K is blasting a 159" High Power.

My W5K/20K were 1ft behind my head, and now the W6K is a good 10ft behind my head. In both cases the iris and fans never bothered me.

I turn BC off at night in cinema mode, and turn it on with standard mode during the day time (sports)- I don't notice excessive image noise either way.

The only thing I have issue with is the iris, it seems more aggressive than the previous models. This probably helps contrast a bit, and full blackouts on this machine are insanely black (something I wasn't expecting), but the movement is visible when I'm not fully immersed in a movie (so it rarely bothers me).

Dark scenes are the biggest weakness of this projector. Strong lumen output in best mode is it's strength.

If you're looking for a W5000 but a lot brighter, there's really nothing I can think of that this machine doesn't do the same or better.

Any thoughts on the color wheel? This thread has some posts on it being slower than the W5000 and louder with 24p material. IIRC correctly the W6000 has a 6 segment vs 7 segment on the W5000. Any consensus on how this effects performance? Can you confirm the W6000 has a CCA like the W5000 or another CMS?

I was projecting on to a 106" 1.0 gain screen with a 15' throw. The W5000 was about 3' off the floor 1' behind me. I ran it mostly in high power BC off, but sometimes in whisper with BC on. The fan noise never bothered me. What I didn't like was apparent lack of lumens, especially when calibrated. There always seemed to be a grey veil over the image, only BC could cut thru it. The problem with BC is it changed the color space (too much red) and added a "digital" look on some material, and posterization on others.

I had a Planar DC3 PD7150 and the picture was beautiful but just didn't have the resolution of the BenQ (720p vs 1080p). The Lumens were less but the overall image, colors, blacks, were deeper and more balanced. If the W6000 with a DC3 can match that with more brightness I'd be a happy camper.

Thanks for the input and sorry for the long post.
SauceXX is offline  
post #551 of 2424 Old 12-16-2009, 03:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Charles R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 9,793
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by SauceXX View Post

Any thoughts on the color wheel? This thread has some posts on it being slower than the W5000 and louder with 24p material.

I believe Darin found it's displaying 24Hz as 96Hz (3x) which is louder than 60Hz. In the service menu he could set it to 2x and it became much quieter... displaying it at 48Hz. My old Optoma displays 24Hz as 48Hz and you could hear the color wheel slow down and the noise dropped along with it. I never saw any rainbows at the slower speed for what's it worth.
Charles R is offline  
post #552 of 2424 Old 12-16-2009, 03:24 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

The only thing I have issue with is the iris, it seems more aggressive than the previous models. This probably helps contrast a bit, and full blackouts on this machine are insanely black (something I wasn't expecting), but the movement is visible when I'm not fully immersed in a movie (so it rarely bothers me).

Sounds like you might be best off going into the service menu and reducing the maximum iris position. I think mine was at +84 for the default. If you reduce that number a little then the iris shouldn't close down quite as much. I don't know how much that would affect the visibility of it working to you, but probably worth a shot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles R View Post

I believe Darin found it's displaying 24Hz as 96Hz (3x) which is louder than 60Hz. In the service menu he could set it to 2x and it became much quieter... displaying it at 48Hz.

That is right, but just one small correction. The 3x should be 72Hz as far as that goes. Or the colorwheel is most likely 5x in 60Hz mode and can be either 4x or 6x in 24Hz mode (since RGB are on the colorwheel twice and it can rotate at 2x or 3x in 24Hz mode).

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #553 of 2424 Old 12-16-2009, 03:37 PM
Member
 
SauceXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

That is right, but just one small correction. The 3x should be 72Hz as far as that goes. Or the colorwheel is most likely 5x in 60Hz mode and can be either 4x or 6x in 24Hz mode (since RGB are on the colorwheel twice and it can rotate at 2x or 3x in 24Hz mode).

--Darin

Just to be clear, 5x speed with 60Hz and 6x speed (default) with 24Hz. The service menu allows a step down to 4x speed for 24 Hz material. Correct?
SauceXX is offline  
post #554 of 2424 Old 12-16-2009, 10:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bronco70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by SauceXX View Post

I'm looking for thoughts from anyone who had a W5000 and upgraded to the W6000?

