Official Owners' Thread, Panasonic PT-AE8000U (US version) PT-AT6000E (European version) - Page 185 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 319Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #5521 of 5556 Old 06-08-2017, 08:24 AM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 887
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Liked: 175
@Michael Sargent , thanks for sharing your experience.

This may be common knowledge, but I'll reiterate the Panasonic part # for the PT-AE8000U replacement bulb is ET-LAA410, and it comes with the bulb, housing, and air filter.

FWIW, I just checked prices for PT-AE8000U replacement bulbs on 51 websites that advertise selling the OEM replacement bulb kit. Of the 51 sites I scanned, 3 of them either didn't actually sell the Panny kit or would not provide a price without registration or a phone call. The average price as of June 8, 2017 was $346.80 USD, exclusive of taxes and shipping charges. The lowest price I found was $276.87 USD (Projector Lamp Source Canada). That price is CAD converted to USD. The highest price was $512.95 USD. I won't bother sharing that merchant's info!

I'll note the price-gouging merchant offered an 'alternative' product for $269 USD manufactured by VSI Projectors. If one were to perform a search on that merchant's website by part #, you'd arrive at the clone and not the Panasonic part. I find that entire experience quite unnerving as this merchant is purposely driving searches for ET-LAA410 to the clone. On their site, the real Panny product has an internal part number that bears no resemblance to the Panasonic's ET-LAA410 nomenclature.

Buying a de-facto Panasonic bulb can be a bit of a crapshoot unless you verify beforehand it actually comes in a Panasonic box. I cross-referenced my online list with Panasonic's Authorized Reseller list for 'home entertainment' products, and I was disappointed to conclude their list appears dated and only moderately useful. Why am I skeptical of their published list? Because at least a few, highly reputable merchants are not on it. Merchants who I know sell genuine Panasonic parts. For example, B&H Photo in New York, who is one of the premiere online photography and video equipment retailers, stocks many genuine OEM parts, including Panny parts. Yet they are not on Panasonic's official list. I find it hard to believe B&H is not an official reseller. Regardless, I would not hesitate to trust them as I've ordered (and in some cases returned) many items from them over the years.

Another irritating component of Panny's website is the lack of reference to the PT-AE8000U on their official Projector Lamp Replacement web page (Panasonic now lumps these PJ's into their business section, for some odd reason).
Medi0gre likes this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My HT build in progress: The Final Frontier

Quiet Glue: Why Not to Use It

Last edited by HT Geek; 06-08-2017 at 08:28 AM.
HT Geek is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #5522 of 5556 Old 06-08-2017, 11:30 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
deano86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,863
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 274 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Excellent info! Thanks for your efforts! I think for the most part going forward, people on this thread sharing their info on any current best deals for authentic Panny 8000 bulbs will be most valuable.... especially as our projector's bulb hour meters rise and more and more of us will be in the market for a replacement.
deano86 is offline  
post #5523 of 5556 Old 06-09-2017, 07:38 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Michael Sargent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Kemptville, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,154
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by HT Geek View Post
The lowest price I found was $276.87 USD (Projector Lamp Source Canada).
That's $75CDN less than I paid. I have submitted a price match request. We'll see how that turns out.

In any case, it's nice to see that bulbs are still available and at some very good prices. We'll see how that turns out in 2 years when I need my next bulb.

Thanks,
Mike
Michael Sargent is offline  
 
post #5524 of 5556 Old 06-09-2017, 08:01 AM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 887
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Liked: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Sargent View Post
That's $75CDN less than I paid. I have submitted a price match request. We'll see how that turns out.
Mike, FYI... I just noticed their prices are different on their CAD vs. USA sites (taking into account exchange rates). The CAD site is cheaper atm after one converts the currency, though that also presumes no currency fees involved (which is likely not going to be the case). Their USA site quotes a price of $301.63 USD.

Just a heads-up for you in case it's helpful to know that when you speak with them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My HT build in progress: The Final Frontier

Quiet Glue: Why Not to Use It
HT Geek is offline  
post #5525 of 5556 Old 06-10-2017, 07:08 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Michael Sargent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Kemptville, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,154
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 167
I'm in Canada, so I'm comparing Canadian prices to Canadian prices.

Mike
Michael Sargent is offline  
post #5526 of 5556 Old 06-10-2017, 08:00 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
vitod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Pocono, PA
Posts: 3,604
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 269 Post(s)
Liked: 141
What LCD panels does the 8000 use? DC8, DC9?

Also, anyone use an anamorphic lens?

Thank you

Panasonic AE-8000, Carada BW 120", Paradigm Studio 40v3 x 2, Paradigm 690v4, Paradigm ADP 470v3 (rears), Micca M-8C x 4, Volt 6 x 2 (SR), SI DS4-18 in 12cuft X 2, Marantz 7702MKII, OPPO 103D, Emotiva XPA-3,

Last edited by vitod; 06-10-2017 at 08:31 AM.
vitod is offline  
post #5527 of 5556 Old 06-11-2017, 10:27 AM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 887
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Liked: 175
Vertical Lens Shift + CIH

Looking for advice from folks who have experimented with Vertical Offset and CIH setup (I have a 2.35 screen... yet to be hung... and will use lens memory for presets 2.35:1 and 16:9).

