4K Sony VW 1000 first short Test - Page 10 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-03-2012, 05:48 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
W.Mayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybobjimbob View Post

Ive just recently sold my Schneider m lens to help fund the sony. I was going to ask Wolfgang, but im wondering how many owners of the sony are going to utilise a lens for there scope films? My scope screen is only 3.6m wide so im hoping a lens wont be completely neccessary.

you should be not use this lens with your screen size!

you simply not need it as you will have enough light and as i say there are
disadvantages as well to use such a lens in front.

btw i made a mistake and just found it out some min. ago.
the sony vw 1000 have a adjustment for what factor the anamorphic lens have.
for sample i use a isco 1.33 factor that most have.
but i use the full 4096 panel.
in this case you need a 1.25 factor and as most not have it the sony
have a adjustment that you can select 1,25 or 1,33 factor at the pr.itself.
at 1.25 than it scale the picture up to 4096 but then you need a 1.25 factor
anamorphic lens!
i make it wrong as i use a 1.33 factor isco 3 and adjust 1.25 at the sony.
i have to put 1.33 inside and then the sony scalle only to 3840 up.

so light increase will be not this high with the lens as i post in my last post.

so if you like to use the full 4096 chip and full light out the unit can do together with a anamorphic lens you need the very very expensive
1.25 cinema anamorphic lens that cost new around half a vw 1000 or
you use the 1.33 factor anamorphic lens but then you can use the standard
1.33 anamorphic lens.

lucky if your screen is not to big
W.Mayer is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-03-2012, 05:52 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
W.Mayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randall Morton View Post

One of the reviews said $699 for the lamp. These guys have it for $899.

http://store.aikotradingstore.com/so...deo-projector/

so seems my guess was not that wrong as 650 euro are today 850$
W.Mayer is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 06:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
donaldk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,403
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver Klohs View Post

The question is what you consider intermediate size and what kind of brightness you want. If we go with typical cinema brightness of 12 fL at a lower output of 1400 lumens (2000 starting output minus 30% due to lamp aging) the VW1000ES is good for a 4.39m wide screen.

If we do the calculation with a new lamp which many seem to do one could go up to 5.25m wide which is huge by most standards.

Both are in the bottom half of the intermediate/medium sized screens.

If you want it that dim, why don't you just get a free to pick-up CRT FP;-).

Private theater means you don't have to be reduced to 'a typical cinema'.
donaldk is online now  
Old 02-03-2012, 06:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
donaldk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,403
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonHoyaFan View Post

The DCI spec is 14 ftL and a 2.6 gamma.

Actually it is 16 with open gate...

Kept low to keep us from seeing flikker due to the very low framerate.
donaldk is online now  
Old 02-03-2012, 06:22 PM
Advanced Member
 
dangc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 641
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by donaldk View Post

Actually it is 16 with open gate...

Kept low to keep us from seeing flikker due to the very low framerate.

Not many commercial or home theaters are 16 or 14 ftl after bulb aging anyway....I am at 7.5 ftl and it is acceptable in a blacked out room. With the 1000, assuming it will settle in at say around 1100 lumens after bulb aging I will be at around 13.5 ftl and that will be stunningly bright in my theater. My current projector with a new bulb is 1100 lumens and it seemed very bright indeed.
dangc is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 06:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by donaldk View Post

Actually it is 16 with open gate...

Kept low to keep us from seeing flikker due to the very low framerate.

Film specs (16 open, 12 w/clear film) are being mixed with the DCI spec.

From DCI Specs:

Quote:


8.3.4.3. Peak White Luminance
Using the white field test pattern (X'=3794, Y'=3960, Z'=3890), adjust the peak white
luminance, as measured at screen center, to 48 cd/m2 (14 ft-L), with the measurement
made at the reference viewing position.

I like 14 to 16fL as a target window, too. I design and shoot for lamp "headroom," and just have to periodically check and re-set iris and re-calibrate to keep it in the window. I'm trying to stick to a changeover at 10fL depending on how quickly it is dropping.
Cam Man is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 07:02 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,445
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4 View Post

I am sure it can be done rather simply. When I get mine,Ii will examine how to do it but with my 8 ft wide 1.0 gain 1.78 I probably will have enough light not to have to bother with a vertical compression anamorphic. I figure with lamp loss I will still get at least 35 ft lamberts.

