Finished My Theater!...Except for one thing - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 55 Old 04-10-2013, 05:21 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Gomdaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 148
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 21
I NEED A PROJECTOR!!

I'm pretty much ready to buy and was looking for some advice from the folks around here.

Details:

Room is 15 ft wide, and about 23 feet deep with 8ft ceilings and open ended at the back
Completely light controlled, basement theater
2.35 Seymour AV AT screen, 138" wide by 59" tall which gives me a 120" 16x9 when masking is pulled in

viewing habits:
70% Movies
20% Sports and Comcast TV
10% Gaming

I plan on using the zoom method for 2.35

I would like 3D (I have two kids that would REALLY like 3D). Personally, I have a 60" Sony LED with 3D and I think i've watched a total of 5 movies in a year in 3D. That being said, that may change considering the size of the screen. Who knows, I may end up loving it.

I have two different areas I could mount the projector, one coming in around 13.5 ft, and the other, more likely position, would be at the back of the theater on a shelf mounted with lens about 20ft 4" from screen.

When I initially built the Theater I did it with the mindset of going big and masking if need be. So I do fully understand at 138" wide I might be a little on the dim side, especially in 3D. My thoughts are that hopefully within the next year or two there will be some projectors that fit the bill in a more acceptable price range.

So here's where I'm at....

I'm not against spending 5-6k on a projector that fits all my needs. Problem is, I don't think one exists at this point. If there is please let me know! I'd like Auto zoom for 2.35, high lumens for 3D, good motion handling, etc etc.... I'd just rather not spend that much money on something that's "almost" perfect. So my thoughts are to find a projector in the 2.5k or less bracket that might "get me through" until later this year when the new ones come out. At which point i'd sell it (take a smaller hit to the wallet) and go from there. Theres just no way possible I can wait and stare at a blank screen until then.

Does anybody have any recommendations in the 2.5k or below bracket that would fit by needs? Here are some pics for reference, the red circle is where I would most likely mount projector. Thanks!





Gomdaf is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 55 Old 04-10-2013, 08:58 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 7,579
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 290 Post(s)
Liked: 405
I would view the XD fabric as 1.0 gain at the most. I don't know of any projector under 2.5K that has lens memory and can light up a 138" wide scope screen using the zoom method. Keep in mind, I only consider best image mode when sizing a projector and screen. I guess you could use a Panny in dynamic mode. Not exactly what I would recommend.

Mike Garrett, AV Science Sales Call Me: 585-671-2968
Email Me:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Brands we sell: 
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
 
Call for B-stock projectors
Stewart, Seymour, SE, SI, Falcon & many more.
RBH, Martin Logan, Triad, Atlantic Technology, MK Sound, BG Radia, SVS & Def Tech.
AV Science Sales 5 is offline  
post #3 of 55 Old 04-10-2013, 10:43 PM
Member
 
n8dgr84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Epson 5020?
n8dgr84 is offline  
post #4 of 55 Old 04-10-2013, 11:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,983
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 147
With this budget and viewing habits, I would skip the Epson. Look at the Sony hw50 or JVC RS-4810.

70% Movies, I'd give AVS a call about the JVC RS-4810 special or Sony hw50es. The JVC will be able to re-zoom 16:9 movies (or games) to fit within your 2.35 screen using lens memory, the Sony cannot do this. I really think the JVC fits best in this situation. Also, if you will not be using an anamorphic lens, then the JVC is about your only option since 16:9 content needs to be re-zoomed to fit the 2.35 screen. Though you can add a Lumagen to the Sony and do 16:9 on a 2.35 screen by using its rescale feature, but that would add a big additional cost to the Sony.

If you are REAL serious about that 10% gaming (if it's lag-sensitive FPS multplayer), then the JVC has quite a bit of lag, and the Sony is better for gaming (but then again the JVC has the CIH feature you need).

If you can make the JVC work, go for it.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
for both one projector or dual stacks

Web Calculator v023 & v025
-
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

**Current Projector Calculator** --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Coder's Top Projector Picks of 2012 --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

coderguy is online now  
post #5 of 55 Old 04-11-2013, 03:38 AM
 
BobL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 53

The JVC is a good choice for the zoom method but is not the greatest for 3D or gaming.  If you are open to an anamorphic lens you could look at the Epson 6020 for the least expensive option with an A-lens.  You could also do a JVC X-35 or Sony HW50 with a lens and still be in budget.   The inexpensive Panasonic 8000 is the only other projector besides the JVCs that has zoom memory for doing 2.35 without the lens if you want to wait to see if other models offer this feature in the future.

