Official Owners' Thread, Panasonic PT-AE8000U (US version) PT-AT6000E (European version) - Page 45 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1321 of 3551 Old 03-02-2013, 07:07 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by 235 View Post

I have been reading differing opinions on the ability of the PJ to use zooming and lens memory between 235 and 16:9 "while being mounted above the screen". I'll add my voice to the fact this cannot be done unless you are willing to tilt the PJ downwards and mess with the keystone adjustments. If anyone disagrees and has this working please share. I have tried everything and no luck. It looks like the center of the lens must be within the vertical range of the screen mad.gif
This really messes up my plans to have the PJ in my rear soffit.

There must be something wrong cause in page 24 of the manual it clearly shows that you can extend the shift right up 50% below lens center (which is 100% down shift). Even my old Epson 6500U can do the same with no problems.
YesAnotherTweet is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1322 of 3551 Old 03-03-2013, 07:43 AM
Member
 
rstahl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wyckoff, NJ
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by 235 View Post

I have been reading differing opinions on the ability of the PJ to use zooming and lens memory between 235 and 16:9 "while being mounted above the screen". I'll add my voice to the fact this cannot be done unless you are willing to tilt the PJ downwards and mess with the keystone adjustments. If anyone disagrees and has this working please share. I have tried everything and no luck. It looks like the center of the lens must be within the vertical range of the screen mad.gif
This really messes up my plans to have the PJ in my rear soffit.
I believe If you raise your screen a little and make sure it is hanging strait (flat) you will be able to leave the keystone set to zero. I did. I love the zoom feature, but still have to tilt the unit as there are no other mounting options for me either.
rstahl is offline  
post #1323 of 3551 Old 03-03-2013, 07:57 AM
Member
 
rstahl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wyckoff, NJ
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xank View Post

Darbee Dangblet!

Been reading about this little guy in other forums and decided to give it a shot with my PT-AE8000U and...

Dang! It really does work. I'm using it at 75% green mode, and turning on the Darblet appears to focus the picture well beyond what the optical focus of the projector can do by itself. I know it's in some sense an illusion, but this illusion is perceptually dramatic. I currently have my Detail Clarity set at +7, and the combined effect is just stunning, with no artifacting that I can discern. It never looks overprocessed, it just looks better. I can also tell you that Darblet will do it's thing no matter what Detail Clarity setting you have, it will just incrementally increase perceived focus/sharpness at all settings.

I bought it from Amazon so I could return it easily if I was not impressed. I will not be returning it.
Wow what great info for this thread! A while back someone inquired about any Darbee users, but no one replied. I thought this was odd as the unit got an almost too good review to believe.

Can you elaborate on 2D vs 3D? The review I recall from Home Theater Magazine loved its 2D enhancements.
rstahl is offline  
post #1324 of 3551 Old 03-03-2013, 09:23 AM
Member
 
PixelPusher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Ob
Quote:
Originally Posted by 235 View Post

I have been reading differing opinions on the ability of the PJ to use zooming and lens memory between 235 and 16:9 "while being mounted above the screen". I'll add my voice to the fact this cannot be done unless you are willing to tilt the PJ downwards and mess with the keystone adjustments. If anyone disagrees and has this working please share. I have tried everything and no luck. It looks like the center of the lens must be within the vertical range of the screen mad.gif
This really messes up my plans to have the PJ in my rear soffit.[/quot
Oh no - this is what I'm planning to do. It's my first shot at setting up a front projection system. I'm not sure I follow what you meant when you said "It looks like the center of the lens must be within the vertical range of the screen "... Can you please describe how the lens must be within the vertical range of the screen?
PixelPusher is offline  
post #1325 of 3551 Old 03-03-2013, 09:42 AM
Member
 
dguarnaccia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Newberg, Or
Posts: 58
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by PixelPusher View Post

Ob
Quote:
Originally Posted by 235 View Post

I have been reading differing opinions on the ability of the PJ to use zooming and lens memory between 235 and 16:9 "while being mounted above the screen". I'll add my voice to the fact this cannot be done unless you are willing to tilt the PJ downwards and mess with the keystone adjustments. If anyone disagrees and has this working please share. I have tried everything and no luck. It looks like the center of the lens must be within the vertical range of the screen mad.gif
This really messes up my plans to have the PJ in my rear soffit.

Quote:
Oh no - this is what I'm planning to do. It's my first shot at setting up a front projection system. I'm not sure I follow what you meant when you said "It looks like the center of the lens must be within the vertical range of the screen "... Can you please describe how the lens must be within the vertical range of the screen?