Even in LOW lamp (~1500 lumens), I'm looking at 45 ftL zoomed for a 2.35 pic that is 12 ft wide. Of course this is with a HP2.4 screen (which I love!), but it would still be ~18 ftL on a ~1.0 gain screen.
millerwill is online now  
Old 02-03-2012, 07:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
donaldk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,403
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Like I said not on neutral gain screens, now if you go to gain 2, 3, 4, 7, 13;-). Runco used a gain 2 screen that was indeed bigger than Sony's or Sim2's

How big was that Sony screen at ISE? I was told it was gain 1. The 1000 was run at max output, and I wouldn't have minded a tad more light.

Guess I just like it bright.
donaldk is online now  
Old 02-03-2012, 09:11 PM
Advanced Member
 
G-Rex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 874
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by robena View Post


That's why I never go to a theater.

G-Rex is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 10:03 PM
 
AV Science Sales 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
I was joking about not having enough light. I am deliberating decreasing my gain from 1.3 to 1.0, My room is a black pit and I can support a wide dispersion screen without room reflections causing washout. High gain screens require longer throws than I have and high gain screens do cause other problems. I know how many love their HP 2.4 and respect decisions to go with it. I don't need the gain and the other small negatives that come with it. If you need the light, its a great choice. If you don't, I believe there are other better choices.
AV Science Sales 4 is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 10:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by W.Mayer View Post

you should be not use this lens with your screen size!

you simply not need it as you will have enough light and as i say there are
disadvantages as well to use such a lens in front.

btw i made a mistake and just found it out some min. ago.
the sony vw 1000 have a adjustment for what factor the anamorphic lens have.
for sample i use a isco 1.33 factor that most have.
but i use the full 4096 panel.
in this case you need a 1.25 factor and as most not have it the sony
have a adjustment that you can select 1,25 or 1,33 factor at the pr.itself.
at 1.25 than it scale the picture up to 4096 but then you need a 1.25 factor
anamorphic lens!
i make it wrong as i use a 1.33 factor isco 3 and adjust 1.25 at the sony.
i have to put 1.33 inside and then the sony scalle only to 3840 up.

so light increase will be not this high with the lens as i post in my last post.

so if you like to use the full 4096 chip and full light out the unit can do together with a anamorphic lens you need the very very expensive
1.25 cinema anamorphic lens that cost new around half a vw 1000 or
you use the 1.33 factor anamorphic lens but then you can use the standard
1.33 anamorphic lens.

lucky if your screen is not to big

Wow, I am really impressed that the 1000 has this capability. It really is very much like the commercial/digital cinema model!

I think that we are really cutting hairs comparing 4096 and 3840. Personally, I wouldn't use that as a tie-breaker on whether to use a good 1.33x anamorphic lens. That said, it sounds to me like a future marketing opportunity for a high-quality anamorphic with a selectable squeeze range of 1.25x to 1.33x.

Edit: Would the Prismasonic models with varilable horizontal expansion not be a good choice?
Cam Man is offline  
Old 02-04-2012, 01:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Oliver Klohs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Posts: 2,535
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by donaldk View Post

Both are in the bottom half of the intermediate/medium sized screens.

If you want it that dim, why don't you just get a free to pick-up CRT FP;-).

Private theater means you don't have to be reduced to 'a typical cinema'.

Donald I will gladly take the offer and take 5 of those CRT projectors that give me 12 fL on a 5+ m wide 1.0 gain screen - I will even pay 100 bucks for each plus shipping, please pm me about that

Regarding the Sony there are a few higher gain options out there and in a private theater seating outside of the sweet spot of such a screen does not need to be a problem so going with higher gain screens will push that output to significantly higher levels if desired.
Oliver Klohs is offline  
Old 02-04-2012, 04:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Oliver Klohs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Posts: 2,535
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by donaldk View Post

Both are in the bottom half of the intermediate/medium sized screens.

Forgot about this in my previous post:
In the home theater world screens above 4m can be considered very big.

