Panasonic PTAE7000/ AT5000 - Page 16 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #451 of 1396 Old 08-16-2011, 05:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CT_Wiebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 6,437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
HoustonHoyaFan -- I don't have a light meter, so I'm guessing (based on reviews) that I was running around 400 Lumens, when new. I have a 106", Da-Lite High-Power retractable screen, and was able to set the Contrast control down low enough to give me an image that satisfies me. Based on my most recent calibration (~3000 hours), I'm guessing that my output has dropped to between 320 and 350 Lumens.

I have a 32" Samsung LCD HDTV that sits behind the screen, for daytime viewing. I also use it for comparison of my PJ image brightness.

zombie10k -- I'm nowhere near the brightness freak that you are. I would estimate that If I had run my HC5500 in the high lamp mode, my lamp performance would be a lot worse. But that would have given me a severe eyestrain headache after 10 minutes of watching. As it is, I still have the Contrast control set to near the bottom of it's adjustment limit, so it gives me comfortable viewing.

Although my 32" TV sits in front of my 94" wide windows, I still have it's back-light set to 4/10 and run it in the "Movie" mode (it's dimmest image setting). It's still way bright enough for our watching in the middle of a clear, bright, sunshiny day.

coderguy -- I certainly agree. Unfortunately, Evan's reviews have left a lot out, in the last several years. I bought my L300U (AE300), in 2002, based on his review, and I lucked out. However, his AE7000 review seems way too "glowing".

I suspect that Art (projectorreviews) will get the same AE7000 for his review. We shall see what he says. One of the problems with the recent Panasonic models, aside from alignment issues, is their dust-blobs. That may be why Pannasonic changed the case design, the previous one had too many air leaks.

As usual, the Panasonic AE7000 seems to be "too good to be true". We shall see. . . .

- Claus {non-Santa model}
CT_Wiebe is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #452 of 1396 Old 08-16-2011, 05:34 PM
Advanced Member
 
taffman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post
members who are upset with the negative review comments shouldn't take offense. No one is saying the Panasonic isn't going to be a great projector.
I agree, but it's obvious that there is a built-in bias against anything Panasonic by some of the people posting here. And the fact that AVS has (incredibly) also jumped on board in ridiculing the Projector Central report, particularly when they have not offered up one of their own, just reinforces the feeling that the AE7000 may not get a fair shake on this forum.
taffman is offline  
post #453 of 1396 Old 08-16-2011, 05:36 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 20,112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 538 Post(s)
Liked: 541
CT. Hi. I think the average user here replaces their lamps between 1500 and 2500 hours. I don't have hard data. But almost without exception, I get a wow. I didn't realize how dim my bulb became. Obviously, one gets used to dimming. My data, and God I don't spend my life measuring initial lumens and then plotting them over hours for different projectors and multiple samples of same, many projector lamps show substantial dimming over the first hundreds of hours, losing depending, from 20 to 40 percent of their brightness.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is online now  
post #454 of 1396 Old 08-16-2011, 05:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CT_Wiebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 6,437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
taffman -- At least not in the >$3K forum. We shall see what the MAP turns out to be.

Mark, that seems to be certainly true, especially if they are run in their high lamp mode.

We will have to see what the AVS members wring out of this offering, before we can make any real judgments.

- Claus {non-Santa model}
CT_Wiebe is offline  
post #455 of 1396 Old 08-16-2011, 07:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,501
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 164
I've owned enough projectors to know that you're very lucky indeed if you actually get what you paid for! Any JVC 3D owners thinking of upgrading already? It seems that because a lot of measurements weren't taken for the AE7000 then someone is trying to hide something -- a reverse kind of bias. Panasonic skipped a year to work on this product and I'll bet it proves to be great. They make a great 3D T.V. and I suspect they wanted a projector to match. Panasonic has put a lot of effort into supporting 3D so it really needs good products to convince consumers of the merits of 3D. The JVC 3D experience is a warning to everyone here that once the honeymoon is over divorce may be just around the corner, at least for some. I'm keeping an open mind about the Panasonic, however, the projector I'm most curious about is the new 3D Epson.
Deja Vu is offline  
post #456 of 1396 Old 08-16-2011, 07:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by CT_Wiebe View Post

One of the problems with the recent Panasonic models, aside from alignment issues, is their dust-blobs. That may be why Pannasonic changed the case design, the previous one had too many air leaks..

Do you have evidence to support the notion that the Panasonic 4000 has a larger number of dust blob problems (percentage of units sold) than any other non-sealed optics design in this price class, other than anecdotal?