This is very disappointing. I had been planning to buy this projector for this exact reason. It's the only project that I've been able to find that has enough light out put for my 156" screen and has lense memory. What is the point of lens memory if you can't use it to toggle between 16:9 and 2.35:1.

What is the downside of using the keystoning? Image distortion? Is that something you have adjust manually every you switch or can it be tied into the lens memory config?
dguarnaccia is offline  
post #1326 of 3551 Old 03-03-2013, 09:55 AM
235
Senior Member
 
235's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Here's the highest I can place the projector in my room (center of the lens no higher than top of the screen):




Here's where I had planned on putting it:

235 is offline  
post #1327 of 3551 Old 03-03-2013, 10:00 AM
235
Senior Member
 
235's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
'Van raise'? Do you mean angling the screen at the same angle as the PJ's forward tilt? Did you find you had to give it much tilt and is it noticeable?
235 is offline  
post #1328 of 3551 Old 03-03-2013, 10:13 AM
235
Senior Member
 
235's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by YesAnotherTweet View Post

There must be something wrong cause in page 24 of the manual it clearly shows that you can extend the shift right up 50% below lens center (which is 100% down shift). Even my old Epson 6500U can do the same with no problems.
No problem positioning above the screen if you aren't zooming and using lens memory.
235 is offline  
post #1329 of 3551 Old 03-03-2013, 12:10 PM
Member
 
Xank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by cr136124 View Post

Any chance you can post a couple of pics with and without the Darbee? TIA

Well cr I gave it shot last night. Unfortunately, I am not expert enough with my camera to capture comparison photos in a way that do the difference justice. The shots were ending up overexposed and the camera was doing weird things with autofocus and face detection. I just didn't have the patience to make sure I took two consecutive identical photos, partly because my house is a mess while moving around a lot of furniture.

I will say, though, that the comparison gallery on Darbee's site are not exaggerations. If you want to know what the difference will look like, those are pretty accurate.

Also, I will retract what I said previously about there being absolutely no artifacts produced by Darbee. I discovered one. When the image contains a serifed font (e.g. Times or Garamond) in a light color like white over another non-black colored background, Darbee produces small horizontal lines between the tips of the serifs on adjacent letters. It's literally like a spider has crawled around on the letters and spun single threads (not full webs) between the tips of letters. You can see this in the opening credits of Game of Thrones. I have not seen this happen with non-serifed fonts (like Helvetica). Also, the effect is not visible when it's a white font on a black background (closing credits).

Obviously this is an incorrect modification to the source image, but unlike other types of artifacting such as ringing/halos, it doesn't really look bad or displeasing. In fact, if you didn't know it was an artifact, you might actually think the fonts are supposed to look that way. I've definitely seen similar connecting lines done in other cases as intentional typographic styling. Even though it's wrong, it's kind of cool. Don't get me wrong, I would prefer it didn't do this, but bottom line is it only happens in very specific circumstances (opening credits with particular fonts and color combinations), and doesn't actually look ugly to me, so I'll live with it to get the sharpening/depth benefits the rest of the time.
Xank is offline  
post #1330 of 3551 Old 03-03-2013, 12:15 PM
Member
 
Xank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstahl View Post

Wow what great info for this thread! A while back someone inquired about any Darbee users, but no one replied. I thought this was odd as the unit got an almost too good review to believe.

Can you elaborate on 2D vs 3D? The review I recall from Home Theater Magazine loved its 2D enhancements.

Glad it was helpful. I can't elaborate on 3D because I haven't gotten my rebate glasses yet. I would have bought a pair for the interim but I'm one of those people who don't care much for 3D. I've read reviews that say it enhances 3D the same way it does 2D, but I can't attest to that myself. Whenever I get my glasses I'll give a whirl and report on what I see, but that could be many weeks from now.
Xank is offline  
post #1331 of 3551 Old 03-03-2013, 03:11 PM
Advanced Member
 
GWCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by 235 View Post

No problem positioning above the screen if you aren't zooming and using lens memory.
Hey 235. I was concerned about that too. My 8000 is in fact installed with the center of the lens higher than the top of the screen. Center of lens is 6" from soffit, top of screen is 8" from soffit. Additionally, I was slightly off when I installed the mounting bracket, so it is about 1/2" left of vertical center as well. PJ is mounted level and plumb.

Here is where the joystick and v-area position comes in to play. First I put in a 16:9 source, zoomed and used the joystick so the video was in the correct position on the screen. Focused and saved the lens memory position as 16:9. Then I put in a 2.35:1 source and zoomed so the width was correct. Then I used the vertical lens shift to move the image to the correct position on the screen (I ended up at +33). Focused and saved the lens memory position as 2.35:1. Set the PJ to auto detect AR, and it works like a charm.