Even if you look at high end installations like the ones of fellow forum member Cineramax you will seldom see a screen that is 5 meters or above and I don't think that he would describe his cinemas as having screens that are intermediate sized or less.
Oliver Klohs is offline  
Old 02-04-2012, 05:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Oliver Klohs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Posts: 2,535
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by robena View Post

On the other hand, if you want to achieve a more digitally suitable 25FL at the half-brightness end of lamp life, using a 1.3 gain screen, you can only go roughly up to 3m.

Which is not too bad if you're a CRT guy.

Hehe, me thinks you are a bit conservative there and what do you mean by CRT guy?

But of course you can always go with a worst case scenario in order to be sure to have sufficient brightness at the end of lamp life. The downside is that with most projectors screen sizes will be limited using this approach.
Oliver Klohs is offline  
Old 02-04-2012, 06:52 AM
Advanced Member
 
G-Rex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 874
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Since you guys are back on screen discussions, you may find this a bit informative. I composed a very detailed email to Stewart which comprised of my screen width 141" (scope), did all the math calculations for zooming scope/unzoomed 1:85:1, low vs high lamp mode, I calculated ft lamberts and throw ratio #s and projected lamp age induced dimming.

I have two contacts at Stewart (top tier) one of which I spoke at length, and the other responded in a detailed email. They have the late preproduction model in the lab, which puts out 1500 al in high mode. Based on what they studied and adjusting their impressions for final ansi lumen numbers of the production model, they stongly recommended against the ST100 for a 12' wide scope screen. They stated that it would be best to run the 1000 in low lamp mode for 2d until the lamp drops way off in light, then switch to high mode. For 3d obviously high mode all the time.

Stewart said it wouldn't take long for the zoomed 2d image to lack punch and appear too dim onnthe 100. They said the resolution of the 1000 at 4k would not exceed the resolution capability of the ST130. They also said though the Sony is very sharp, but not exceeding sharp like some very high end dlps. With very sharp dlps and very sharp projectors in general, Stewart said the 130 gain/sheen can cause slight inter pixel interaction and granularity which could degrade the image a bit. There is always a small trade off with adding gain, but they said the added brightness of the 130 outweighs the benefits gained in image clarity of going with the ST100 with a 1000 on a 12' wide screen. They said going with the 100 would leave me with no light head room and in the end I would not be happy with the image. They said 3d on the 100 zoomed would be very dim. It may meet commercial dci specs, but that doesn't mean it's ideal for the home. Its much more difficult to have brighter 3d in a commercial theater than at home, so Stewart said to take advantage that ability. Stewart did say the 1000 looked amazing on the 130.

As a side note, I have all screen samples and have spent some time comparing the. If light was not a concern, I rate them in this order: Studiotek 100 the most flawless of any screen I have ever seen. No inter pixel light bleed or digital sheen at all. To me it appears the image is a bit sharper and less digital looking. I will jump to third favorite: ST130. A bit of sheen, but not too bad. On my sample there were a few sparlklies. To my eyes it appears to show an image a tad less sharp. It was obviously brighter. Second best screen sample, the JKP Affinity 1.1. Seems to be right in the middle of the 100 and 130. It had very little sheen, but it's there. I would say a good amount less than the 130 and a bit more than the 100. If light is a concern then the 130 becomes a very good option otherwise the 100 is the clear reference screen.
G-Rex is offline  
Old 02-04-2012, 06:57 AM
 
AV Science Sales 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
The Sony manual which has been linked for quite some time now shows a user selectable 1.24 and 1.32 vertical stretch. Obviously the math shows those numbers to be correct when rounding the calculations to two places after the decimal point. I wonder why anamorphics add an addional .01 though in reality it is less than .01 that they add.

I am curious though about how an anamorphic of the optical quality to clearly and precisely reproduce 2K would do with respect to 4K. Looking at various price lists 4K rated 1.25 lenses would cost significantly more than the projector itself. I need to see if there are $2K rated 1.25s because of the large number of commercial houses doing only a measely 2K. My question to Wolfgang, is disregarding the negatives associated with using any anamorphic lens and of course there are positives as well leaving each to determine the net using their own weighting factors and then whether the cost justifies the net should they determine that to be positive (damn written just like an engineer/lawyer), how much is lost if one uses a 2K rated lens rather than a 4K?
AV Science Sales 4 is offline  
Old 02-04-2012, 07:04 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,308
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Interesting about the light output since Oliver and Wolfgang have several production units indicating that 2000 lumens is accurate. A 25% lower lumen number with a new lamp is very similar to that one gets with the initial lamp aging of a few hundred hours of use. If true, then this projector will only be outputting 1200 lumens very quickly.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is online now  
Old 02-04-2012, 08:02 AM
 
