Official JVC DLA-RS46 / DLA-X35 owners thread - Page 84 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
Reply
Thread Tools
post #2491 of 2518 Old 05-24-2015, 07:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,473
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1304 Post(s)
Liked: 1303
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
It seems so, but there was nothing from the listing or answered questions to indicate there was anything wrong with it, quite the contrary. And it wasn't "that" cheap, but the X35 is the oldest of the "new design" JVCs and I don't see a lot of those come up that often. More often it's newer and/or higher end models that want a lot higher price.
being an x35 owner, my theory to this is it's because there's nothing for me to replace it with. the only 'improvement' i could make is a BIG leap in price, so some of those newer models (x500 for example). so instead of looking at a new projector, i'm stocking up on bulbs. there's nothing in the 3k range i've seen that would make me want to switch.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2492 of 2518 Old 05-25-2015, 02:54 AM
Newbie
 
roland seal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I agree with the last post. I have had a x35 for eighteen months now and it is a very pleasant surprise every time I switch on the projector and watch a film. Of the most recent films that have shown such beautiful pictures are Lucy and Jurassic Park in 3d and The Hobbit The Desolation of Smaug extended version also in 3D.
In home entertainment it seems to me that there is nothing that comes close to a good projector and I wish that everybody could have and enjoy one.
roland seal is offline  
post #2493 of 2518 Old 05-26-2015, 02:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 18,418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 729 Post(s)
Liked: 358
FWIW, I got my i1D3/i1 Display Pro and ran a quick measurement on my Planar, and with stock settings the gamma tracked near perfect 2.2 and grayscale was dead flat, if a little off throughout the range. So there was definitely something "wrong" with my i1D2 and Spyder.

As for JVC, well I guess I'll see what they're all about, I should have an RS4910 sometime next week. I hope to be thoroughly impressed 350,000:1 dynamic should be noticeably different than 15,000:1 (Planar). From the X35 I could tell a "difference" in motion between the two, but I'd be hard pressed to call one "better". I'd say the X35 looked smoother, maybe due to slow refresh, but I didn't notice any motion smear, so maybe I'm just not sensitive to that.

The only small concern I have going in is lag. I do game, but it's all just recreationally, no competitive FPS, just some coop Halo/GOW/etc, Forza. I didn't notice anything with the X35 so hopefully the same is true of the 4910.

Kelvin1965S likes this.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen

Last edited by stanger89; 05-26-2015 at 02:20 PM.
stanger89 is offline  
post #2494 of 2518 Old 05-26-2015, 02:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 166 Post(s)
Liked: 118
I went from an X35 to an X500 (I believe that is similar to the RS4910?). The DI makes quite a difference and the pixel gap is a lot less, so you should hopefully see what all the fuss is about wrt JVCs.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens, sold the lens...now using e-shift.
Kelvin1965S is online now  
post #2495 of 2518 Old 05-26-2015, 06:16 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 18,418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 729 Post(s)
Liked: 358
Well I assume it will work right too
Kelvin1965S likes this.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #2496 of 2518 Old 06-05-2015, 10:26 AM
Member
 
Jubrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Ontario
Posts: 52
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 5
Hey everyone,

I have an opportunity to get an X35 for the same price as a Panny AE8000. The problem is, when I use the ProjectorCentral calculator, i'm told that i'll get 11FL with the X35, however when I use the Carlton Bale Calculator, it shows I will get 27 FL.

The odd thing is, that when I use the ProjectorCentral calculator with the X500 i'm given 23FL, yet the X500 has the same 1300 Lumens.

Will have a throw distance of 14-15ft and using a 130" 2.35 perforated screen. Room is light controlled. Anyone have any thoughts here?
Jubrown is offline  
post #2497 of 2518 Old 06-05-2015, 05:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,472
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 872 Post(s)
Liked: 625
The 8000 drops a significant amount of lumens when calibrated to D65. A good bit less than the RS46 which is around 900+ @ D65 (mid throw).

I have an RS46(X35) and have reviewed the Panasonic 8000, imo, the JVC is a better choice for a light controlled room. Are you set at that size or can you go down a bit?
zombie10k is online now  
post #2498 of 2518 Old 06-05-2015, 10:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
Dreamliner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubrown View Post
Hey everyone,

I have an opportunity to get an X35 for the same price as a Panny AE8000. The problem is, when I use the ProjectorCentral calculator, i'm told that i'll get 11FL with the X35, however when I use the Carlton Bale Calculator, it shows I will get 27 FL.