So bottom line is yes you can mount it higher than the screen and get it to work without tilting the PJ. Now, I don't know what the max distance is that the v-area position can compensate for, but it does work.
GWCR is offline  
post #1332 of 3551 Old 03-03-2013, 03:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cr136124's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xank View Post

Well cr I gave it shot last night. Unfortunately, I am not expert enough with my camera to capture comparison photos in a way that do the difference justice. The shots were ending up overexposed and the camera was doing weird things with autofocus and face detection. I just didn't have the patience to make sure I took two consecutive identical photos, partly because my house is a mess while moving around a lot of furniture.

I will say, though, that the comparison gallery on Darbee's site are not exaggerations. If you want to know what the difference will look like, those are pretty accurate.

Also, I will retract what I said previously about there being absolutely no artifacts produced by Darbee. I discovered one. When the image contains a serifed font (e.g. Times or Garamond) in a light color like white over another non-black colored background, Darbee produces small horizontal lines between the tips of the serifs on adjacent letters. It's literally like a spider has crawled around on the letters and spun single threads (not full webs) between the tips of letters. You can see this in the opening credits of Game of Thrones. I have not seen this happen with non-serifed fonts (like Helvetica). Also, the effect is not visible when it's a white font on a black background (closing credits).

Obviously this is an incorrect modification to the source image, but unlike other types of artifacting such as ringing/halos, it doesn't really look bad or displeasing. In fact, if you didn't know it was an artifact, you might actually think the fonts are supposed to look that way. I've definitely seen similar connecting lines done in other cases as intentional typographic styling. Even though it's wrong, it's kind of cool. Don't get me wrong, I would prefer it didn't do this, but bottom line is it only happens in very specific circumstances (opening credits with particular fonts and color combinations), and doesn't actually look ugly to me, so I'll live with it to get the sharpening/depth benefits the rest of the time.

Thanks a lot for trying and for the update on the artifacts introduced by this product. I'll for sure visit the Darbee's site to look at the pics.

Once again thanks for trying.
cr136124 is offline  
post #1333 of 3551 Old 03-03-2013, 05:26 PM
235
Senior Member
 
235's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWCR View Post

Hey 235. I was concerned about that too. My 8000 is in fact installed with the center of the lens higher than the top of the screen. Center of lens is 6" from soffit, top of screen is 8" from soffit. Additionally, I was slightly off when I installed the mounting bracket, so it is about 1/2" left of vertical center as well. PJ is mounted level and plumb.

Here is where the joystick and v-area position comes in to play. First I put in a 16:9 source, zoomed and used the joystick so the video was in the correct position on the screen. Focused and saved the lens memory position as 16:9. Then I put in a 2.35:1 source and zoomed so the width was correct. Then I used the vertical lens shift to move the image to the correct position on the screen (I ended up at +33). Focused and saved the lens memory position as 2.35:1. Set the PJ to auto detect AR, and it works like a charm.

So bottom line is yes you can mount it higher than the screen and get it to work without tilting the PJ. Now, I don't know what the max distance is that the v-area position can compensate for, but it does work.

Hmmm, maybe with being only 2" above it's close enough not to notice the problem (mine is close to 9" above the screen)?? I had the manual vertical lens shift adjust the image downward to align with the top of the screen in 16:9 mode before focus and saving. I then zoomed in order to have 235 image fill the width of my 235 screen. The problem in this step is that the illuminated area after the zoom is not only wider and taller but has also shifted downwards in the process. The vertical (electronic) shift in the on screen menus can only adjust (ie throw away) the picture within this illuminated area. In other words I can't bring the illuminated area back to align with the top of the screen unless I use the manual stick adjustment.
235 is offline  
post #1334 of 3551 Old 03-04-2013, 07:54 AM
Newbie
 
johnnyjobber1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by xeonicxpression View Post

Well, Visual Apex replied back to my email. I asked if they could help me get an RMA and they told me to just contact Panasonic myself and provided the phone number. That's kind of disappointing. Well, hopefully Panasonic isn't too big of a PITA to deal with.

Panasonic is great to deal with the projector guys knew exactly what to ask me and understood what we on AVS Forum are looking for in quality. I called on my own because i believed that i could describe it best.
The number I got was 855-772-8324 and Vincent was my tech. Vincent got my photos to his supervisor the same day and had an RMA to Proj. People the next day.
I got the best service that one can expect. You should get the same.....Good Luck
johnnyjobber1 is offline  
post #1335 of 3551 Old 03-04-2013, 11:27 AM
Senior Member
 
andymo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlington, Ontario
Posts: 225
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Following the suggestions here I tried using REC709 while watching 3D and noticed a significant different in ghosting. It worked really well.