AV Science Sales 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
I posted this info in another 1000ES thread. The lamp listed in the 1000ES manual is the Sony LMP-H330. Last wek I checked with Sony as to the MSRP and dealer cost for these. It was not at that time listed in the Sony price lists. So I googled around bit, made a few more calls to some Sony folks amd though nothing official, it looks like it will be $799. The goood thing here is Sony has some decmt markup in its bulbs unlike many non Sony bulbs out there so one could expect decent street prices out there for the real official bulb from Sony. Asto the rate of decay of the lamp from 0 hours we will just have to wait until we get sometime on the bulb. There is no reason to thimk the the light lose rate for the Sony bulb would be much different from any other Sony UHP bulb but then again sometimes a bulb run does result in bulbs not typical in light performance. Me. I am lucky if I put 1000 hoursa year on anyone projector and because I am testing, QC, calibrating so many different projectors, most of a lot lesser quality than the 1000ES, it is unlikely that I will even get 1000 hrs on the 1000ES in my first year of ownership. But I a more than prepared to spend street price on such a bulb no matter how quickly I feel the need to replace it. I can't imagine bulb replacrement costs at street exceeding a dollar per operating hour.
AV Science Sales 4 is offline  
Old 02-04-2012, 08:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,814
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 105
I wouldn't worry too much about using a 1.33x anamorphic lens on this PJ and go looking for an expensive 1.25x anamorphic lens.

The difference between 4096 and 3840 is 256 pixel.
That means; you lose 128 pixel on each side of the image that is not used.

With the pixel size of a 4K projector compared to a 2K projector, this would mean, that on a 2K projector there would be a 64 pixels wide stripe on each side of the image that is not used.
Not something anybody would worry about on a 2K projector, knowing how very different each movie is cropped anyway.

The same goes for up-scaling 1080 material for the 4K projector.
Theoretically it would be better/easier work for the up-scaler to just "split" each of the 1920x1080 pixels in four as in Quad HD (QHD) for 3840x2160, than "re-arranging" the pixels to fill the width of 4096x2160 just to gain 256 pixels in the width of the image.
The height of the image is the same in both formats.

The most correct is really to stick to QHD for Home Media. QHD is the standard for 4K TV, 4K Broadcast and Home Media.

4096x2160 is the 4K DCI format.

When eventually 4K BD format and other 4K Home Media formats are released they will most probably be in QHD.

The 4096x2160 panel in the 1000 is a wise move by Sony because then it can also be used for showing 4K DCI in 1:1 and be used in post production facilities.

It would be interesting to hear from testers if there is any quality difference between up-scaling straight 1:4 QHD and to 4096 from BD material on this projector.
coolscan is offline  
Old 02-04-2012, 08:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Oliver Klohs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Posts: 2,535
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Interesting about the light output since Oliver and Wolfgang have several production units indicating that 2000 lumens is accurate. A 25% lower lumen number with a new lamp is very similar to that one gets with the initial lamp aging of a few hundred hours of use. If true, then this projector will only be outputting 1200 lumens very quickly.

Art

G-Rex said that Stewart had a preproduction model and these were around 1450 in Germany, too. Regarding the absolute number we have measured this was at screen center, not an ANSI measument but to my knowledge not too many reviewers measure that way, either. Regarding the speed of the dropoff I would like to know that, too but I think we will have to wait to hear real world results.
Oliver Klohs is offline  
Old 02-04-2012, 09:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

I wouldn't worry too much about using a 1.33x anamorphic lens on this PJ and go looking for an expensive 1.25x anamorphic lens.

The difference between 4096 and 3840 is 256 pixel.
That means; you lose 128 pixel on each side of the image that is not used.

With the pixel size of a 4K projector compared to a 2K projector, this would mean, that on a 2K projector there would be a 64 pixels wide stripe on each side of the image that is not used.
Not something anybody would worry about on a 2K projector, knowing how very different each movie is cropped anyway.

