Official Owners' Thread, Panasonic PT-AE8000U (US version) PT-AT6000E (European version) - Page 186 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 319Likes
Reply
Thread Tools
post #5551 of 5555 Unread Yesterday, 07:53 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,908
Mentioned: 91 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6425 Post(s)
Liked: 4143
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by HT Geek View Post
"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.
What in the world are you talking about? CIA on a single screen with or without masking on one or two screens is simple. With a single screen and no masking, you buy a screen with a 2.04 aspect ratio. That's it, nothing else to do. So if you buy a 10' wide (viewing) screen, the (viewing) height will be 58.8". So you're 2.35 image will be 51" x 120" (42.5SF) and your 16:9 image will be 58.8" x 104.66" (42.7SF). Since the Panny can't do this, I will use the JVC for calculating throw. You can mount the JVC anywhere from 14' to 24'-6". That is it. Nothing else to do. CIA is a great way to go, with one exception, without masking, you will always have unused screen, with either format.

With two screens, you just buy the two screen sizes as exampled above. If using 10' wide, you buy 2.35 of 51" x 120" and 16:9 of 58.8" x 104.66". Use lens memory to fill both screens.

mjgarrett100@gmail.com

My Baffle wall LCR build: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-di...-tpl-150h.html

Last edited by Mike Garrett; Yesterday at 07:57 PM.
Mike Garrett is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #5552 of 5555 Unread Yesterday, 09:03 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 879
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 378 Post(s)
Liked: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
What in the world are you talking about? CIA on a single screen with or without masking on one or two screens is simple. With a single screen and no masking, you buy a screen with a 2.04 aspect ratio. That's it, nothing else to do. So if you buy a 10' wide (viewing) screen, the (viewing) height will be 58.8". So you're 2.35 image will be 51" x 120" (42.5SF) and your 16:9 image will be 58.8" x 104.66" (42.7SF). Since the Panny can't do this, I will use the JVC for calculating throw. You can mount the JVC anywhere from 14' to 24'-6". That is it. Nothing else to do. CIA is a great way to go, with one exception, without masking, you will always have unused screen, with either format.

With two screens, you just buy the two screen sizes as exampled above. If using 10' wide, you buy 2.35 of 51" x 120" and 16:9 of 58.8" x 104.66". Use lens memory to fill both screens.
I see. I was thinking you were talking about CIA where no masking is required and there's no empty space.

So, what is it about the Panny that it can't do in that regard, since it can do 16:9 and 2.35:1? It's not a requirements AFAIK for the AE8000 to use CIH, so why wouldn't it be able to produce an image that is one height at 2.35:1 and another height at 16:9?

Is it possible to choose an aspect ratio other than 16:9 or 2.35:1 with an alternative PJ in the class of PJ's? Aren't all its competitors also natively 16:9 PJ's?

I don't understand how the end result in your example is substantially different from what the Panny's offer. There's still unused space in one format or the other. In the example you mentioned, you would have unused space both vertically and horizontally if I understand you correctly. What is the benefit to the user? One could use 2 screens for the Panny as well if it were a priority to have no masking or zoom.

Perhaps I'm just not seeing the light here, but I just don't see a disadvantage here to the Panny that would matter to the vast majority of users.

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

Quiet Glue: Why Not to Use It
HT Geek is offline  
post #5553 of 5555 Unread Today, 01:16 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dreamliner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,137
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 623 Post(s)
Liked: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by HT Geek View Post
Perhaps I'm just not seeing the light here, but I just don't see a disadvantage here to the Panny that would matter to the vast majority of users.
There isn't one.
thrillcat and HT Geek like this.
Dreamliner is online now  
 
post #5554 of 5555 Unread Today, 06:12 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,908
Mentioned: 91 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6425 Post(s)
Liked: 4143
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by HT Geek View Post
I see. I was thinking you were talking about CIA where no masking is required and there's no empty space.

So, what is it about the Panny that it can't do in that regard, since it can do 16:9 and 2.35:1? It's not a requirements AFAIK for the AE8000 to use CIH, so why wouldn't it be able to produce an image that is one height at 2.35:1 and another height at 16:9?

Is it possible to choose an aspect ratio other than 16:9 or 2.35:1 with an alternative PJ in the class of PJ's? Aren't all its competitors also natively 16:9 PJ's?