However, even after calibration (WOW and DVE) I can't seem to get the same colour vividness that I do when I am watching a film in NORMAL (calibrated the same way). The details are great, but scenes like the Avatar clips on ScubaSteves demo disc seem kind of bland.

Any ideas ?
andymo is offline  
post #1336 of 3551 Old 03-04-2013, 01:10 PM
Member
 
j.woodhouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFlo79 View Post

j.woodhouse,
Were you able to fix the poor light uniformity issue? I'm seeing the same issue in the bottom left corner of the screen.....mainly when it's black or other dark color. Did the WOW disc help?


Calibrating with the WOW disc has certainly helped to reduce the grey corners but has not completely eliminated the issue.

The overall picture has improved though, I am glad that I spent the time adjusting the settings & had it not been for the 2 corner problem I may have just lived with the OOTB settings so I will be forever grateful to them wink.gif

Has anyone found the waveform monitor to be of any use ? after adjusting the brightness & contrast as instructed by the disc (on normal mode/ lamp normal brightness is +3 & contrast -11) the waveform monitor scanning a greyscale ramp shows the IRE to be above 0% black & below 100% white ??

I'm confused, but you know there's on old saying that a man who wears 2 watches never knows what time it is.
j.woodhouse is online now  
post #1337 of 3551 Old 03-04-2013, 01:22 PM
235
Senior Member
 
235's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Here's my light-pattern after adjusting for 16:9:





After zooming in for 2.35 image:




After the zoom I try to use the on-screen menu: LENS Control, V-Area Position to adjust the picture vertically. The problem is that vertical adjustment only pulls up the bottom of the image, it does not move the top of the image up to fill that gap near the top. Am I using the right menu adjustments? I noticed if the PJ lens is set to the same height as the screen then the zoom does NOT cause the image to drop.
235 is offline  
post #1338 of 3551 Old 03-04-2013, 01:36 PM
Advanced Member
 
GWCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by 235 View Post

Here's my light-pattern after adjusting for 16:9:





After zooming in for 2.35 image:




After the zoom I try to use the on-screen menu: LENS Control, V-Area Position to adjust the picture vertically. The problem is that vertical adjustment only pulls up the bottom of the image, it does not move the top of the image up to fill that gap near the top. Am I using the right menu adjustments? I noticed if the PJ lens is set to the same height as the screen then the zoom does NOT cause the image to drop.
Make sure you put in a 2.35 source when you zoom and adjust the v-area position. In a sense, the top letterbox bar will be moving off the top of the screen. Got any actual screen shots?
GWCR is offline  
post #1339 of 3551 Old 03-04-2013, 01:40 PM
Member
 
fgsouza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by andymo View Post

Following the suggestions here I tried using REC709 while watching 3D and noticed a significant different in ghosting. It worked really well.
Did you find REC709 better than Cinema2 for 3D?
fgsouza is offline  
post #1340 of 3551 Old 03-04-2013, 02:21 PM
235
Senior Member
 
235's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWCR View Post

Make sure you put in a 2.35 source when you zoom and adjust the v-area position. In a sense, the top letterbox bar will be moving off the top of the screen. Got any actual screen shots?

I tried a 2.35 source and no-go. After the manual zoom has lowered the PJ's image (best seen when feeding a 16:9 source), the electronic vertical adjustment only raises the image content within that thrown image. It shifts the image up throwing away the upper letterbox from 235 source but does not move the illuminated area back up to compensate for the downward shift from the zooming. Are you sure your PJ is level, above the screen and that you aren't spilling any 16:9 content onto the upper frame of your screen?
235 is offline  
post #1341 of 3551 Old 03-04-2013, 02:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcascio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Kenosha, WI USA
Posts: 3,780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by 235 View Post

Here's my light-pattern after adjusting for 16:9:





After zooming in for 2.35 image:




After the zoom I try to use the on-screen menu: LENS Control, V-Area Position to adjust the picture vertically. The problem is that vertical adjustment only pulls up the bottom of the image, it does not move the top of the image up to fill that gap near the top. Am I using the right menu adjustments? I noticed if the PJ lens is set to the same height as the screen then the zoom does NOT cause the image to drop.