I have two options for mounting the PJ. One gives me a vertical offset of ~79% and the other ~98%. I'm hesitant to go near the AE8000's limit of 100% offset. I could move the screen height up and reduce the vertical offset, but I don't have much room to work with before I create issues with the front row viewers' vertical viewing angle.

My question: Any known issues putting vertical offset at or near it's maximum? Any disadvantages to maxing out the PJ's ability to drop the image vertically (my PJ will be ceiling mounted)?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My HT build in progress: The Final Frontier

Quiet Glue: Why Not to Use It
HT Geek is offline  
post #5528 of 5556 Old 06-12-2017, 12:13 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dreamliner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,138
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 624 Post(s)
Liked: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by HT Geek View Post
Looking for advice from folks who have experimented with Vertical Offset and CIH setup (I have a 2.35 screen... yet to be hung... and will use lens memory for presets 2.35:1 and 16:9).

I have two options for mounting the PJ. One gives me a vertical offset of ~79% and the other ~98%. I'm hesitant to go near the AE8000's limit of 100% offset. I could move the screen height up and reduce the vertical offset, but I don't have much room to work with before I create issues with the front row viewers' vertical viewing angle.

My question: Any known issues putting vertical offset at or near it's maximum? Any disadvantages to maxing out the PJ's ability to drop the image vertically (my PJ will be ceiling mounted)?
The best image quality is always going to be the projector dead center of the screen. Any movement away from that degrades the image quality slightly. You can only do what your room allows, but I'd suggest keeping it as close to center as reasonable. Not all projectors have the shift range of the AE8000 and if you upgrade in the future you'd have redo your mount if you choose the maxed out option. Real world though, you probably won't be able to see a difference either way.

Also, the manual shift of the AE8000 isn't exactly precise (its a 1" twist knob joystick) and variances in the way you mount the projector could easily eat up that 2% headroom your counting on.

I've moved on from this projector a few years ago and replaced that one too. (AE6000 --> AE8000 --> JVC RS46 --> JVC RS400).

I put a link to a image quality comparison between the Panasonic AE8000 and a JVC RS46 in my sig, its also here (clicky). You might find that information helpful.
Dreamliner is offline  
post #5529 of 5556 Old 06-12-2017, 06:52 AM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 887
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Liked: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamliner View Post
I put a link to a image quality comparison between the Panasonic AE8000 and a JVC RS46 in my sig, its also here (clicky). You might find that information helpful.
Thanks. That's appreciated and very interesting.

I'm surprised at your black level comparo between the JVC and Panny. When I was shopping, I was torn between these two brands. I prefer the cooler color tones and deeper blacks of the JVC, but the Panny's lens memory was a big factor for me. I have movies in several different formats. Most of my kids' are in 16:9, and most of my old movies are 2.35:1 or 2:39:1, with a few 2.40:1. I wanted to ensure I have a solution my teenage son will be able to use easily when I'm not there, and not muck up any settings.

We'll see how it goes. I'm going to see if I can get an ISF calibration done on it after the room is complete. Did you have someone do that with any of your PJ's? If so, what was your impression of before/after results?

Also thanks very much for your input on the vertical shift. What you described is as I expected, more or less. I am concerned about getting too close to the shift limits, and as you said the AE8000 has a greater vertical lens shift than most PJ's in its genre. And I do have upgrade plans. In 2-3 years I'm sure I'll get a 4K unit. I'm going to wait for a few things to stabilise in the industry first, such as the new HDMI standard (2.1). But you've made a great point that my next PJ might not be as flexible, and it would be unfortunate for that issue to have an effect on my purchase decision at that time.

Since my post, I've reworked my numbers a bit and decided I'm going to move the screen up another 6 inches, which helps for sure. I believe it will allow me to position the PJ in either location. It will also help with viewing of the back row occupants (my wife is short... I figure she'll appreciate that). I don't believe it will impact the front row's vertical viewing angle adversely to the point it will bother anyone (it goes up <2° in the change process).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My HT build in progress: The Final Frontier

Quiet Glue: Why Not to Use It

Last edited by HT Geek; 06-13-2017 at 06:19 AM. Reason: typo
HT Geek is offline  
post #5530 of 5556 Old 06-12-2017, 10:09 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dreamliner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,138
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 624 Post(s)
Liked: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by HT Geek View Post
Thanks. That's appreciated and very interesting.

I'm surprised at your black level comparo between the JVC and Panny. When I was shopping, I was torn between these two brands. I prefer the cooler color tones and deeper blacks of the JVC, but the Panny's lens memory was a big factor for me. I have movies in several different formats. Most of my kids' are in 16:9, and most of my old movies are 2.35:1 or 2:39:1, with a few 2.40:1. I wanted to ensure I have a solution my teenage son will be able to use easily when I'm not there, and not much up any settings.

We'll see how it goes. I'm going to see if I can get an ISF calibration done on it after the room is complete. Did you have someone do that with any of your PJ's? If so, what was your impression of before/after results?