Sure there are "many" reports of dust blobs one could point to in the way of forum posts, but how do you know that that large number simply reflects the fact that they are the number one selling pj in their price range, year after year I've heard, and a certain percentage of all non-sealed optics pjs get "blobbed"?

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there is no concept of "accounting for taste". We don't "pick" the level of bass any more than we get to pick the ending of a play. High fidelity is an unbiased, neutral, exact copy (or "reproduction") of the original source's tonal balance, timing, dynamics, etc..

m. zillch is offline  
post #457 of 1396 Old 08-16-2011, 08:31 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post

I've owned enough projectors to know that you're very lucky indeed if you actually get what you paid for! Any JVC 3D owners thinking of upgrading already? It seems that because a lot of measurements weren't taken for the AE7000 then someone is trying to hide something -- a reverse kind of bias. Panasonic skipped a year to work on this product and I'll bet it proves to be great. They make a great 3D T.V. and I suspect they wanted a projector to match. Panasonic has put a lot of effort into supporting 3D so it really needs good products to convince consumers of the merits of 3D. The JVC 3D experience is a warning to everyone here that once the honeymoon is over divorce may be just around the corner, at least for some. I'm keeping an open mind about the Panasonic, however, the projector I'm most curious about is the new 3D Epson.

I am sure it will be a nice unit, but as much as you have pimped ghost free 3d on your Acer (for good reason), do you really think the Panny, Epson, new Sony or new JVC will be acceptable in this department compared to what you are used to? I dont see any way that ANY of these will be ghost free like that little Acer. Could you live with some ghosting DejaVu? I am guessing no considering all your posts on this topic in the past however many months now.

Me? I am certainly considering upgrading my 40 for better 3d performance, but I want something that will be at least as good in 2d as my 40 (which I LOVE in this department) and the Sony wont work in my setup unfortunately which leaves the Panny, Epson and new JVC. I dont see the Panny or Epson being able to hang with the JVC for 2d all things considered (more time/info will tell) which leaves the new JVC. If the new JVC can incorporate similar 3d improvements like this new Sony has, I would jump for sure.......that is a big IF right now though.

The other option I might consider is a cheaper 1080p DLP just for 3d which would really be ideal for me since I love my 40 for 2d and would prefer to keep it if possible for 2d duties. Curious what Cedia will bring.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #458 of 1396 Old 08-16-2011, 08:44 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

I am sure it will be a nice unit, but as much as you have pimped ghost free 3d on your Acer (for good reason), do you really think the Panny, Epson, new Sony or new JVC will be acceptable in this department compared to what you are used to? I dont see any way that ANY of these will be ghost free like that little Acer. Could you live with some ghosting DejaVu? I am guessing no considering all your posts on this topic in the past however many months now.

Me? I am certainly considering upgrading my 40 for better 3d performance, but I want something that will be at least as good in 2d as my 40 (which I LOVE in this department) and the Sony wont work in my setup unfortunately which leaves the Panny, Epson and new JVC. I dont see the Panny or Epson being able to hang with the JVC for 2d all things considered (more time/info will tell) which leaves the new JVC. If the new JVC can incorporate similar 3d improvements like this new Sony has, I would jump for sure.......that is a big IF right now though.

The other option I might consider is a cheaper 1080p DLP just for 3d which would really be ideal for me since I love my 40 for 2d and would prefer to keep it if possible for 2d duties. Curious what Cedia will bring.

The new 'Epson 3d' machine is presumably going to be a lcd pj--right?--for it has been 'authoritatively' reported that their new lcos machine will be 2d only.
millerwill is offline  
post #459 of 1396 Old 08-16-2011, 09:00 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

The new 'Epson 3d' machine is presumably going to be a lcd pj--right?--for it has been 'authoritatively' reported that their new lcos machine will be 2d only.


I assume it will use the same lcd tech as the new Panny, but not sure.


The new Lcos Epson(s) sounds like a nice unit!

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #460 of 1396 Old 08-16-2011, 09:05 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

I assume it will use the same lcd tech as the new Panny, but not sure.


The new Lcos Epson(s) sounds like a nice unit!