What if after you have these settings...you try moving the physical vertical lever up so your 2.35 image is at the top...can you then adjust your 4:3 image to move down?
mcascio is offline  
post #1342 of 3551 Old 03-04-2013, 03:18 PM
235
Senior Member
 
235's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
^^^ Thanks for the suggestion but moving the 16:9 image down using the v-area shift causes the top of the image to come down but the bottom stays fixed. In doing that I end up with an image that cuts off part of the full height of the 16:9 source mad.gif
235 is offline  
post #1343 of 3551 Old 03-04-2013, 03:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcascio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Kenosha, WI USA
Posts: 3,780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by 235 View Post

^^^ Thanks for the suggestion but moving the 16:9 image down using the v-area shift causes the top of the image to come down but the bottom stays fixed. In doing that I end up with an image that cuts off part of the full height of the 16:9 source mad.gif

Just to be clear...

I'm suggesting using the physical LENS SHIFT LEVER on the front to set the top of 2.35 image first and not using the v-shift in the menu.
mcascio is offline  
post #1344 of 3551 Old 03-04-2013, 04:16 PM
Member
 
rstahl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wyckoff, NJ
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Guys I"m pretty sure this was covered in this thread before. There is no way to make the 16.9 to 2:35 conversion unless the projector is mounted in the middle of the screen. That being said I do get interrupted at work and home pretty much every day while trying to read.

Let me go back and look.
rstahl is offline  
post #1345 of 3551 Old 03-04-2013, 04:26 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstahl View Post

Guys I"m pretty sure this was covered in this thread before. There is now way to make the 16.9 to 2:35 conversion unless the projector is mounted in the middle of the screen. That being said I do get interrupted at work and home pretty much every day while trying to read.

Let me go back and look.

If that's the case then the 8000 is out for me. I am right at the top or above the top of screen. I guess I will have to see if the JVC does better in this regard.
YesAnotherTweet is offline  
post #1346 of 3551 Old 03-04-2013, 04:30 PM
Member
 
rstahl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wyckoff, NJ
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by 235 View Post

'Van raise'? Do you mean angling the screen at the same angle as the PJ's forward tilt? Did you find you had to give it much tilt and is it noticeable?
My apologies after rereading my post I noticed a spelling error In my reply. I went back and did my first edit.
rstahl is offline  
post #1347 of 3551 Old 03-04-2013, 04:55 PM
Advanced Member
 
GWCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by 235 View Post

I tried a 2.35 source and no-go. After the manual zoom has lowered the PJ's image (best seen when feeding a 16:9 source), the electronic vertical adjustment only raises the image content within that thrown image. It shifts the image up throwing away the upper letterbox from 235 source but does not move the illuminated area back up to compensate for the downward shift from the zooming. Are you sure your PJ is level, above the screen and that you aren't spilling any 16:9 content onto the upper frame of your screen?
My pj is level and plumb. No tilt whatsoever. Keystone is at zero. Maybe a couple mm of overscan at the most. Don't know how else to say it. It does work for me with the center of my lens 2" higher than the top of the screen. Don't know what the threshold is for max mounting height. Might be a good topic for Panasonic tech support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YesAnotherTweet View Post

If that's the case then the 8000 is out for me. I am right at the top or above the top of screen. I guess I will have to see if the JVC does better in this regard.

If you are right at or just above, then you might be ok. The center of the lens on my 8000 is 2" above the top of my screen. By using a combination of the joystick and v-area position in the lens menu, I have saved lens settings that allow me to take advantage of the automatic zoom for 2.35 content.
GWCR is offline  
post #1348 of 3551 Old 03-04-2013, 06:29 PM
Senior Member
 
andymo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlington, Ontario
Posts: 225
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by fgsouza View Post

Did you find REC709 better than Cinema2 for 3D?

Yes. I was fiddling with the 3D monitor, changing things, and couldn't quite get "extreme" images in control. Then I thought to cycle through the modes and when it came to REC709 everything just popped, locked, and ghosts were gone.
fgsouza likes this.
andymo is offline  
post #1349 of 3551 Old 03-04-2013, 07:41 PM
235
Senior Member
 
235's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstahl View Post

My apologies after rereading my post I noticed a spelling error In my reply. I went back and did my first edit.

How do you get away without any keystone adjustment if your PJ is angled downward and your screen is hanging straight?
235 is offline  
post #1350 of 3551 Old 03-04-2013, 07:41 PM
235
Senior Member
 
235's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstahl View Post

My apologies after rereading my post I noticed a spelling error In my reply. I went back and did my first edit.

How do you get away without any keystone adjustment if your PJ is angled downward and your screen is hanging straight?
235 is offline  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

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

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off