The odd thing is, that when I use the ProjectorCentral calculator with the X500 i'm given 23FL, yet the X500 has the same 1300 Lumens.

Will have a throw distance of 14-15ft and using a 130" 2.35 perforated screen. Room is light controlled. Anyone have any thoughts here?
Ohh dude, don't make that mistake. Stay AWAY from the Panasonic. I had trouble with my AE7000 and did a HUGE comparison between the AE8000 & RS46 (clicky)

(I'm running a 136" 2.35 screen and my RS46 is 15-16 feet or so, looks great, even in 3D)
Dreamliner is offline  
post #2499 of 2518 Old 06-05-2015, 10:52 PM
Member
 
Jubrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Ontario
Posts: 52
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post
The 8000 drops a significant amount of lumens when calibrated to D65. A good bit less than the RS46 which is around 900+ @ D65 (mid throw).

I have an RS46(X35) and have reviewed the Panasonic 8000, imo, the JVC is a better choice for a light controlled room. Are you set at that size or can you go down a bit?
Good point about losing lumens with calibration. The room will be light controlled, and the ceilings are black. Window will be plugged. I might go to 125", though that will depend on the screen manufacturer and whether they cut a 125 or a 130.

Is there any reason why the x500 would have a higher FL rating with the same lumen count?

I'd go to the X500, but it's hard to justify spending $5k on a projector when 4k is a generation or two away from being affordable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamliner View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubrown View Post
Hey everyone,

I have an opportunity to get an X35 for the same price as a Panny AE8000. The problem is, when I use the ProjectorCentral calculator, i'm told that i'll get 11FL with the X35, however when I use the Carlton Bale Calculator, it shows I will get 27 FL.

The odd thing is, that when I use the ProjectorCentral calculator with the X500 i'm given 23FL, yet the X500 has the same 1300 Lumens.

Will have a throw distance of 14-15ft and using a 130" 2.35 perforated screen. Room is light controlled. Anyone have any thoughts here?
Ohh dude, don't make that mistake. Stay AWAY from the Panasonic. I had trouble with my AE7000 and did a HUGE comparison between the AE8000 & RS46 (clicky)

(I'm running a 136" 2.35 screen and my RS46 is 15-16 feet or so, looks great, even in 3D)
Good to know. If you can light up a 136, than I should be fine with a 125-130 at 14-15 ft.
Jubrown is offline  
post #2500 of 2518 Old 06-06-2015, 09:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,472
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 872 Post(s)
Liked: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubrown View Post
Good point about losing lumens with calibration. The room will be light controlled, and the ceilings are black. Window will be plugged. I might go to 125", though that will depend on the screen manufacturer and whether they cut a 125 or a 130.

Is there any reason why the x500 would have a higher FL rating with the same lumen count?

I'd go to the X500, but it's hard to justify spending $5k on a projector when 4k is a generation or two away from being affordable.
you can't go by the various calculators out there, this throws off a lot of folks looking to compare models.

The RS46/X35 has the same calibrated lumen output as the RS4910/X500 - a bit over 900 lumens @ D65 mid throw in high lamp.

If you can pick up the X35 for the same price as the 8000, I would quickly grab it.
zombie10k is online now  
post #2501 of 2518 Old 06-10-2015, 05:52 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 18,418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 729 Post(s)
Liked: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
Well I assume it will work right too
Lest there be any doubt, I got my RS4910 today....



To say it's an entirely different machine would be both factually accurate and metaphorically correct. I'm not going to go into too many details since I just got it out of the box and fired it up, so I've got no measurements or anything, but even in low lamp, the thing is bright, no light spill to speak of, great depth, and nice "correct" looking color temp and everything. So far it's just about what I was expecting, so I guess it's now off to the "serious" business of enjoying and seeing what all the fuss is about.
Kelvin1965S and majek 60 like this.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #2502 of 2518 Unread 06-19-2015, 07:48 AM
Newbie
 
DigiWega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
Lest there be any doubt, I got my RS4910 today....