BobL is offline  
post #6 of 55 Old 04-11-2013, 05:20 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 7,579
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 290 Post(s)
Liked: 405
Basically we are all telling you, that you can't do what you want at 2.5K. You can get a projector at that price point that is capable of zoom memory, but it will not have the lumens. Moving up to 5K-6K teritory, there are several options. If that 10% gaming is localized gaming, then I would go with a JVC and an A-lens. That can be had for your upper budget.

Mike Garrett, AV Science Sales Call Me: 585-671-2968
Email Me:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Brands we sell: 
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
 
Call for B-stock projectors
Stewart, Seymour, SE, SI, Falcon & many more.
RBH, Martin Logan, Triad, Atlantic Technology, MK Sound, BG Radia, SVS & Def Tech.
AV Science Sales 5 is offline  
post #7 of 55 Old 04-11-2013, 07:07 AM
Senior Member
 
ondaedg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 363
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11
What about a dual projector environment? A Benq w1070 could fill his needs nicely for gaming, 3d, and sports. He could opt for a JVC or even a Sharp XV-Z30000 for the memory zoom.capabilities and still be within his price range.
ondaedg is online now  
post #8 of 55 Old 04-11-2013, 10:38 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Gomdaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 148
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Thanks for the suggestions. I don't think I'm to keen on the A lens because of the added mechanisms hanging from my lower ceiling. I believe the zoom method is best for what I personally want.

I have considered the lumagen mini as a way to handle aspect ratio on a non auto zoom projector. This would still be usefull for calibrations if I end up selling the PJ and upgrading as well. I just have no way of seeing the image quality of the scaled images to know either way.

The two projector route is a little tricky on the installation considering the open bar at the back and viewing angles.

So staying with the zoom for 2.35 or possibly the lumagen (?)....

I like the Sony hw50 but the limited zoom would require me to mount it directly over and a little in front of the second row of seats ( not a good spot).

So that leaves me with the Sharp or the Panny. I understand that calibrated lumens can be a lot different than manufacture specs. Just how inaccurate are the higher light output modes? I mean is it going to look like garbage or are we talking slight differences? What are people's thoughts on these two PJs for what I'm looking at?
Gomdaf is offline  
post #9 of 55 Old 04-12-2013, 09:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,983
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Skip the Panny, many of us in here are not huge fans of it. I talked to a guy that sold a bunch, and he regrets even selling them because his customers kept coming back to him with so many problems (though that was the 7000), and Panny CS is a pain to deal with. For image quality, I give the Panny near a dead last placement in its price range, and I also think it the MOST unreliable of them all (well nearly tied with Epson reliability). Though neither are horrible, but the image the Panny produces is ONLY just ok, and it does not have a lot of native sharpness. Sometimes you get lucky and get very well converged Panny's, but even then they aren't particularly sharp. Also the Panny has lower calibrated lumens. The Epson's dynamic mode is better though not perfect, but the Panny has other issues that add to it.

Sony or JVC, Epson is ok but LCOS is better than LCD. The Epson does not have lens memory, I would get the JVC as noted earlier, it has plenty of calibrated lumens.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
for both one projector or dual stacks

Web Calculator v023 & v025
-
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

**Current Projector Calculator** --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Coder's Top Projector Picks of 2012 --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

coderguy is online now  
post #10 of 55 Old 04-12-2013, 10:11 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Gomdaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 148
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Thanks for the reply Coder. Are you saying the JVC has plenty of calibrated lumens with the anamorphic lens or using zoom? I've always been under the impression while having the best overall pic for movies (black level, etc) it isn't the brightest of the bunch. This will be a complete light controlled room. I'm also a little concerned about the motion capabilities. It's tough for me to say, as this is my first projector so i'm not sure what to expect. I think personally i would be a little more tolerant of slight color divergence over a dim image. I have a sony 60" LED that has never really been calibrated (besides your normal BD basics) and I'm quite pleased with the image. of course thats where it gets subjective....