Also thanks very much for your input on the vertical shift. What you described is as I expected, more or less. I am concerned about getting too close to the shift limits, and as you said the AE8000 has a greater vertical lens shift than most PJ's in its genre. And I do have upgrade plans. In 2-3 years I'm sure I'll get a 4K unit. I'm going to wait for a few things to stabilise in the industry first, such as the new HDMI standard (2.1). But you've made a great point that my next PJ might not be as flexible, and it would be unfortunate for that issue to have an effect on my purchase decision at that time.

Since my post, I've reworked my numbers a bit and decided I'm going to move the screen up another 6 inches, which helps for sure. I believe it will allow me to position the PJ in either location. It will also help with viewing of the back row occupants (my wife is short... I figure she'll appreciate that). I don't believe it will impact the front row's vertical viewing angle adversely to the point it will bother anyone (it goes up <2° in the change process).
The Panasonic's electronic lens memory has zero moving parts and will give you pixel-perfect lens memory every time. JVC owners will clamor on about 'image quality superiority' of mechanical lens shift while minimizing the need to manually adjust each shift with the projector remote. I had Panasonic projectors for a few years and the only remote by my side was the Harmony. Now that I own JVC, I have 2 remotes at my side. Panasonic's lens memory implementation is superior.

I did not get a calibration and I think I settled on Cinema 2. Calibration will drop a lot of brightness out of the AE8000 if I recall correctly. The brightness page of the extremely well done Projector Reviews review talks about it.
Dreamliner is offline  
post #5531 of 5556 Old 06-19-2017, 10:15 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 0
An update on my goings on with panasonic, I have been offered an upgrade from panasonic as a good will gesture, they are offering me a the panasonic pt rz370 with 16 hours on the unit. I have had a read around the internet but reviews are few and far between. It certainly does not strike me as being a pj that you would have for homecinema, and how would it stack up against the 8000?

Any help and advise on this would great. cheers.
sim20 is offline  
post #5532 of 5556 Old 06-19-2017, 11:11 AM
Senior Member
 
triodeuser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 480
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sim20 View Post
panasonic pt rz370..................

Any help and advise on this would great. cheers.
Weight 24.3 pounds.

PT AE8000U = Weight:19.2 lbs

The weight would be a deal-breaker for me if there were any other viable options. I ceiling mount, and the AE 8000U is the heaviest I have dealt with. I personally couldn't handle heavier. Granted, I am drawing social security, and not as spry as I used to be. I don't want to have to rely on my son or others to put it up and take it down.

If you don't ceiling mount, or you bench press high numbers I don't see it as a concern.

Plus, if that is all you can get out of them you may have to take your best shot and do what you have to do.
triodeuser is offline  
post #5533 of 5556 Old 06-19-2017, 12:14 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
deano86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,863
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 274 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by sim20 View Post
An update on my goings on with panasonic, I have been offered an upgrade from panasonic as a good will gesture, they are offering me a the panasonic pt rz370 with 16 hours on the unit. I have had a read around the internet but reviews are few and far between. It certainly does not strike me as being a pj that you would have for homecinema, and how would it stack up against the 8000?

Any help and advise on this would great. cheers.
Have you checked the specs on that awesome projector they are offering you? Unless 3D and lens memory is a must have for you, then this this replacement is a no brainer! DLP design with no lamp! ...no filter..no fan. Combo laser/led illumination...3500 lumens....Even if you don't need it further down the road, you can sell it for a lot more than a used 8000....
deano86 is offline  
post #5534 of 5556 Old 06-19-2017, 12:28 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,947
Mentioned: 94 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6451 Post(s)
Liked: 4166
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamliner View Post
The Panasonic's electronic lens memory has zero moving parts and will give you pixel-perfect lens memory every time. JVC owners will clamor on about 'image quality superiority' of mechanical lens shift while minimizing the need to manually adjust each shift with the projector remote. I had Panasonic projectors for a few years and the only remote by my side was the Harmony. Now that I own JVC, I have 2 remotes at my side. Panasonic's lens memory implementation is superior.

I did not get a calibration and I think I settled on Cinema 2. Calibration will drop a lot of brightness out of the AE8000 if I recall correctly. The brightness page of the extremely well done Projector Reviews review talks about it.
Two problems with Panasonic's lens memory.

1. The projector has to be mounted between the top and bottom of the screen.
2. Since it is shifting the image on the screen, You are losing pixels all the time.

Sounds like issue one will be a real problem for the poster you responded to, based on him wanting to use a lot of lens shift. Usually with lens memory, you lose pixels when doing 2.35. With the panny you lose those same pixels with 16:9 also.

mjgarrett100@gmail.com

My Baffle wall LCR build: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-di...-tpl-150h.html
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #5535 of 5556 Old 06-19-2017, 01:32 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by deano86 View Post
Have you checked the specs on that awesome projector they are offering you? Unless 3D and lens memory is a must have for you, then this this replacement is a no brainer! DLP design with no lamp! ...no filter..no fan. Combo laser/led illumination...3500 lumens....Even if you don't need it further down the road, you can sell it for a lot more than a used 8000....
My primary concern is that i have no way to demo rz and the image to be worse then the 8000, the native contrast is only 10000.1 !
sim20 is offline  
post #5536 of 5556 Old 06-19-2017, 02:56 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dreamliner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,138
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 624 Post(s)
Liked: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
Two problems with Panasonic's lens memory.