The latter is the one I want to check out; if it's comparable to the new JVC's, then I think it might very well be my choice this time.
millerwill is offline  
post #461 of 1396 Old 08-16-2011, 09:51 PM
Newbie
 
appledoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
To me this "review" in projector central looks more like a preview or first impression. I wonder if the details we are all waiting for will come out in the Panasonic / Sony shoot out. I have to admit though, if this is the case I find it a bit odd that they have given 5 stars and describe it as highly rated....
appledoc is offline  
post #462 of 1396 Old 08-16-2011, 10:32 PM
Senior Member
 
bdrex28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Frisco, TX
Posts: 344
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by appledoc View Post

To me this "review" in projector central looks more like a preview or first impression. I wonder if the details we are all waiting for will come out in the Panasonic / Sony shoot out. I have to admit though, if this is the case I find it a bit odd that they have given 5 stars and describe it as highly rated....

My thoughts exactly. Considering they are planning a shoot out between the two you'd think they'd hold off rating it, especially if they find the Sony to be a better overall product.

I'm considering my first projector for a dedicated media room and I'm eager to read the reviews of the new sony, this panasonic, the new jvc, new Epson and optoma. Luckily I'm not purchasing until the start of the year so I have time.

Hopefully some AVS members in the north Dallas area will get a few that I could arrange to view as well.

Just wish the PC review seemed less of a predetermined "review ".
bdrex28 is offline  
post #463 of 1396 Old 08-16-2011, 10:57 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 20,616
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 290 Post(s)
Liked: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by taffman View Post

Sounds like Panasonic will hit another home run with the AE7000, much to the dismay of the Panny detractors here who just cannot believe that their $10k+ projectors can be outfeatured and equalled or bettered in performance by one costing a little over $3k.

I don't know, that's just a bit less than the JVC RS40, unless it streets for much lower.

Noah
noah katz is offline  
post #464 of 1396 Old 08-17-2011, 01:31 AM
Member
 
studiox_swe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 79
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by appledoc View Post

To me this "review" in projector central looks more like a preview or first impression. I wonder if the details we are all waiting for will come out in the Panasonic / Sony shoot out. I have to admit though, if this is the case I find it a bit odd that they have given 5 stars and describe it as highly rated....

I think they where clear on the fact that his was a pre-production unit and that their 5 star rating could change depending on the CEDIA as well as how the production unit would perform. But I agree it's a bit strange to give a rating at all based on their "first impression" rather than a real review.
studiox_swe is offline  
post #465 of 1396 Old 08-17-2011, 01:35 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiox_swe View Post

I think they where clear on the fact that his was a pre-production unit and that their 5 star rating could change depending on the CEDIA as well as how the production unit would perform. But I agree it's a bit strange to give a rating at all based on their "first impression" rather than a real review.

Also, this is a 'review' only of the Panny, not the supposedly upcoming 'shootout' between it and the Sony 30.
millerwill is offline  
post #466 of 1396 Old 08-17-2011, 04:00 AM
Member
 
HudsonK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 43
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

You have it all right. I will just say this though, assuming you have a dark wall and or masking above/below the 2.35 screen, you cant see the black bars with 2.35/40 material....its a non issue assuming you have this.

The "black bars" on the sides when watching 1.78/85 material on the 2.35 screen are MUCH less intrusive then the black bars on top/bottom of a 1.78 screen when viewing 2.35/40 material. In fact, the side bars on my 2.35 screen when watching 1.78/85 material are dark enough that I simply dont notice them unless I actually look for them which is not how you are going to watch a film. On the other hand, I always found the black bars on my 1.78 screen annoying to some degree (largely since they were projected black bars instead of empty space like you get on the side bars with a 2.35 screen) and would commonly ponder masking solutions to solve this issue (which I never did due to being lazy). Of course complete masking is always best, but I would certainly try it without first since you might be plenty happy. One thing to consider though having said all that is light control..........how dark the side bars are on the 2.35 screen when viewing 1.78/85 material will largely be impacted by how much light is being redirected back to the screen.......you need to kill the light so it does not get back to the screen for best results. My room is a black hole with a combo of flat black paint/black velvet over just about everything (including the floor and couch!) which is one reason why the side bars are so dark. Of course if you cant do good enough light control, you could always get some sort of masking which would of course be the best solution anyway.


Hi Toe, thanks a lot. That is good to know. I am opting for a 16:9, b/c it's less of an issue for my tastes, with 80% of my viewing is going to be 16:9 anyway. I will figure out masking for 2.35, though I might just get lazy like you =).

126" BW Carada here I come. I have a 100% light controlled room, and I will be painting it, and the ceiling a dark colour. I have light carpet as well, but I will get a dark rug.
HudsonK is offline  
post #467 of 1396 Old 08-17-2011, 04:02 AM
Member
 
HudsonK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 43
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
No matter what you guys say in retort, a bunch of you are really anal. And some of you come across as downright snooty
HudsonK is offline  
post #468 of 1396 Old 08-17-2011, 04:50 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by HudsonK View Post

Hi Toe, thanks a lot. That is good to know. I am opting for a 16:9, b/c it's less of an issue for my tastes, with 80% of my viewing is going to be 16:9 anyway. I will figure out masking for 2.35, though I might just get lazy like you =).