I have this on my short list. My biggest beef with the W5000 was the lumens once calibrated. It just wasn't enough for me. The W6000 looks like it will solve that problem. But based on posts in this thread the noise from the DI and the fan seem like issues. I'd really like to read a comparison of the black levels and contrast too. As info the image noise was a non-issue for me unless BC was on. And even then it was only occasional. The color changes with BC on was much more of a problem. Again something that the W6000 seems like it would remedy.

Surprised that the W5000 was not bright enough on a 106" screen. How much ambient light are you dealing with? Also will you be staying with the same screen?

I've upgraded from a BenQ PE-7700. On my 133" HP screen the W6000 has more than ample lumen output in economic mode. This is in a completely light controlled room. In my setup a 106" screen would most likely require an ND filter with a new lamp.

As Art suggested the 6000 can handle a 150" screen. I have no doubt it would in full lamp mode.

Fan noise on the 6000 is very similar to the Ben 8700, 7700 and based on one evening viewing at a friends home the W5000. Typical, it would seem for DLP pj's. Not a concern imo.

After about 40 hours now I have no concern about the audible noise of the DI. Lately I have been using test discs to start a full calibration and in that situation with no audio the DI action can be heard. With any normal program material and audio running there is no issue. The benefit to black level is obvious.

Not sure about TI's BC. With all that is available to adjust this pj will be fun to calibrate but it will take some time.

Anybody else been in the middle of a greyscale measure and had the spouse or kids open the door to the HT and turn on the room lights?

Joe
Bronco70 is offline  
post #555 of 2424 Old 12-17-2009, 06:49 PM
Member
 
SauceXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
While I'm asking, has anybody compared the W20000 to the W6000? Are the black levels comparable or is the W20000 still better?
SauceXX is offline  
post #556 of 2424 Old 12-17-2009, 09:23 PM
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Few pics, not too good at this, but hopefully useful to someone...

This is a ~25ft throw, 159" Da-lite High Power. Lights off shots are cinema, BC off, economy lamp, warm color. Lights on standard, BC on, standard lamp, normal color.






LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LilGator is offline  
post #557 of 2424 Old 12-17-2009, 09:35 PM
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Few more:






LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LilGator is offline  
post #558 of 2424 Old 12-17-2009, 09:54 PM
Member
 
SauceXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
How close are these to what you see in person? The Blacks on the ref look really nice and deep.
SauceXX is offline  
post #559 of 2424 Old 12-18-2009, 02:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
HiHoStevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Las Vegas & Cedar Hills
Posts: 3,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
What is the angle from the projector to the screen...? I could not tell where the projector was mounted.

There are just two theories for successfully quarreling with a woman -- neither one works!
The Barn - Use Password = AVSForum
HiHoStevo is offline  
post #560 of 2424 Old 12-18-2009, 04:19 AM
 
SteveMo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Shop
Posts: 3,564
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Few more:

It will help to keep the camera on-axis like this one.

SteveMo is offline  
post #561 of 2424 Old 12-18-2009, 04:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Anthony A.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada EH?
Posts: 2,539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
wow, nice pics. could you tell me if you remember motion judder when viewing the "colts vs. jaguars" scene? i know that a similar scene did indeed have judder (atleast to my eyes) when viewing the w5000.

thanks.

Anthony A. is offline  
post #562 of 2424 Old 12-18-2009, 08:07 AM
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by SauceXX View Post

How close are these to what you see in person? The Blacks on the ref look really nice and deep.

Pretty close. In bright scenes like that, the bright portions are so bright, the blacks feel black. It's when scenes get dark that the black level rises and doesn't seem so black. This one gives you a better idea of a dark scenes with a few bright spots, but even then most of it isn't a real black, a little around the Jaguars text is close.:



Quote:
Originally Posted by HiHoStevo View Post

What is the angle from the projector to the screen...? I could not tell where the projector was mounted.