1. The projector has to be mounted between the top and bottom of the screen.
2. Since it is shifting the image on the screen, You are losing pixels all the time.

Sounds like issue one will be a real problem for the poster you responded to, based on him wanting to use a lot of lens shift. Usually with lens memory, you lose pixels when doing 2.35. With the panny you lose those same pixels with 16:9 also.
I understand and agree about the mounting limitations, but I do not understand the losing pixels bit, can you explain that?
Dreamliner is offline  
post #5537 of 5556 Old 06-19-2017, 03:03 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,947
Mentioned: 94 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6451 Post(s)
Liked: 4166
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamliner View Post
I understand and agree about the mounting limitations, but I do not understand the losing pixels bit, can you explain that?
We do not sell the Panny, but from what I remember the Panny only used the pixels within the scope image area, for 16:9 and 2.35, when using lens memory. Now granted, losing pixels when watching 16:9 on a scope image should be even less noticeable than losing pixels when watching scope, since the 16:9 image is smaller. And everybody that uses lens memory loses pixels when watching scope.

mjgarrett100@gmail.com

My Baffle wall LCR build: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-di...-tpl-150h.html
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #5538 of 5556 Old 06-19-2017, 03:23 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dreamliner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,138
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 624 Post(s)
Liked: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
We do not sell the Panny, but from what I remember the Panny only used the pixels within the scope image area, for 16:9 and 2.35, when using lens memory. Now granted, losing pixels when watching 16:9 on a scope image should be even less noticeable than losing pixels when watching scope, since the 16:9 image is smaller. And everybody that uses lens memory loses pixels when watching scope.
Oh I see what you're saying now. That isn't now the panny works.

Its been a few years, but as I recall: You first set it for the width of the 1.78:1 screen, then zoom out and set it again for the width of the 2.35:1 screen. The Panny uses electronic (the projected area physically changes) zoom. So the projector simply zooms the image in/out focuses and simply 'shifts' the 2.35:1 content higher on the total zoomed display area. So the only 'lost' pixels are the ones in the black bar area. Basically, pretend you took the top and black bars of your JVC and put them both on the bottom. That's what the Panny does. You lose zero illuminated pixels.

Panasonic Lens Memory truly is superior to JVC's system. Plus, the masking settings are saved to the lens memory position, a no brainier in my book!
HT Geek likes this.
Dreamliner is offline  
post #5539 of 5556 Old 06-19-2017, 04:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 887
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Liked: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
Two problems with Panasonic's lens memory.

1. The projector has to be mounted between the top and bottom of the screen.
2. Since it is shifting the image on the screen, You are losing pixels all the time.

Sounds like issue one will be a real problem for the poster you responded to, based on him wanting to use a lot of lens shift. Usually with lens memory, you lose pixels when doing 2.35. With the panny you lose those same pixels with 16:9 also.

Mike, I believe your first point is not correct, as the PT-AE8000U has a maximum vertical lens shift of 100%. A fixed range between the top and bottom of the screen would represent a 50% maximum vertical lens shift. I've corroborated my view based on:

  • Panasonic has a throw distance calculator for the PT-AE8000U that includes measurements for vertical and horizontal offset; it is found HERE
  • The PT-AE8000U has a maximum vertical shift of 100%
  • The best explanation I have found for vertical shift (i.e. a correct explanation) is from a 2014 Audioholics article by Jeff Heyne, entitled "How to Install a Home Theater Projector and Screen from Start to Finish" found HERE. It is the best all-in-one explanation I've ever found regarding PJ placement (i.e. all the core principles summarized into a single published article). Scroll down until you reach the section entitled, Vertical Offset: How far down from the ceiling?

Here's the TL;DR version on measuring vertical offset:
  1. Take your screen height
  2. Mulitply by vertical offset percentage
  3. The product is the maximum distance from the center of the lens to the center of the screen

Panasonic's PJ calculator concurs with Heyne's explanation.

Let's say that I plug in a screen height of 50" tall. Presuming a CIH setup with 16:9 and 2.35:1, Panasonic's calculator reports (in part) the following:

[Optical shift range]
VS1: 1,270 mm / 50 in / 4.17 ft
HS1: 587 mm / 23.1 in / 1.93 ft

Dreamliner's quote makes sense regarding point 2, and I know he has owned the PT-AE8000U and used its lens memory function. To wit:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamliner View Post
You first set it for the width of the 1.78:1 screen, then zoom out and set it again for the width of the 2.35:1 screen. The Panny uses electronic (the projected area physically changes) zoom. So the projector simply zooms the image in/out focuses and simply 'shifts' the 2.35:1 content higher on the total zoomed display area. So the only 'lost' pixels are the ones in the black bar area. Basically, pretend you took the top and black bars of your JVC and put them both on the bottom. That's what the Panny does. You lose zero illuminated pixels.
This also makes sense relative to Panasonic's website calculator. If I use that calculator to figure vertical lens shift for a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, it reports:

[Optical shift range]
 * Refer to the shift range of 16:9 aspect ratio.