The same goes for up-scaling 1080 material for the 4K projector.
Theoretically it would be better/easier work for the up-scaler to just "split" each of the 1920x1080 pixels in four as in Quad HD (QHD) for 3840x2160, than "re-arranging" the pixels to fill the width of 4096x2160 just to gain 256 pixels in the width of the image.
The height of the image is the same in both formats.

The most correct is really to stick to QHD for Home Media. QHD is the standard for 4K TV, 4K Broadcast and Home Media.

4096x2160 is the 4K DCI format.

When eventually 4K BD format and other 4K Home Media formats are released they will most probably be in QHD.

The 4096x2160 panel in the 1000 is a wise move by Sony because then it can also be used for showing 4K DCI in 1:1 and be used in post production facilities.

It would be interesting to hear from testers if there is any quality difference between up-scaling straight 1:4 QHD and to 4096 from BD material on this projector.

I recognized the same potential of this projector as a small screening room projector in the post-production world using the DCI specs. That may be what makes this projector cost what it does.

It seems likely, as you say, that 4K QuadHD will emerge as the consumer format with displays and a BD format. And can we hope that those projectors without all the DCI capabilities could be more afforadable?
Cam Man is offline  
Old 02-04-2012, 09:29 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,445
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Interesting about the light output since Oliver and Wolfgang have several production units indicating that 2000 lumens is accurate. A 25% lower lumen number with a new lamp is very similar to that one gets with the initial lamp aging of a few hundred hours of use. If true, then this projector will only be outputting 1200 lumens very quickly.

Art

Art, I believe he said that Stewart had one of the prototype units that did only produce ~1500 lumens in high lamp (what the production units produce in low lamp).
millerwill is online now  
Old 02-04-2012, 09:44 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,072
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 161 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4 View Post

I was joking about not having enough light. I am deliberating decreasing my gain from 1.3 to 1.0, My room is a black pit and I can support a wide dispersion screen without room reflections causing washout.

Mark, I'm curious how you made your room a black pit. How big is it? Is it entirely black? Did you use paint? Material (e.g. black velvet)?

In making my room I had the dilemma of using an existing living room, not wanting it to look like a black pit during the day, but desiring as high performance as possible when watching movies (and I couldn't put up with the artifacts of specialty screens designed to fight room reflections, so I have a Stewart ST-130 screen, which has for me the best gain/artifacts ratio I could find).

I keep tweaking my room, mostly using curtains, and soon will be able to have virtually a "bat cave" for watching movies, which makes me toy with getting the ST-100 material. (My screen sizes, using 4 way masking, ranges from 85" diagonal 16:9 to 136" diagonal, 10 ft wide for scope, and every size in between).

Just curious how you did it. And I'd love to read what you think of your ST-100 once you've got it up in your room!
R Harkness is online now  
Old 02-04-2012, 09:44 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,308
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

Art, I believe he said that Stewart had one of the prototype units that did only produce ~1500 lumens in high lamp (what the production units produce in low lamp).

Yes, thanks ,my bad.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is online now  
Old 02-04-2012, 10:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,814
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

I recognized the same potential of this projector as a small screening room projector in the post-production world using the DCI specs. That may be what makes this projector cost what it does.

It seems likely, as you say, that 4K QuadHD will emerge as the consumer format with displays and a BD format. And can we hope that those projectors without all the DCI capabilities could be more afforadable?

Funny story; I saw a post on the RED forum from some film makers that visited CES and attended VW1000 demo and started a conversation with a Sony rep. (somewhat high up in the system) about the use if this projector as a post production projector for 4K grading.
The Sony rep. was rather intrigued by the suggestion because that was a marked possibility they hadn't thought about.
I guess the different "Fiefdoms" (as Sir Howard Stringer calls them) of Sony still doesn't communicate very well.
I don't know if the story was really true, but.

I hope the 4K projectors stay 4096x2160, because we don't know the future of possible media delivery.
The production cost difference between 4096 and 3840 panels can't be much

and TI; Hurry up and don't be late with 4K DLP again, and don't try to shrink the 4K DLP DMD's too much.
Larger mirrors = more light. Who want mirrors the size of the "end of a needle"? Even dust particles on the lens and lens glass impurity will kill much of the detail that is supposed to be resolved if you start out with too small pixels.