To say it's an entirely different machine would be both factually accurate and metaphorically correct. I'm not going to go into too many details since I just got it out of the box and fired it up, so I've got no measurements or anything, but even in low lamp, the thing is bright, no light spill to speak of, great depth, and nice "correct" looking color temp and everything. So far it's just about what I was expecting, so I guess it's now off to the "serious" business of enjoying and seeing what all the fuss is about.
I saw the auction you won and in my head I thought geez someone got a good deal on the DLA-X35. Now that you have the RS4910 what do you plan to do with the "old" DLA-X35?
DigiWega is offline  
post #2503 of 2518 Unread 06-19-2015, 10:29 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 18,418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 729 Post(s)
Liked: 358
Oh I returned, it, the seller took it back with no issues. So thumbs up to them.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #2504 of 2518 Unread 06-20-2015, 03:14 AM
Advanced Member
 
Dreamliner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Liked: 51
What information is there on ceiling mounts for this projector? I'd like to know what mount to buy and any info to "future-proof" an unfinished ceiling that will be finished soon at the future projector location...
Dreamliner is offline  
post #2505 of 2518 Unread 06-20-2015, 08:20 AM
Senior Member
 
jjcook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamliner View Post
What information is there on ceiling mounts for this projector? I'd like to know what mount to buy and any info to "future-proof" an unfinished ceiling that will be finished soon at the future projector location...
Chief RPMA281 is the best IMO.

Small 12' wide x 10' deep HT v0.6: JVC RS4910, Mits HC7900DW DLP, Falcon AT Vision HD 2.35:1 100-wide, Triad In-wall Gold Omni SE (LCR & soon FH or LW/RW), In-wall Silver Surrounds (LS/RS, soon to be bipolar), In-ceiling Silver Minimonitors (soon for TM), PSA XS15-base, Marantz SR7008 (soon SR7010), Oppo 103D, Tivo Mini, HTPC
jjcook is offline  
post #2506 of 2518 Unread 06-20-2015, 02:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 18,418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 729 Post(s)
Liked: 358
I just installed my 4910 with an RPMA281 today, it worked quite well. Nicer than the RPAU I just hung my other projector from. From what I can tell, once you get an RPMA mount all you need to get in the future, for other projectors is the adapter plate, which is pretty nice.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #2507 of 2518 Unread 06-25-2015, 08:49 PM
Member
 
artinaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 64
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I installed the rpma too- which kinda sucked because I had the old rpau mount. The rpau was supposed to be an universal mount but then jvc changed the projector size- no fault of Chiefs.

My point is that there is no guarantee that it work in the future.

I moved from a rs15 to an rs46 and wow what a difference. The colors and contrast and more importantly the motion is heaps better than the rs15!

I spent a lot of time in this thread readingthe reviews thru the pages- thank you guys for all the feedback.
artinaz is online now  
post #2508 of 2518 Unread Yesterday, 10:27 AM
Advanced Member
 
rtart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Hi guys,

The RS46 will allow me to set lens memory for both a 16:9 and a 2.35:1 screen, so I'm considering a 2.35:1 screen with the same height as my current 16:9 screen. I can then project 'normal' 16:9 source material at the same size as my current setup, with masking, and go larger/wider at the same height for 2.35 ratio material.

I am currently using a 16:9 ratio 106" AT screen 1.0 gain (by Accuscreens). It is 52"H x 93"W. A 52" high 2.35:1 screen is approx. 136" diagonal, and 125" wide. If I did the math correctly, the increase in projected surface area between the two is 37%, which seems like it might have a big impact on brightness. I also watch a good bit of 3D material, so that may be a factor as well.

Am I heading down the wrong path here? Should I either live with my current setup, or consider a smaller 2.35 screen?

I'm finding that I'm smarter than I thought, but dumber than I need to be.
PSN ID: rtart, alt Ginsuyou2
rtart is offline  
post #2509 of 2518 Unread Yesterday, 10:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
plissken99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 3,341
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 22
I assume your new screens needs to be AT as well?

I doubt 136" 2.35:1 is too big for the RS46. If your changing screens though, I'd go with Seymours Center Stage XD, it's 1.1, with black speaker grill cloth behind the screen it approaches 1.2.

Also think hard about 2.35:1, when I was considering one it became obvious I could do a huge 16:9 screen with masking, have a slightly brighter image and have the screen be just as wide, and taller. Though for you it sounds like the only way you can get a bigger screen is going wider since your sticking to the height, so I can understand the motivation.