Are you asking where it was mounted in relation to the center of the high power material or how high in relation to viewing height? The projector is mounted dead on center to the screen- I've only really used vertical shift. The projector lens height is about 66" tall, about 10 ft behind seating, and seated eye height is roughly 42".

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMo View Post

It will help to keep the camera on-axis like this one.


Are you saying it's better for maximum brightness? I took a few off axis so people could understand what the high power looks like out of it's "sweet spot".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony A. View Post

wow, nice pics. could you tell me if you remember motion judder when viewing the "colts vs. jaguars" scene? i know that a similar scene did indeed have judder (atleast to my eyes) when viewing the w5000.

thanks.

Thank you. I can't recall seeing any judder- the NFL Network broadcast was very clean and looked great even at 11.5ft wide. If there was judder, I didn't see it. I'll keep an eye out on Saturday night during the Saints/Cowboys game!
LilGator is offline  
post #563 of 2424 Old 12-18-2009, 09:32 AM
 
SteveMo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Shop
Posts: 3,564
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Are you saying it's better for maximum brightness? I took a few off axis so people could understand what the high power looks like out of it's "sweet spot".

On-axis there is better contrast. Brightness drops some, but not a whole lot.
SteveMo is offline  
post #564 of 2424 Old 12-18-2009, 11:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
HiHoStevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Las Vegas & Cedar Hills
Posts: 3,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Thanks Gator....

I was curious as to how much of the 2.8 gain you were getting... as you are aware the HP is retro reflective with a 7.5 degree viewing cone.... so with the projector lens mounted ~20" above your eyes you are losing some of the gain... but it still looks very punchy.

It was a good game...

There are just two theories for successfully quarreling with a woman -- neither one works!
The Barn - Use Password = AVSForum
HiHoStevo is offline  
post #565 of 2424 Old 12-18-2009, 12:27 PM
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiHoStevo View Post

Thanks Gator....

I was curious as to how much of the 2.8 gain you were getting... as you are aware the HP is retro reflective with a 7.5 degree viewing cone.... so with the projector lens mounted ~20" above your eyes you are losing some of the gain... but it still looks very punchy.

It was a good game...

According to the All Screen Gain Calc, I'm getting 2.2 at screen center and 1.9 at screen left/right. If I were to drop the projector another foot, it would be 2.5 and 2.0. But you're right, it's very punchy even with low lamp cinema mode at night, and it allows some "headroom" literally, so I'm not projecting through the back of people's heads while seated.

If I ever need more brightness, I have plenty of options:

1. Lower projector.
2. Move projector closer to screen (behind seating).
3. High lamp, brighter modes (BC on, etc).

Besides raising the projector and using an ND filter, this is about the dimmest I can make this setup be.

Assuming 700 lumens with low lamp "best" mode (http://www.projectorreviews.com/benq...erformance.php), I'm at roughly 20 ftL on axis, and at 1200 lumens in standard/normal color/BC on mode, roughly 35 ftL on axis. Roughly halve those values for brightness at the worst seating positions (edge of room on either side).
LilGator is offline  
post #566 of 2424 Old 12-18-2009, 01:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HiHoStevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Las Vegas & Cedar Hills
Posts: 3,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Brightness and lumens have been a big concern for me as I search for a replacement for my InFocus 7210.

I am currently using a 135" Elite 1.8 "power gain" screen and in my new theater will probably use a 150" Elite with the same material if I stay with the 16x9 format.

Unfortunately the center stage I built to house the subs and center speaker wound up a bit higher than I had thought only leaving me 81.7 inches from the top of the stage to the ceiling. Elite only offers the PG material along with a 3.5" frame... so I am pretty well maxed out with the 150" diag 16x9 screen.

The largest 2.35 format screen of Elite's that I can use is their 155" 2.35 screen which has a 60" tall image area with a smaller frame... but they do not offer the 1.8 gain material with that screen... I believe their 1.1 gain is the highest offered with the 2.35 screens.

My projector will be mounted from the ceiling (inside the a/c ducting), which puts the lens at ~40" above the eye height of the rear row of seating and ~55" above the eye height of the first row. Which I think is too much for the HP material.