4K TV's can stay at QHD, in those sizes it won't matter very much.
coolscan is offline  
Old 02-04-2012, 10:17 AM
 
AV Science Sales 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver Klohs View Post

G-Rex said that Stewart had a preproduction model and these were around 1450 in Germany, too. Regarding the absolute number we have measured this was at screen center, not an ANSI measument but to my knowledge not too many reviewers measure that way, either. Regarding the speed of the dropoff I would like to know that, too but I think we will have to wait to hear real world results.

I verified with Stewart on Wens or Thursday, that the model they had for a day of dealer training was one of the two shown at Cedia, early preproduction. They also advised that Stewart made no measurements, attendees of the Stewart training probably did carrying around a handy dandy light meter that every red blooded videophiles carries everywhere now a days for just such an occassion. That machine had a different lower efficiency light engine.`
AV Science Sales 4 is offline  
Old 02-04-2012, 10:27 AM
 
AV Science Sales 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Two questions. The machine will reproduce the DCI colorspace and meets illumination and other requirements but it won't handle the bit rate so it can' be considered DCI compliant and thus it can be used to monitor a DCI feed. I don't know about DCI mastering. Would the lower bit rate be a problem?

My comment re the quality of a 2K rated anamorphic compared to a 4k really has nothing to do with the stretch multiplier. I think just feed the chip the 1.7777 HD frame and shoot it out of the projector 3840 x 2160 with black bars sides and top and bottom and use out trusty 1.33 Iscos but I still wonder re the rsolution thru such lens of 4 times the number of pixels.The cost of a 1.25 stretch anamorphic vs a 1.33 stretch anamorphic I would thing has nother to do with the stretch difference but with the increased glass quality for the increased resolution. Comments please.
AV Science Sales 4 is offline  
Old 02-04-2012, 10:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:


I hope the 4K projectors stay 4096x2160, because we don't know the future of possible media delivery.
The production cost difference between 4096 and 3840 panels can't be much

Good point. If it is easier to economically "mass" produce full 4096 panels rather than create 3840 panels, then all the better.

It is strange that pro and consumer divisions are often not connected well, and actually compete in ways. The JBL PS1400 subwoofer was a bastard child that never benefitted from adequate marketing because the driver came from the professional line, but the enclosure and electronics from consumer. Neither side supported it strongly, so it kind of languished through its life. Highly underrated sub. The driver is the same as in the Project Array 1400 at $5K.
Cam Man is offline  
Old 02-04-2012, 10:41 AM
 
AV Science Sales 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Re my black pit. And no my black dog is not a pit, she's just a little girl greater swiss mountain dog (105 lbs) just like Lon's little boy (160 lbs) shown as his Avatar.

My walls are black fabric acoustical type cloth covering hard and soft absorption panels and diffusers. My ceiling is black acoustical tile with various tiles replaced with black grill cloth for in ceiling transmission line subs and covering certain absorbers to catch first ceiling reflections. My speakers fly from the ceiling The carpet is dark navy blue and I covered the stage with black felt stuck to the carpet with velcro.

My front chairs are whirte. I cover the ones I am not sitting in with black felt. I replace them someday but the 4 new chairs I want would be over $20K MSRP and I have already more than blown my budget on the new projector. The new chairs will have to wait. I want low backs with barber chair type head rests that don't block the rear and side channels. Look at oasishometheaterseating.com Performance VIP family.
AV Science Sales 4 is offline  
Old 02-04-2012, 11:53 AM
Advanced Member
 
G-Rex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 874
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4 View Post


I verified with Stewart on Wens or Thursday, that the model they had for a day of dealer training was one of the two shown at Cedia, early preproduction. They also advised that Stewart made no measurements, attendees of the Stewart training probably did carrying around a handy dandy light meter that every red blooded videophiles carries everywhere now a days for just such an occassion. That machine had a different lower efficiency light engine.`

Not what I heard at all. Stewart said they had the projector for quite some time in their "lab" for testing and that others in the industry were not happy about that. There was no implication that it was just one day of dealer training. They also tested it on various screen sizes as well, two of which were a 9' and a 14' wide screen.
G-Rex is offline  
 
Thread Tools


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