126" BW Carada here I come. I have a 100% light controlled room, and I will be painting it, and the ceiling a dark colour. I have light carpet as well, but I will get a dark rug.

Makes sense The Carada guys are awesome to deal with and you are in safe hands there. Enjoy!

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #469 of 1396 Old 08-17-2011, 05:02 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by taffman View Post

I agree, but it's obvious that there is a built-in bias against anything Panasonic by some of the people posting here. And the fact that AVS has (incredibly) also jumped on board in ridiculing the Projector Central report, particularly when they have not offered up one of their own, just reinforces the feeling that the AE7000 may not get a fair shake on this forum.

What do you expect when a sub-$3k projector ventures into the >$3k forum?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HudsonK View Post

Hi Toe, thanks a lot. That is good to know. I am opting for a 16:9, b/c it's less of an issue for my tastes, with 80% of my viewing is going to be 16:9 anyway. I will figure out masking for 2.35, though I might just get lazy like you =).

IMO, it's not about what you watch more, it's about whether or not you believe/agree with the idea that scope (2.35:1) content is supposed to be the same height, but wider than 16:9. If you do, then you want a CIH setup regardless of what you watch most.

And remember a "proper" CIH setup will have the same relative 16:9 size as you wanted anyway, but 2.35:1 will be 33% wider.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
post #470 of 1396 Old 08-17-2011, 05:03 AM
Member
 
HudsonK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 43
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Yeah I have been already emailing with Rex. You can definitely tell. I should send you a pic of my space and show you why I am in a format dilemma, Toe. Maybe you can help me. Because I was going to get curtains for a 2.35:1, and maybe I am just chickening out. Want to PM me your email?
HudsonK is offline  
post #471 of 1396 Old 08-17-2011, 05:10 AM
Member
 
HudsonK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 43
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Hi stanger, I think I would prefer a 2.35:1, no doubt. But I ran into fL challenges trying to get the same screen space as the largest 16:9 I could go. So then I was trying to think what would annoy me less, watching a smaller 16:9 *more* of the time with black bars, or watching a 2.35 with black bars *less* of the time? I guess I am still struggling.
HudsonK is offline  
post #472 of 1396 Old 08-17-2011, 05:15 AM
Member
 
HudsonK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 43
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Here is my space. What would you guys do? That alcove is itself a 2.57:1 space, so yeah, I was thinking a 2.35 with curtains would be awesome. The lower fL numbers and smaller 16:9 space have me leaning 16:9. That shot with the screen mockup is a 2.35:1, it just doesn't look that wide from that angle.
LL
LL
LL
HudsonK is offline  
post #473 of 1396 Old 08-17-2011, 05:37 AM
Member
 
studiox_swe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 79
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HudsonK View Post

No matter what you guys say in retort, a bunch of you are really anal. And some of you come across as downright snooty

I'm missing the like button here
studiox_swe is offline  
post #474 of 1396 Old 08-17-2011, 05:41 AM
Member
 
studiox_swe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 79
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

Also, this is a 'review' only of the Panny, not the supposedly upcoming 'shootout' between it and the Sony 30.

That's corrent millerwill. To my knowledge no one has done a review of the 30 (production model) yet. I guess Sony has been prioritizing getting those units to customers instead.
studiox_swe is offline  
post #475 of 1396 Old 08-17-2011, 05:45 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by HudsonK View Post

Here is my space. What would you guys do? That alcove is itself a 2.57:1 space, so yeah, I was thinking a 2.35 with curtains would be awesome. The lower fL numbers and smaller 16:9 space have me leaning 16:9. That shot with the screen mockup is a 2.35:1, it just doesn't look that wide from that angle.


While I certainly agree with Stanger above and love my 2.35 screen (the vast majority of what I watch is movies though), what material do YOU want to look more impressive......1.78 or 2.35/40? Even though 2.35/40 is meant to look the most impressive, if you are going to be watching 80% 1.78 you might want that to look most impressive even though it is not tech how it should be done. The big question in my mind is how much smaller would your 1.78 image be if you went with a 2.35 screen?