There are just two theories for successfully quarreling with a woman -- neither one works!
The Barn - Use Password = AVSForum
HiHoStevo is offline  
post #567 of 2424 Old 12-18-2009, 01:35 PM
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiHoStevo View Post

Brightness and lumens have been a big concern for me as I search for a replacement for my InFocus 7210.

I am currently using a 135" Elite 1.8 "power gain" screen and in my new theater will probably use a 150" Elite with the same material if I stay with the 16x9 format.

Unfortunately the center stage I built to house the subs and center speaker wound up a bit higher than I had thought only leaving me 81.7 inches from the top of the stage to the ceiling. Elite only offers the PG material along with a 3.5" frame... so I am pretty well maxed out with the 150" diag 16x9 screen.

The largest 2.35 format screen of Elite's that I can use is their 155" 2.35 screen which has a 60" tall image area with a smaller frame... but they do not offer the 1.8 gain material with that screen... I believe their 1.1 gain is the highest offered with the 2.35 screens.

My projector will be mounted from the ceiling (inside the a/c ducting), which puts the lens at ~40" above the eye height of the rear row of seating and ~55" above the eye height of the first row. Which I think is too much for the HP material.

I owned a 7210 for a while, and this thing is definitely a worthy successor in every department.

I had considered the Elite Power Gain material because I'd have been able to get a tensioned electric for not much more than the High Power pull down, but as you say they don't seem to make them large enough with the 1.8 gain material.

I threw your numbers in the calculator and funnily enough it calculated 1.8-1.9 gain with the High Power (for the second row). Edit: Sorry, didn't see the 55" above first row. That works out to 1.4 gain in the first row, do you have the eye height numbers for those two seating locations? You're looking at ~15ftL in the first row with low lamp best mode on the 150" from what I calculate so far.

I assumed the 150" diagonal screen would be vertically centered on the 81.7" high wall from riser to ceiling, and a 6" high riser. Do you have a better number for where that screen's center would be (height from the floor)? I used 48".

Screen width 131", seating distance 164" (13' 8") and projector throw distance 216" (18'). Viewing eye height at 42" and the projector lens height 40" above that at 82" (or 6' 10"). Edit: First row eye height at 42" and lens height of 97" (8' 1") and 57" eye height second row.

The W6000 and 150" High Power combo would work more than fine setup like that.

I have the spreadsheet open, just let me know if you have a better idea about any of those numbers.
LilGator is offline  
post #568 of 2424 Old 12-18-2009, 01:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HiHoStevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Las Vegas & Cedar Hills
Posts: 3,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

I owned a 7210 for a while, and this thing is definitely a worthy successor in every department.

I had considered the Elite Power Gain material because I'd have been able to get a tensioned electric for not much more than the High Power pull down, but as you say they don't seem to make them large enough with the 1.8 gain material.

I threw your numbers in the calculator and funnily enough it calculated 1.8-1.9 gain with the High Power (for the second row). Edit: Sorry, didn't see the 55" above first row. That works out to 1.4 gain in the first row, do you have the eye height numbers for those two seating locations? You're looking at ~15ftL in the first row with low lamp best mode on the 150" from what I calculate so far.

I assumed the 150" diagonal screen would be vertically centered on the 81.7" high wall from riser to ceiling, and a 6" high riser. Do you have a better number for where that screen's center would be (height from the floor)? I used 48".

Screen width 131", seating distance 164" (13' 8") and projector throw distance 216" (18'). Viewing eye height at 42" and the projector lens height 40" above that at 82" (or 6' 10"). Edit: First row eye height at 42" and lens height of 97" (8' 1") and 57" eye height second row.

The W6000 and 150" High Power combo would work more than fine setup like that.

I have the spreadsheet open, just let me know if you have a better idea about any of those numbers.

I have put a bit over 5000 hours on my 7210 and still enjoy the picture immensely... however I am always interested in upgrades.

I have not checked to see what sizes are available with the HP material... However, I am looking at a fixed rather than pull down or electric screen.

The front stage is actually ~22" high in order to encase my two Energy 12.3 subs... the 81.7 inches is the area above the stage to the ceiling.

This is the area I have to mount the screen.