All that said, vertical shift capability is one thing. How good the picture looks after using it - and especially if one is near it's maximum technical limitation - has the potential to be a different beast altogether. That (the latter) is what I'm concerned about. I've currently adjusted the screen height such that the vertical offset will - in the current plan - be 60%. If I shift gears and use my alternate mounting location, it would increase to 79%. I'm starting to feel more comfortable with either option from the perspective of vertical lens shift, as this still leaves me with a minimum 20% or so margin. I do appreciate all the comments on this subject though, particularly from folks who have used this feature of the Panny PJ's in conjunction with lens memory.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My HT build in progress: The Final Frontier

Quiet Glue: Why Not to Use It
HT Geek is offline  
post #5540 of 5556 Old 06-19-2017, 08:48 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,947
Mentioned: 94 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6451 Post(s)
Liked: 4166
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamliner View Post
Oh I see what you're saying now. That isn't now the panny works.

Its been a few years, but as I recall: You first set it for the width of the 1.78:1 screen, then zoom out and set it again for the width of the 2.35:1 screen. The Panny uses electronic (the projected area physically changes) zoom. So the projector simply zooms the image in/out focuses and simply 'shifts' the 2.35:1 content higher on the total zoomed display area. So the only 'lost' pixels are the ones in the black bar area. Basically, pretend you took the top and black bars of your JVC and put them both on the bottom. That's what the Panny does. You lose zero illuminated pixels.

Panasonic Lens Memory truly is superior to JVC's system. Plus, the masking settings are saved to the lens memory position, a no brainier in my book!
You lose pixels. No way around that. Any projector that uses the zoom method, loses pixels when displaying a scope image. That applies to all, JVC, Panny, Epson, Sony and all others. Only way around that is to use an anamorphic lens. But with Panny's system, I believe you lose them with scope and 16:9 content. The advantage of Panny's system is the instant and accurate aspect ratio change. You can also do two different screens (16:9 and scope) that are constant image area. Panny can't do that either. If you wanted to do a constant image area with a 2.06 aspect ratio screen, The Panny can't do that, but the others can. While I give you the instant and accurate aspect ratio change between 16:9 and scope, I definitely would not say the Panny system is superior, when it has these other limitations.

mjgarrett100@gmail.com

My Baffle wall LCR build: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-di...-tpl-150h.html
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #5541 of 5556 Old 06-19-2017, 08:52 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,947
Mentioned: 94 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6451 Post(s)
Liked: 4166
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by HT Geek View Post
Mike, I believe your first point is not correct, as the PT-AE8000U has a maximum vertical lens shift of 100%. A fixed range between the top and bottom of the screen would represent a 50% maximum vertical lens shift. I've corroborated my view based on:

  • Panasonic has a throw distance calculator for the PT-AE8000U that includes measurements for vertical and horizontal offset; it is found HERE
  • The PT-AE8000U has a maximum vertical shift of 100%
  • The best explanation I have found for vertical shift (i.e. a correct explanation) is from a 2014 Audioholics article by Jeff Heyne, entitled "How to Install a Home Theater Projector and Screen from Start to Finish" found HERE. It is the best all-in-one explanation I've ever found regarding PJ placement (i.e. all the core principles summarized into a single published article). Scroll down until you reach the section entitled, Vertical Offset: How far down from the ceiling?

Here's the TL;DR version on measuring vertical offset:
  1. Take your screen height
  2. Mulitply by vertical offset percentage
  3. The product is the maximum distance from the center of the lens to the center of the screen

Panasonic's PJ calculator concurs with Heyne's explanation.

Let's say that I plug in a screen height of 50" tall. Presuming a CIH setup with 16:9 and 2.35:1, Panasonic's calculator reports (in part) the following:

[Optical shift range]
VS1: 1,270 mm / 50 in / 4.17 ft
HS1: 587 mm / 23.1 in / 1.93 ft

Dreamliner's quote makes sense regarding point 2, and I know he has owned the PT-AE8000U and used its lens memory function. To wit:



This also makes sense relative to Panasonic's website calculator. If I use that calculator to figure vertical lens shift for a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, it reports:

[Optical shift range]
 * Refer to the shift range of 16:9 aspect ratio.


All that said, vertical shift capability is one thing. How good the picture looks after using it - and especially if one is near it's maximum technical limitation - has the potential to be a different beast altogether. That (the latter) is what I'm concerned about. I've currently adjusted the screen height such that the vertical offset will - in the current plan - be 60%. If I shift gears and use my alternate mounting location, it would increase to 79%. I'm starting to feel more comfortable with either option from the perspective of vertical lens shift, as this still leaves me with a minimum 20% or so margin. I do appreciate all the comments on this subject though, particularly from folks who have used this feature of the Panny PJ's in conjunction with lens memory.
Yes, you have a lot of lens shift if doing a 16:9 screen, but the amount of lens shift available goes out the window, when doing CIH. Just ask someone in this thread that is using the Panny with a scope screen.

mjgarrett100@gmail.com

My Baffle wall LCR build: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-di...-tpl-150h.html
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #5542 of 5556 Old 06-19-2017, 08:54 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dreamliner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,138
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 624 Post(s)
Liked: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
You lose pixels. No way around that. Any projector that uses the zoom method, loses pixels when displaying a scope image. That applies to all, JVC, Panny, Epson, Sony and all others. Only way around that is to use an anamorphic lens. But with Panny's system, I believe you lose them with scope and 16:9 content. The advantage of Panny's system is the instant and accurate aspect ratio change. You can also do two different screens (16:9 and scope) that are constant image area. Panny can't do that either. If you wanted to do a constant image area with a 2.06 aspect ratio screen, The Panny can't do that, but the others can. While I give you the instant and accurate aspect ratio change between 16:9 and scope, I definitely would not say the Panny system is superior, when it has these other limitations.
Perhaps I am not understanding you, but it certainly sounds like your saying set the AE8000 for the 2.35:1 screen and you think the projector simply resizes the 16x9 content to fit inside the actually 2.35:1 screen and that is not how the AE8000 works.