I will say i have seen both the 5020 and the Sony hs50 and i find both images to be awesome. Both were viewed on a 120" 16:9 in a light controlled room from about 15 ft. I just figured the Panny using the same panels would be similar to the Epson, but adding lens memory. I'm hopeful that the successor to the Sony 95 would be my perfect blend if it has the capabilites of the 50 plus auto zoom, thats why i'm looking a little less expensive for the time being and upgrading later. I've aways been a little suspicious of why the Panny doesn't get more action around here..
Gomdaf is offline  
post #11 of 55 Old 04-12-2013, 07:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
humbland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 953
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gomdaf View Post

Thanks for the reply Coder. Are you saying the JVC has plenty of calibrated lumens with the anamorphic lens or using zoom? I've always been under the impression while having the best overall pic for movies (black level, etc) it isn't the brightest of the bunch. This will be a complete light controlled room. I'm also a little concerned about the motion capabilities. It's tough for me to say, as this is my first projector so i'm not sure what to expect. I think personally i would be a little more tolerant of slight color divergence over a dim image. I have a sony 60" LED that has never really been calibrated (besides your normal BD basics) and I'm quite pleased with the image. of course thats where it gets subjective....

I will say i have seen both the 5020 and the Sony hs50 and i find both images to be awesome. Both were viewed on a 120" 16:9 in a light controlled room from about 15 ft. I just figured the Panny using the same panels would be similar to the Epson, but adding lens memory. I'm hopeful that the successor to the Sony 95 would be my perfect blend if it has the capabilites of the 50 plus auto zoom, thats why i'm looking a little less expensive for the time being and upgrading later. I've aways been a little suspicious of why the Panny doesn't get more action around here..

We were looking for a cost effective (read cheap) solution to tide us over for a few years, until 4k comes down or we win the lottery...
If you have a dark room and good screen, then a beautiful, sharp picture with lens shift and powered controls is possible in your price range..
Check out the Sharp XV-30000. There are good reviews online and a good thread in this forum. There are deals out there to get this MSRP $5k projector for <$2k.
For your large screen 3D will be a bit dim, but everything else will be superb.

smile.gif
humbland is offline  
post #12 of 55 Old 04-12-2013, 09:34 PM
Member
 
timhet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think the JVC will struggle to illuminate that size screen using the zoom method.

The JVCs have about 700 calibrated lumens. If your screen is 1.0 gain and your screen is 138" scope (then if you are zooming, you need to factor in the black bars that are projected so you are essentially projecting a 146" 16:9 image), then

700 lumens x 1.0 gain / 62.6 sq feet = 11.2 foot lamberts which is pretty dim and below the cinema 12-16 standard, and this is when the projector is new.

Adding an A-lens will help with some brightness. 10-20%.

The Sony ES95 has lens memory and I believe it has around 1000 calibrated lumens so that might be a better bet. Expensive though.

The panasonic has less calibrated lumens than the JVC, but it has the potential for more lumens in dynamic mode which might be ok for 3D for the kids.
timhet is offline  
post #13 of 55 Old 04-12-2013, 09:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,983
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 147
I agree, I would give up the AT screen and go for a Da-Lite HP screen with this projector. Find a different way to mount the speakers, AT screens require too many sacrifices IMHO, but some will disagree.

If you refuse to get rid of the AT
The lumens aren't as high as past JVC's, and you WILL lose on/off contrast if you put the PJ at closest throw and open the IRIS all the way. That is why Da-LITE HP is better, higher contrast. I had forgotten the newer JVC's had less lumens than my RS-45.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
for both one projector or dual stacks

Web Calculator v023 & v025
-
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

**Current Projector Calculator** --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Coder's Top Projector Picks of 2012 --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

coderguy is online now  
post #14 of 55 Old 04-13-2013, 04:04 AM
 
BobL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 53

This really depends on your goals.  If your goal is to have the biggest screen possible than an HP screen could work but it is a BIG sacrifice in audio.  Good sound starts with location, location, location and with a screen that size not being AT you are sacrificing location of speakers significantly.  If your goal is a top notch HT and audio is important to you than AT screen is the way to go.  You can get AT screens with gain but they are expensive, The Steward 5D for example.

 

 The only other solution I can suggest with a less expensive AT screen is the Epson or Sony with a fixed A-lens and it would still be within your budget.  They have brighter modes which will help as the lamp dims and still gives a very good picture, The Epson having the advantage here for brighter modes.  The motorized A-lens solutions would be out of your budget.  A good A-lens will stay in your system as you swap out projectors in the future and is a better method for widescreen than zooming.  You can get more info here.

 

http://www.panamorph.com/cinevista/index.html

 

You'll have to decide which compromises you are willing to make.