I don't understand how the end result in your example is substantially different from what the Panny's offer. There's still unused space in one format or the other. In the example you mentioned, you would have unused space both vertically and horizontally if I understand you correctly. What is the benefit to the user? One could use 2 screens for the Panny as well if it were a priority to have no masking or zoom.

Perhaps I'm just not seeing the light here, but I just don't see a disadvantage here to the Panny that would matter to the vast majority of users.
CIA is exactly that. The area of the 16:9 image is the same as the area of the 2.35 image. You can't do that with the Panny. That is because the Panny has to be mounted between the top and bottom of the image and with CIA, the 16:9 image is taller than the 2.35.

Yes with only a single screen and no masking, you will have unused screen with 16:9 and 2.25. How is that much different than when doing CIH with a screen without masking? Besides, with lens memory, it is very easy to shift the scope image down to the bottom and mask the top. Also pretty easy to mask the sides of the 16:9 image.

With a single row of seating and a 16:9 screen or a scope screen you have a compromise on either 16:9 or scope. With a scope screen, you end up with a compromised 16:9 image that is small. With a 16:9 screen you end up with a compromised scope image that is smaller than your 16:9 image. If your setup is mostly for movies, many people are more willing to compromise the 16:9 image to get the larger scope image. That is how my system is set up, but still, it is a compromise and I certainly notice it every time I have a movie that is in 16:9 format. It is also a big compromise for anybody that uses their system for TV viewing and sports. My way around that is to have two screens.

This is not some foreign or unusual idea. CIA is the ultimate system, but not many do it due to cost and complexity. Several companies make 4-way masking screens for CIA.
http://www.seymourscreenexcellence.com/CA.asp
http://www.stewartfilmscreen.com/sta...ectors-choice)

The other way of doing it with no masking and not having black bars or unused screen is to use two screens.

mjgarrett100@gmail.com

My Baffle wall LCR build: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-di...-tpl-150h.html
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #5555 of 5555 Unread Today, 06:30 AM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 879
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 378 Post(s)
Liked: 174
[quote=Mike Garrett;53781969]CIA is exactly that. The area of the 16:9 image is the same as the area of the 2.35 image.[quote]

I believe it's not necessarily 16:9 + 2.35:1, but that is what most people are after when they strive to setup CIA.


Quote:
You can't do that with the Panny. That is because the Panny has to be mounted between the top and bottom of the image and with CIA, the 16:9 image is taller than the 2.35.
Your comprehension of the AE8000's vertical offset is not correct. The PJ has a 100% maximum offset, meaning it is capable of being mounted with the center of the lens up to 100% above or below the distance from the center of the screen to the edge of the screen. Put another way, it is possible to mount it up to 50% of the screen height above or below the screen. The link to Panasonic's web throw distance calculator that I linked in a post above will calculate the maximum vertical and horizontal offsets.


Quote:
Yes with only a single screen and no masking, you will have unused screen with 16:9 and 2.25. How is that much different than when doing CIH with a screen without masking? Besides, with lens memory, it is very easy to shift the scope image down to the bottom and mask the top. Also pretty easy to mask the sides of the 16:9 image.
Yes, I completely agree. There's virtually no experiential difference. The end result if not identical, is close to it from a practical viewpoint.


Quote:
With a single row of seating and a 16:9 screen or a scope screen you have a compromise on either 16:9 or scope. With a scope screen, you end up with a compromised 16:9 image that is small. With a 16:9 screen you end up with a compromised scope image that is smaller than your 16:9 image. If your setup is mostly for movies, many people are more willing to compromise the 16:9 image to get the larger scope image. That is how my system is set up, but still, it is a compromise and I certainly notice it every time I have a movie that is in 16:9 format. It is also a big compromise for anybody that uses their system for TV viewing and sports. My way around that is to have two screens.

This is not some foreign or unusual idea. CIA is the ultimate system, but not many do it due to cost and complexity. Several companies make 4-way masking screens for CIA.
I don't disagree with you. I went through the same thought process and chose to prioritize a 2.35:1 screen. I also chose not to use a masking system. I have considered using a grey screen instead of my current white screen in an effort to improve the effect of the side panels fading into the background when in 16:9 mode. However, that obviously has other implications (but it's one possible method of attempting to improve the black levels of unmasked areas). 2.35:1 is easier to tackle by simply moving the image up or down, as you've mentioned.

You've jarred my memory on the masking panels. I recall Carada used to make the best (and rather expensive) masking system (fully automatic/electronic). I don't know if they still make it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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