If you physically counted the pixels in 16x9 mode or 2.35:1 mode, in both cases, you would count 1920 wide.
Dreamliner is offline  
post #5543 of 5556 Old 06-19-2017, 08:58 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,947
Mentioned: 94 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6451 Post(s)
Liked: 4166
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamliner View Post
Perhaps I am not understanding you, but it certainly sounds like your saying set the AE8000 for the 2.35:1 screen and you think the projector simply resizes the 16x9 content to fit inside the actually 2.35:1 screen and that is not how the AE8000 works.

If you physically counted the pixels in 16x9 mode or 2.35:1 mode, in both cases, you would count 1920 wide.
Correct, you do not lose any pixels in width. Do you think you are using all 1080 vertical lines?

mjgarrett100@gmail.com

My Baffle wall LCR build: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-di...-tpl-150h.html
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #5544 of 5556 Old 06-19-2017, 09:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dreamliner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,138
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 624 Post(s)
Liked: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
Correct, you do not lose any pixels in width. Do you think you are using all 1080 vertical lines?
2.35:1 content is like 800 pixels tall or whatever. That's a source thing, not a projector thing. What I don't understand is how you think anything more is lost with Panny?
Dreamliner is offline  
post #5545 of 5556 Old 06-19-2017, 09:03 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,947
Mentioned: 94 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6451 Post(s)
Liked: 4166
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamliner View Post
2.35:1 content is like 800 pixels tall or whatever. That's a source thing, not a projector thing.
And yet if you use an anamorphic lens, you use all 1080 lines. 800 lines is a limitation for all systems that use lens memory. I seem to recall with the Panny the 16:9 height is also 800 lines when using lens memory.

mjgarrett100@gmail.com

My Baffle wall LCR build: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-di...-tpl-150h.html
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #5546 of 5556 Old 06-19-2017, 09:10 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dreamliner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,138
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 624 Post(s)
Liked: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
And yet if you use an anamorphic lens, you use all 1080 lines. 800 lines is a limitation for all systems that use lens memory. I seem to recall with the Panny the 16:9 height is also 800 lines when using lens memory.
Right, but I don't think anamorphic was brought up by anyone, right? I mean, to be fair, the "800 lines limitation" affects ANY projector that DOES NOT use anamorphic regardless of lens memory, plus EVERY LCD, Plasma, OLED and any other pixel display....because again, its not the display, its the source.

The Panasonic has no such 16x9 limitation; at least not the AE7000 or AE8000 I owned. That is why I complained so much with the JVC RS46 (and now RS400) at having to keep my projector remote out to adjust the obnoxious mechanical lens shift and manually set masking each time; especially when the Panasonic did it with a pixel perfect single button press, with masking memory.

My Panasonic remote wasn't touched after day one. I had the button saved into my Harmony. Heck, the Panasonic even has an auto-detect for 2.35:1 content so it will shift by itself if I wanted.

Honestly, these are the reasons why I will continue to assert Panasonic clearly has the upper-hand with lens memory. Better picture quality on the JVC, which is why I switched, but it could be better at its approach to lens memory and masking.

Last edited by Dreamliner; 06-20-2017 at 07:36 AM.
Dreamliner is offline  
post #5547 of 5556 Old 06-20-2017, 01:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 887
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Liked: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamliner View Post
The Panasonic has no such 16x9 limitation; at least not the AE7000 or AE8000 I owned.
AE7000/AE8000 native resolution is 1920x1080 or 16:9 AR (1080 lines of vertical resolution).

2.35:1 AR content is 800 or 810 vertical lines of resolution (depending on source of info).

An anamorphic lens will allow displaying 2.35:1 content at 1080 vertical lines of resolution, effectively shrinking the vertical pixel size by 33-35%. The content is squished by the PJ or pre-processor, and the lens un-squishes it. However, that comes at a price (pun intended). One must have the ability to correctly process the image before the PJ shoots it through the lens. One has to decide if a moveable lens or fixed lens will be used. Each has their advantages and disadvantages. The whole system will cost $$$ to implement properly. You have to ask yourself if the cost associated with money, inconvenience, and more equipment is worth a 25% greater vertical pixel density.

If it is important to someone to extract maximum resolution from a 2.35:1 image, why not simply purchase a 4K PJ with upscaling? It's probably cheaper and easier than setting up an anamorphic lens, and you'll get ~1600 lines of vertical resolution. The anamorphic lens route made sense pre-4K, when there were virtually no PJ's capable of true 2.35:1 output upscaled to 16:9 vertical resolution.