BobL is offline  
post #15 of 55 Old 04-13-2013, 06:44 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Gomdaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 148
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Can't go the high power screen route. Speakers are set and positioned behind the screen and the PJ position has to be up close to the ceiling so it doesn't block the back bar view.
Gomdaf is offline  
post #16 of 55 Old 04-13-2013, 10:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 4,101
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 305 Post(s)
Liked: 226
There needs to be a compromise somewhere. Unfortunately with your screen size there are a very small amount of options you can choose. I know it will be more expensive, but an anamorphic lens may be your only route. You've sort of back yourself into a corner and are in denial about it. If you want to go to keep the 2.35:1, keep the screen you currently have, and want sufficient brightness it's basically your only option. Most of the units mentioned will only be bright enough for the first couple hundred hours (and "bright enough' is still only 11-12 Ftl which is pretty dim already). The only other thing you could is go with a higher gain AT screen. You could look into something from Stewart, maybe their UltraMatte 1.5 screen material.

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

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Seegs108 is online now  
post #17 of 55 Old 04-13-2013, 11:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,983
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

You've sort of back yourself into a corner and are in denial about it.

I second this, that was a good way of putting it. Many people often design their home theaters towards a propensity to focus on ONE thing over-ruling all others and they think it's ok to do this. If that's really what they want to do, that's fine, as it is their choice, but in the end they are giving up more than they realize.

For instance, when I say for larger screens AT is too big of a compromise (unless you compensate or get a brighter projector), someone will immediately point out BUT you need it for sound. No you don't, you might need it for aesthetics in your room, or maybe to make that sound a little more convincing, but in reality you are just sacrificing VIDEO for AUDIO. That's what it comes down to, I don't know about most people, but I didn't buy my home theater to just listen to LOUD sounds or explosions, I bought it to watch movies. Yah yah, sound is part of the experience, but not 50% (I know for some it is), it's more like 25% of the experience, VIDEO is the 75%.

I do not BUY into the "big sacrifice in AUDIO" argument, I've heard great audio from non-AT screen setups as well. It is more of a sacrifice in speaker placement aesthetics than audio quality to use non-AT screens. Your mind adjusts to the sound when you are watching the movie and you forget about it. Yes when you first walk into a room with a different speaker placement, it's highly noticeable, but once you are into the movie, not as much (a little). Even getting a brighter projector, you still are not exactly compensating for all losses in VIDEO quality from an AT screen, most lower-cost AT screens (under $2000) I have seen do not have as good or solid of a weave and the image is affected, it looks less solid to me.

That said, it's ok to use an AT screen if you really are that concerned about aesthetics, but you definitely need to find a solution to the brightness issue. An A-Lens adds 10% to 15% or so to the brightness, but it certainly is not a full-blown solution either as this is a minimal increase. Plus now you are combining the visual loss of a lower-cost A-Lens with an AT screen weave and losing gain (and with some PJ's loss of gain means loss of contrast due to IRIS settings), so this is definitely a potentially huge overall loss in image fidelity.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
for both one projector or dual stacks

Web Calculator v023 & v025
-
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

**Current Projector Calculator** --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Coder's Top Projector Picks of 2012 --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

coderguy is online now  
post #18 of 55 Old 04-13-2013, 12:31 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Gomdaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 148
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Geez guys. Definitely no denial here. Read my opening remarks:

"When I initially built the Theater I did it with the mindset of going big and masking if need be. So I do fully understand at 138" wide I might be a little on the dim side, especially in 3D. My thoughts are that hopefully within the next year or two there will be some projectors that fit the bill in a more acceptable price range."

I consider what I did to be a little bit of future proofing and certainly not backing myself into a corner. The 16x9 image is 120" diagonal from 13.5 feet. I'm pretty sure within the next couple of years the technology will only get better and at that point at least I won't have to rebuild the screen wall (maybe just replace the material). The screen wall has sliding panels built in to mask down the image

Anyway, I will concede at this point I may be trying to have my cake and eat it to smile.gif

Sound like maybe an hs50 with an A lens might work and be pretty decent for now. Can always mask down a bit if need be. Part of me was hoping the Panny would do it for the simplicity and cost.

I know others around here are running larger screens. Are all using A lens? Or perhaps some might share their thoughts and experience.

Side note: for me the audio is 50% of the true theater experience.
Gomdaf is offline  
post #19 of 55 Old 04-13-2013, 12:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,983
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Sorry, we were just using strong wording to emphasize a point.