If you feel the brightness is lacking, might be time to consider getting away from JVC for a while. Epson and Sony have brighter/sharper options and nearly as good black levels.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Snake Plissken

 

plissken99 is online now  
post #2510 of 2518 Unread Yesterday, 10:53 AM
Advanced Member
 
rtart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by plissken99 View Post
I assume your new screens needs to be AT as well?
Yes. I have a screen wall with speakers behind it.....

Good advice as well about the larger 16:9 with top and bottom masking. I'll look into it.

Thanks!

I'm finding that I'm smarter than I thought, but dumber than I need to be.
PSN ID: rtart, alt Ginsuyou2
rtart is offline  
post #2511 of 2518 Unread Yesterday, 11:00 AM
Member
 
nezil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Northern California - SF Bay Area
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtart View Post
Hi guys,

The RS46 will allow me to set lens memory for both a 16:9 and a 2.35:1 screen, so I'm considering a 2.35:1 screen with the same height as my current 16:9 screen. I can then project 'normal' 16:9 source material at the same size as my current setup, with masking, and go larger/wider at the same height for 2.35 ratio material.

I am currently using a 16:9 ratio 106" AT screen 1.0 gain (by Accuscreens). It is 52"H x 93"W. A 52" high 2.35:1 screen is approx. 136" diagonal, and 125" wide. If I did the math correctly, the increase in projected surface area between the two is 37%, which seems like it might have a big impact on brightness. I also watch a good bit of 3D material, so that may be a factor as well.

Am I heading down the wrong path here? Should I either live with my current setup, or consider a smaller 2.35 screen?
I wouldn't say that you're heading down the wrong path; a 2.35:1 setup is so awesome, and you're doing it the correct way with a 'Constant Image Height' CIH plan.

I personally have a 45" High 2.35:1 screen with a gain of around 0.9. That works out (if I remember correctly) to around 92" 16:9, and 115" 2.35:1, which is smaller than yours.

When I'm watching 2D content I set the lens aperture to the smallest it can be, because I appreaciate the increased contrast ratio and find it bright enough in my room with no lights on. When I watch 3D movies, and I frequently do, I set the lens aperture to the largest, and I find that the light blocking of the glasses counteracts this exactly.

If you currently view 16:9 on your screen with a large aperture, it will obviously be darker... Only you can decide if that's too dark or not.
rtart likes this.
nezil is offline  
post #2512 of 2518 Unread Yesterday, 12:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
rtart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by plissken99 View Post
If your changing screens though, I'd go with Seymours Center Stage XD, it's 1.1, with black speaker grill cloth behind the screen it approaches 1.2.
I went to the Seymour site and found their new Center Stage UF fabric, which seems to be a finer grain fabric. The gain is also lower, which can be an issue, and its a little cheaper. Do you have any experience with it?

I'm finding that I'm smarter than I thought, but dumber than I need to be.
PSN ID: rtart, alt Ginsuyou2
rtart is offline  
post #2513 of 2518 Unread Yesterday, 01:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
plissken99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 3,341
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 22
The UF isn't a bad option, though it is indeed a bit dimmer and not as sharp(you wouldn't think so but..) as XD. To my surprise I find the pattern disappears at 10ft, and isn't bothersome at 8ft.

Call or email Seymour, they'll be happy to send you free samples. Be sure to compare towards the bottom so you can project subtitles on the samples, text tells the tale with sharpness.

2.35 might be a good option for your wall, I don't know. Just don't go for it because it's the "in" thing right now, I know more than half my Blu Rays are 1.85. But I do know shifting aspect ratio movies would drive me nuts.

Last edited by plissken99; Yesterday at 01:56 PM.
plissken99 is online now  
post #2514 of 2518 Unread Yesterday, 02:23 PM
Advanced Member
 
rtart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Thanks Plissken.

I've been in my HT for over a decade and been through LOTS of different setups. 9" CRT to .....RS46. Lots of stops in between, 4:3 Stewart to now. I actually had a DIY screen masking system with the CRT that allowed me to do 4:3, 16:9 and 2.35:1. LOTS of moving parts, but all electric. (I'm an engineer, and couldn't help myself...)

Right now I have another 24" or so on each side between the screen and side walls, so I think I can get away with the wider 2.35. I've attached a photo of the screen wall as it is now. I stuck blue tape on the spot where the edges of a 2.35 screen the same height would be.

The wall itself is AT with Polk RT3000ps and a CS1000p behind it. My pair of SVS PB12-Plus 2's are behind it as well. The sides are covered in brown speaker cloth from PartsExpress, but it looks black in the photo. The fabric is stretched over frames that lock into place on the underlying frame.