Granted, there are now "Ultra Wide" anamorphic lenses. If someone sits 4' or less from their screen or they have a GIANT screen (e.g. >150" wide) and it's bothering them that they only have 1600 vertical pixels instead of 2100, then I suppose I can understand spending $ on one of those. NOT! It's not possible to sit close enough to a 4K screen where someone would actually notice the difference unless they are so close their FOV prevents them from seeing the entire 'ultra wide' screen in the first place. Waste of $ IMHO.

So, back to the Panny. The Panny's native resolution is 16:9. However, when an incoming image is 2.35:1, the Panny does not zoom it to a 16:9 picture and chop off the sides. When it recognizes 2.35:1 content, instead it retains the aspect ratio internally by adding top and bottom bars (remember, the content is only 800 lines anyway, so no content is lost). When the PJ goes to shoot the image, it masks the top and bottom (black bar) portions. The effect is a 2.35:1 display with no visible bars and correctly presented 2.35:1 content.

What's cool about these Panny PJ's:
  • Automatic detection of 16:9 or 2.35:1 content
  • Automatic masking of 2.35:1 content
  • Lens memory for 16:9 and 2.35:1 presentations
  • Automatic changing of display image based on content AR (i.e. automatically implement lens memory) by combining above features

If you want higher resolution for 2.35:1 format display on the cheap, there are two simple solutions that don't require a fancy display, PJ, or anamorphic lens:
  1. Get a smaller screen and move your PJ closer to it (make the pixels smaller/denser)
  2. Move your seat further away from the screen (make your vision worse)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My HT build in progress: The Final Frontier

Quiet Glue: Why Not to Use It
HT Geek is offline  
post #5548 of 5556 Old 06-20-2017, 01:58 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,947
Mentioned: 94 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6451 Post(s)
Liked: 4166
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by HT Geek View Post
AE7000/AE8000 native resolution is 1920x1080 or 16:9 AR (1080 lines of vertical resolution).

2.35:1 AR content is 800 or 810 vertical lines of resolution (depending on source of info).

An anamorphic lens will allow displaying 2.35:1 content at 1080 vertical lines of resolution, effectively shrinking the vertical pixel size by 33-35%. The content is squished by the PJ or pre-processor, and the lens un-squishes it. However, that comes at a price (pun intended). One must have the ability to correctly process the image before the PJ shoots it through the lens. One has to decide if a moveable lens or fixed lens will be used. Each has their advantages and disadvantages. The whole system will cost $$$ to implement properly. You have to ask yourself if the cost associated with money, inconvenience, and more equipment is worth a 25% greater vertical pixel density.

If it is important to someone to extract maximum resolution from a 2.35:1 image, why not simply purchase a 4K PJ with upscaling? It's probably cheaper and easier than setting up an anamorphic lens, and you'll get ~1600 lines of vertical resolution. The anamorphic lens route made sense pre-4K, when there were virtually no PJ's capable of true 2.35:1 output upscaled to 16:9 vertical resolution.

Granted, there are now "Ultra Wide" anamorphic lenses. If someone sits 4' or less from their screen or they have a GIANT screen (e.g. >150" wide) and it's bothering them that they only have 1600 vertical pixels instead of 2100, then I suppose I can understand spending $ on one of those. NOT! It's not possible to sit close enough to a 4K screen where someone would actually notice the difference unless they are so close their FOV prevents them from seeing the entire 'ultra wide' screen in the first place. Waste of $ IMHO.

So, back to the Panny. The Panny's native resolution is 16:9. However, when an incoming image is 2.35:1, the Panny does not zoom it to a 16:9 picture and chop off the sides. When it recognizes 2.35:1 content, instead it retains the aspect ratio internally by adding top and bottom bars (remember, the content is only 800 lines anyway, so no content is lost). When the PJ goes to shoot the image, it masks the top and bottom (black bar) portions. The effect is a 2.35:1 display with no visible bars and correctly presented 2.35:1 content.

What's cool about these Panny PJ's:
  • Automatic detection of 16:9 or 2.35:1 content
  • Automatic masking of 2.35:1 content
  • Lens memory for 16:9 and 2.35:1 presentations
  • Automatic changing of display image based on content AR (i.e. automatically implement lens memory) by combining above features

If you want higher resolution for 2.35:1 format display on the cheap, there are two simple solutions that don't require a fancy display, PJ, or anamorphic lens:
  1. Get a smaller screen and move your PJ closer to it (make the pixels smaller/denser)
  2. Move your seat further away from the screen (make your vision worse)
Most anamorphic lens used these days are expansion, not compression. The projector stretches the image vertically, using the pixels in the black bars and the lens horizontally stretches, not compresses the image. I do not know where this cutting off the sides of a 16:9 image. I never said that.