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #476 of 1396 Old 08-17-2011, 05:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,631
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 273 Post(s)
Liked: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiox_swe View Post

That's corrent millerwill. To my knowledge no one has done a review of the 30 (production model) yet. I guess Sony has been prioritizing getting those units to customers instead.

2 of the most acclaimed forum contributors, Cine4home and Kraine have torn through the HW30 with precision. No one tells it like these guys. There is no doubt we'll be hearing from them soon on the Panasonic.

I'd like to see the same objective information for the out of the box settings including grey scale values, gamma measurements, On/Off & ANSI Contrast and Primary/Secondary color performance on the REC709 charts.

With this information, it's a bit easier to judge the projectors performance since each reviewer is likely going to have particular items that appeal to their personal preferences.
zombie10k is online now  
post #477 of 1396 Old 08-17-2011, 06:13 AM
Advanced Member
 
Bob Whitefield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 671
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HudsonK View Post

Here is my space. What would you guys do? That alcove is itself a 2.57:1 space, so yeah, I was thinking a 2.35 with curtains would be awesome. The lower fL numbers and smaller 16:9 space have me leaning 16:9. That shot with the screen mockup is a 2.35:1, it just doesn't look that wide from that angle.

That space just screams out for 2.35, since you're height-, not width- limited. You don't want the 2.35 image to be smaller than 16:9.

Wall-mount the projector, get an acoustically transparent screen that completely covers the opening. Use curtains or velvet-covered foam panels to mask 16:9 if you like.

Just what I would do...no snootiness intended.
Bob Whitefield is offline  
post #478 of 1396 Old 08-17-2011, 06:22 AM
Member
 
HudsonK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 43
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Absolutely, no snootiness detected, Bob

I would LOVE to cover the area. But it's 180" wide! And if I wall mount that far back, I lose too much brightness for a big screen. Here are the numbers for the screen sizes I was debating for the AE7000. These are based off the 1300 and 1089 lumen numbers for NORMAL and CINEMA 2 in the PC review - which I found very helpful to aid me in this situation.


136" 2.35:1 BW Carada (using a conservative 1.2 gain figure)

2.35:1 CONTENT: 14'2" distance, 2.02x zoom
- 20 fL in brightest mode
- 13 fL in Normal mode, 9.5 in Normal + eco mode
- 11 fL in Cinema 2 mode, 8 in Cinema 2 + eco mode

16:9 CONTENT: 14'2" distance, 1.47x zoom (a 106" 16:9 Screen Size)
- 27 fL in brightest mode
- 17.5 fL in Normal mode, 12.9 in Normal + eco mode
- 14.7 fL in Cinema 2 mode, 10.7 in Cinema 2 + eco mode



126" 16:9 BW Carada (using a conservative 1.2 gain figure)

16:9 CONTENT: 12'4" distance, 2.02x zoom
- 25 fL in brightest mode
- 16.5 fL in Normal mode, 11.9 in Normal + eco mode
- 13.6 fL in Cinema 2 mode, 9.9 in Cinema 2 + eco mode

2.35:1 CONTENT: 12'4" distance, 2.02x zoom (a 119" 2.35:1 Screen size)
- 25 fL in brightest mode
- 16.5 fL in Normal mode, 11.9 in Normal + eco mode
- 13.6 fL in Cinema 2 mode, 9.9 in Cinema 2 + eco mode
HudsonK is offline  
post #479 of 1396 Old 08-17-2011, 06:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
whitetrash66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,053
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

While I certainly agree with Stanger above and love my 2.35 screen (the vast majority of what I watch is movies though), what material do YOU want to look more impressive......1.78 or 2.35/40? Even though 2.35/40 is meant to look the most impressive, if you are going to be watching 80% 1.78 you might want that to look most impressive even though it is not tech how it should be done. The big question in my mind is how much smaller would your 1.78 image be if you went with a 2.35 screen?

I'm not really involved in this conversation, but i can say that i was going to go with a 2.35 setup. I can fit a 130" 2.35 screen, but with 16x9, i can fit 128" (strange wall). So the problem with 2.35 for me is that in 16x9 content, it would only be 103", not 128. I would lose 25" of 16x9 size. With a 130" 16x9 screen, my 2.35 content is still 121". My wall is strange shaped, but for me, I'd rather have a much larger 16x9 image than a much smaller 16x9 image, especially since my 2.35 size is only 7" smaller.
whitetrash66 is offline  
post #480 of 1396 Old 08-17-2011, 06:37 AM
Member
 
HudsonK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 43
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Hey, it's a free forum . This is some of the same debate I have, Whitetrash. I would drop from a 126" 16:9, to a 106".
HudsonK 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