Your setup is certainly not hopeless. I would go with the Sony hw50 + A-Lens if you can far over the Epson, the Sony is in another league in every way except brightness and 3D.
I don't think LCD is a match for LCOS when it comes to 70% 2d MOVIE viewing, and I think most experts would agree with that consensus.

If you really like the Epson or Panny and want to save money, then maybe you aren't as picky and can go with LCD. This being your first projector, I don't think it matters as much, most of us are borderline OCD and have owned 10+ projectors, so we don't like LCD anymore as much, but it doesn't mean you have to feel the same way. Really, you could probably just buy a USED or refurb Panasonic 7000 or 8000 and see how you like it, if you don't like it, sell it back for a minimal loss.

Audio is 50% of the experience until you've heard good audio in a non-AT setup with reference level video setup, then it's 25% smile.gif
Reason is because you lose 10% or less of the audio quality for a gain of 50% or more in video quality.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
for both one projector or dual stacks

Web Calculator v023 & v025
-
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

**Current Projector Calculator** --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Coder's Top Projector Picks of 2012 --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

coderguy is online now  
post #20 of 55 Old 04-13-2013, 01:43 PM
Advanced Member
 
Crabalocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 783
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

I second this, that was a good way of putting it. Many people often design their home theaters towards a propensity to focus on ONE thing over-ruling all others and they think it's ok to do this. If that's really what they want to do, that's fine, as it is their choice, but in the end they are giving up more than they realize.

For instance, when I say for larger screens AT is too big of a compromise (unless you compensate or get a brighter projector), someone will immediately point out BUT you need it for sound. No you don't, you might need it for aesthetics in your room, or maybe to make that sound a little more convincing, but in reality you are just sacrificing VIDEO for AUDIO. That's what it comes down to, I don't know about most people, but I didn't buy my home theater to just listen to LOUD sounds or explosions, I bought it to watch movies. Yah yah, sound is part of the experience, but not 50% (I know for some it is), it's more like 25% of the experience, VIDEO is the 75%.

I do not BUY into the "big sacrifice in AUDIO" argument, I've heard great audio from non-AT screen setups as well. It is more of a sacrifice in speaker placement aesthetics than audio quality to use non-AT screens. Your mind adjusts to the sound when you are watching the movie and you forget about it. Yes when you first walk into a room with a different speaker placement, it's highly noticeable, but once you are into the movie, not as much (a little). Even getting a brighter projector, you still are not exactly compensating for all losses in VIDEO quality from an AT screen, most lower-cost AT screens (under $2000) I have seen do not have as good or solid of a weave and the image is affected, it looks less solid to me.

That said, it's ok to use an AT screen if you really are that concerned about aesthetics, but you definitely need to find a solution to the brightness issue. An A-Lens adds 10% to 15% or so to the brightness, but it certainly is not a full-blown solution either as this is a minimal increase. Plus now you are combining the visual loss of a lower-cost A-Lens with an AT screen weave and losing gain (and with some PJ's loss of gain means loss of contrast due to IRIS settings), so this is definitely a potentially huge overall loss in image fidelity.


I totally disagree and I'm sure there are more than a few that would agree with me.

I love my AT screen and wouldn't go back! Sound imaging has more of an impact than what I originally thought prior to getting an AT screen. Having all three front speakers the same (not sure if that's the OP situation) makes for a seamless pin point accurate sound stage and it really enhances the whole experience, IMHO. To me, and I'm sure a large portion of the people visiting this site, the sound of the experience is far more important than what you're placing its value at. Again this home theater thing is subjective and it's a very personal experience. Nobody is right and it comes down to what YOU feel is important!

I would never give up my quality of sound for a better projector. I would rather watch on my 8350 with the sound I have now than my X-55 with crappy sound. But having both does make for an overall better experience IMO.

OP,

I have a JVC X-55 lighting up a 153" diagonal 16x9 Seymour xd screen with no problem. So that would be equivalent to a 145" diagonal or 133" wide 2.35:1 screen. My Epson's 8500ub, 8350 and my BenQ W7000 all light it up as well. The W7000 being the brightest in best mode. I use the BenQ as a second projector for regular TV (with ambient light), video games and 3D. My X-55 is strictly a 2D movie watching machine. If I were to get another projector in the sub $4000 range, it would most likely be the Sony HW50. I know you need the powered zoom so my JVC is fine in the brightness area.