mjgarrett100@gmail.com

My Baffle wall LCR build: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-di...-tpl-150h.html
Mike Garrett is offline  
post #5549 of 5556 Old 06-20-2017, 04:56 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 887
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Liked: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
Most anamorphic lens used these days are expansion, not compression. The projector stretches the image vertically, using the pixels in the black bars and the lens horizontally stretches, not compresses the image.
Right. I believe we're on the same page. An anamorphic lens effectively allows 1080 vertical display lines from an 800 vertical line (2.35:1) image, but requires a pre-processor. The content is still 800 vertical lines. The pre-processor (either inside the PJ or external and in-line between 2.35:1 source and the PJ) morphs the image so it is stretched to use all 1080 vertical lines in the 16:9 format. Since the image height / screen height is unchanged, the vertical size of the pixels decreases proportionally, resulting in increased vertical pixel density (more vertical lines crammed into the same height = each line is shorter). The PJ display processor receives the distorted image in 16:9 format. It doesn't know the image is distorted. It only knows it is being handed a 1920x1080 image. The anamorphic lens un-does the distortion by expanding the width of the image by a corresponding amount to the pre-processing morph. The end result is a 2.35:1 picture in a higher resolution (1080 lines) than the original content (800 lines). Nice, but a good 4K upscaler will do even better and potentially for less $.


Quote:
I do not know where this cutting off the sides of a 16:9 image.
Zooming in a 2.35:1 image to fit its height fully onto a 16:9 screen (no black bars top and bottom) causes the sides of the 2.35:1 image to be truncated.

Anyhow, I went with a 2.35:1 screen because I have more movies recorded in 2.35/2.39/2.40:1 vs. 16:9. I also prefer the wider aspect ratio. I wanted a screen that could present cinematic movies in their full glory. I chose the AE8000 in part due to its orientation toward displaying 2.35:1 format video. I know it's not a native 2.35:1 display PJ, but very few are (and none at its price range). Lens memory and automatic memory selection based on the content AR were important factors to my decision to choose this model over others.

At this price range (I paid $1700 USD new), I don't expect perfection. I do believe that on balance, the AE8000 provides a lot of value at it's price point. JVC and Epson also make excellent sub-$3000 PJ's. It boils down to features. Panasonic was first-to-market with Lens Memory, which may explain why it's superior to the other PJ's at its market point. I agree with Dreamliner in that regard - that the AE8000 is superior from the standpoint of its lens memory features. Like I said, it was a big factor to me due to my content collection, my viewing habits, and the viewing habits of other household members. When I'm ready to move to a more expensive PJ with 4K, HDMI 2.1, etc., I anticipate it's still going to be a significant factor for me personally. I also looked at the option of using an anamorphic lens setup and determined the Panny's methodology was more cost effective and convenient.
Medi0gre likes this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My HT build in progress: The Final Frontier

Quiet Glue: Why Not to Use It
HT Geek is offline  
post #5550 of 5556 Old 06-20-2017, 06:11 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 887
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Liked: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
... JVC, Panny, Epson, Sony and all others.... You can also do two different screens (16:9 and scope) that are constant image area. Panny can't do that either. If you wanted to do a constant image area with a 2.06 aspect ratio screen, The Panny can't do that, but the others can.
"The others" meaning which manufacturers and models?

I'm not sure what your point is. Constant Image Area is difficult to attain. And 99.9% of people could care less once they figure out it is mathematically exceptionally difficult to obtain unless you're willing to commit to a particular screen size ONLY to achieve CIA, or you have >1 screen. You have to get the aspect ratios, throw distance, and image area all correct. This tends to be quite challenging.

Unless someone has a specific need, they're better off going with industry standards and fitting an odd image to a standard size for viewing. 99.9% of people don't need constant image area for any particular purpose. How many films are in 2.06:1 and how many people care? I don't see the Panny's inability to do that as a detriment. How many people don't buy a PJ because it won't do some obscure aspect ratio? I'd bet close to zero. How many people would not buy a PJ if it didn't support 16:9? Almost everyone.

The most common AR's are 4:3 (1.33:1), 16:9 (1.78:1), 2.35:1, 2.39:1, and 2.40:1. Less common are 16:10 (1.6:1), 1.85:1, and 1.9:1. There's no easy method of choosing a screen size in one of these ratios and trying to match a corresponding ratio, then tinkering with screen sizes to find one that displays both in the same space. It's an exercise 99% of people will lose interest in after about 5 minutes. If it were simple and straightforward, everyone would do it.

If OTOH, you're saying other PJ's support aspect ratios other than 16:9, 4:3, and 2.35:1, I can understand that appeal if someone has a particular interest. For example, some folks might strongly prefer being able to render a 2.40:1 screen because it is able to preserve the original image from 2.35:1 to 2.40:1. A minor point to some people, and an important point to others. Since the Panny locks in the 2.35:1 AR, that could be a detriment to someone with that perspective.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My HT build in progress: The Final Frontier

Quiet Glue: Why Not to Use It
HT Geek is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
Darbeevision Darblet Hdmi Video Processor , Epson 5020ub Powerlite Home Cinema 3d Front Projector , green , issue , Jvc Dla X35 3d Hd Front Projector , Panasonic Pt Ae4000u 1600 Lumen Lcd Home Theater Projector , Panasonic Pt Ae7000u 1080p Full Hd Projector , Panasonic Ptae8000u Hd Projector , PT-AE8000 , PT-AT6000 , PT-AT6000E , Sony Vpl Hw50es 3d Projector
Gear in this thread



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