I think I'll mock up the 2.35 setup this weekend and see what it looks like. I need to relocate the PJ from its ceiling mount to do this, though. It's 11'-3" from the screen now (same as the throw for the CRT) but ought to be back further according to the calculators I've seen.

The nice thing about doing a DIY screen is that it can be any size that works, not just a standard size.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	HT Screen Wall July 2015 002.JPG
Views:	8
Size:	332.8 KB
ID:	861266  

I'm finding that I'm smarter than I thought, but dumber than I need to be.
PSN ID: rtart, alt Ginsuyou2
rtart is offline  
post #2515 of 2518 Unread Yesterday, 02:56 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 18,418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 729 Post(s)
Liked: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by plissken99 View Post
2.35 might be a good option for your wall, I don't know. Just don't go for it because it's the "in" thing right now...
Scope and CIH has been around since the 50's, it's not some "fad". Then reason it's "in" now is because it's easier to get into than ever before. It used to be you had to buy/use an expensive anamorphic lens, or make serious compromises in quality/usability. But now, with all the major players offering lens memory for "free", anyone can do CIH for very little incremental cost, especially if they don't already have a screen, and without really giving up much of anything.

Quote:
...I know more than half my Blu Rays are 1.85. But I do know shifting aspect ratio movies would drive me nuts.
This (How much scope content do you have?) is one of two very important questions to ask yourself when you're deciding if you want to go with a CIH setup. The other, which IMO is the most important by far, is: Do you believe/agree with the idea that scope films are, by and large, meant to be wider/larger than flat movies? ie do you think Star Wars or Lawrence of Arabia should be larger than 40 Year Old Virgin?

IMO, if the answer to the latter, more important question is no, then it's not worth the trouble. However if the answer is yes, then you should really think about a CIH setup. A lot of us with CIH setups have found that height is really the dominant factor in images feeling too small, too big, or just right. I know I'd feel overwhelmed if I had a 16:9 screen as wide as my scope screen. Where as with my scope screen, everything is a comfortable size, but epic scope films are as they were meant to be, epic and huge.

Of course if you're really into IMAX, things get more complicated.
rtart likes this.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #2516 of 2518 Unread Yesterday, 03:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
rtart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by plissken99 View Post
The UF isn't a bad option, though it is indeed a bit dimmer and not as sharp(you wouldn't think so but..) as XD. To my surprise I find the pattern disappears at 10ft, and isn't bothersome at 8ft.

Call or email Seymour, they'll be happy to send you free samples. Be sure to compare towards the bottom so you can project subtitles on the samples, text tells the tale with sharpness.

2.35 might be a good option for your wall, I don't know. Just don't go for it because it's the "in" thing right now, I know more than half my Blu Rays are 1.85. But I do know shifting aspect ratio movies would drive me nuts.
Jon responded very quickly and samples are on the way.....

I'm finding that I'm smarter than I thought, but dumber than I need to be.
PSN ID: rtart, alt Ginsuyou2
rtart is offline  
post #2517 of 2518 Unread Yesterday, 10:45 PM
Member
 
PiggyChops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Is the projectcentral calculator accurate ? I have a 1.1/1.2 gain 144 inch screen which i'm about to mount on a frame but the calculator is stating not to go over 140 inches in order to stay at 12FL. So should i stick to 140 inches or less or use 144 inches, i'm confused
PiggyChops is online now  
post #2518 of 2518 Unread Today, 01:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
plissken99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 3,341
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Didn't mean to imply it is a fad per se, but I think it's fair to think a lot of people like the scope screens because their "sexy". Depending on preferences and set up, a scope screen can make a lot of sense. Best use I saw a guy with 7ft ceilings, he made nearly the entire wall an AT scope screen, excellent use of space.

I do like a big screen experience. With the 150" 16:9 screen I'm about the same width as the scope screen I was thinking of doing, with a lot more height. If you've got the space and love the large size, 16:9 wins.
plissken99 is online now  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
Jvc Dla X35 3d Hd Front Projector , Jvc Dla Rs46 Projector , Panasonic Viera Ty Er3d4mu Active Shutter 3d Eyewear , Samsung Ssg 4100gb 3d Active Glasses 2012 Model , Optoma Hd72 720p Dlp Home Theater Projector
Gear in this thread - 4100gb by PriceGrabber.com



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