The eye height at the two seating locations are ~40" and 55" above ground level with the projector lens at ~97" above ground level.

With the image height of 74" for a 150" diag 16 x 9 screen and a 3.5" border... you can see that pretty well fills the available screen area. I had originally hoped for a 165" diag. but that screen has an 81" image height... so no way I can make that work with the stage... and if I lower the stage to fit the screen then the subs will not fit inside the stage.

So the bottom of the image area with the Elite 150" screen would be 22" + 3.5" (25.5") above floor level and the top of the image being 25.5" + 74" or 99.5" above floor level.

Thanks for your time and spreadsheet....

There are just two theories for successfully quarreling with a woman -- neither one works!
The Barn - Use Password = AVSForum
HiHoStevo is offline  
post #569 of 2424 Old 12-18-2009, 02:10 PM
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiHoStevo View Post

I have put a bit over 5000 hours on my 7210 and still enjoy the picture immensely... however I am always interested in upgrades.

I have not checked to see what sizes are available with the HP material... However, I am looking at a fixed rather than pull down or electric screen.

The front stage is actually ~22" high in order to encase my two Energy 12.3 subs... the 81.7 inches is the area above the stage to the ceiling.

This is the area I have to mount the screen.

The eye height at the two seating locations are ~40" and 55" above ground level with the projector lens at ~97" above ground level.

With the image height of 74" for a 150" diag 16 x 9 screen and a 3.5" border... you can see that pretty well fills the available screen area. I had originally hoped for a 165" diag. but that screen has an 81" image height... so no way I can make that work with the stage... and if I lower the stage to fit the screen then the subs will not fit inside the stage.

So the bottom of the image area with the Elite 150" screen would be 22" + 3.5" (25.5") above floor level and the top of the image being 25.5" + 74" or 99.5" above floor level.

Thanks for your time and spreadsheet....

I get 1.3 gain first row and 1.7 gain second row with those numbers, or roughly 14ftL first row and 18ftL second row in low lamp cinema mode.

Da-lite says High Power comes seamless up to 6' tall, but my 159" is seamless, so it's at least 78" high seamless. That should apply to the fixed frame screens just the same.
LilGator is offline  
post #570 of 2424 Old 12-18-2009, 03:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bronco70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

According to the All Screen Gain Calc, I'm getting 2.2 at screen center and 1.9 at screen left/right. If I were to drop the projector another foot, it would be 2.5 and 2.0. But you're right, it's very punchy even with low lamp cinema mode at night, and it allows some "headroom" literally, so I'm not projecting through the back of people's heads while seated.

If I ever need more brightness, I have plenty of options:

1. Lower projector.
2. Move projector closer to screen (behind seating).
3. High lamp, brighter modes (BC on, etc).

Besides raising the projector and using an ND filter, this is about the dimmest I can make this setup be.

Assuming 700 lumens with low lamp "best" mode (http://www.projectorreviews.com/benq...erformance.php), I'm at roughly 20 ftL on axis, and at 1200 lumens in standard/normal color/BC on mode, roughly 35 ftL on axis. Roughly halve those values for brightness at the worst seating positions (edge of room on either side).

Hi LilGator,

With all due respect, I believe your analysis is flawed. My assumption is that you used the fairly useful all screen gain calculator, and combined those numbers with perhaps the pro calculator at projector central?

The problem with that methodology is that the calculator at projector central uses the manufacturer spec for lumen output. In the case of the W6000 it is 2500 lumens, a spec that of course is silly and marketing hype.

I also have an HP screen. 133" diagonal. The actual lumen output I'm measuring at this point during the calibration runs is about 800-850. In a "best mode" with economic lamp mode. In a bat cave, as they say, with a 100 IRE window the end result is a reading of 11-12 fL.

Before I excite anyone, 12fL is plenty bright enough in a completely dark room. Even with reasonable ambient light a decent image will result.

35 fL in a cave environment would cause serious eye fatigue. Very quickly.

It seems from my research that the W6000 is the brightest pj out there at around $2.5K USD.

Joe
Bronco70 is offline  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

User Tag List

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