Oh yea, the picture on my screen looks fan frigg'n tastic! you can't see the weave from more than 8' back.
Crabalocker is online now  
post #21 of 55 Old 04-13-2013, 02:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,983
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Possibly, but there are things you can do to compensate the lack of an AT design, and I've seen a few quasi-professional theaters that did it well and sounded just as good.
It's not like when you move a center channel speaker slightly the sound changes completely, it can but you can counter that with room conditioning which changes the sound anyways.

In your case you have a super-giant screen, so it is harder to place the speakers sometimes, but there are still workarounds. Saying not having an AT screen ruins sound is silly, and I've heard enough different setups to know. It adds a little to the sound, but the conditioning of the room adds more and compensates. I stand by 10% to 20% difference at best IF a room is designed by an audio expert between AT and non-AT, most of the time it's because people aren't savvy enough to compensate it with material conditioning. Even if not an expert, you can get similar results and effects by getting help in the audio setup sections of the forums involving conditioning. Judging it in one room is also not right, it depends on the room, as we know the room must be heavily materially conditioned to get the best sound, so just doing an AT screen in a room that is not perfectly designed for audio is really NOT the solution, it is one of several depending on the setup of the room and the materials that exist within that room.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
for both one projector or dual stacks

Web Calculator v023 & v025
-
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

**Current Projector Calculator** --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Coder's Top Projector Picks of 2012 --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

coderguy is online now  
post #22 of 55 Old 04-13-2013, 02:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 4,101
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 305 Post(s)
Liked: 226
The screen being AT or not has little to do with the issues at hand. It has to do with screen brightness plain and simple. If he goes with a scope screen at this size he's going to need an exceptionally bright projector if he wants to zoom to fill the screen. \Unfortunately there isn't such a beast in his price range. An anamorphic lens will help retain (and add) some light and make it somewhat usable. The HW50 in it's brighter mode plus the anamorphic lens should suffice. I don't know how long, you may be going through bulbs quite often as they will dim over time to an unacceptable level.

Codeguy's suggestion had more to do with getting an acceptable picture. I think everyone would agree that if you can't make the video work with how you want to set-up the sound then you're going to need to change something. What's the point of an awesome HT audio system if you can't see what you're watching? Like I said, if he wants to keep his AT screen he needs a solution and that solution is a bright projector and an anamorphic lens.

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

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Seegs108 is online now  
post #23 of 55 Old 04-13-2013, 07:28 PM
Advanced Member
 
Crabalocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 783
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 35
I agree the OP is pushing the limits with his setup but not a complete write off....I personally wouldn't want to go much bigger than what I have now but I would have to see what the picture looks like 5" wider and the projector a foot further back before I came to a conclusion. Probably would look OK but you would likely have to change the bulb every 600 or so hours. Unfortunately I can't test it on my setup as my JVC is fixed and I can't get the image big enough to check to see how it looks.

Acceptable is again subjective. People, like yourself, on these forums keep telling me my setup is not acceptable without first looking at how my set-up looks. Mine is completely acceptable and is nowhere near what anyone would call dim or unacceptable/unwatchable. Who wouldn't want more brightness with a large setup but it is what it is and it's awesome!!

With his room almost done I don't honestly think he's going to change out his screen and speaker configuration and then spend for a middle of the road JVC. If he was to do all that I would just keep the current setup and maybe try to find a used 3 chipper (my next projector....a Sim2).

I would seriously take a look at the HW50 for its brightness in best mode + blacks. Pro's vs. Con's. Manual zoom and focus but It should handle the job, IMO. Or, find a projector that calibrates well in brightest mode. Still feasible in my opinion.
Crabalocker is online now  
post #24 of 55 Old 04-13-2013, 07:41 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 7,579
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 290 Post(s)
Liked: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by timhet View Post

I think the JVC will struggle to illuminate that size screen using the zoom method.

The JVCs have about 700 calibrated lumens. If your screen is 1.0 gain and your screen is 138" scope (then if you are zooming, you need to factor in the black bars that are projected so you are essentially projecting a 146" 16:9 image), then

700 lumens x 1.0 gain / 62.6 sq feet = 11.2 foot lamberts which is pretty dim and below the cinema 12-16 standard, and this is when the projector is new.

Adding an A-lens will help with some brightness. 10-20%.

The Sony ES95 has lens memory and I believe it has around 1000 calibrated lumens so that might be a better bet. Expensive though.

The panasonic has less calibrated lumens than the JVC, but it has the potential for more lumens in dynamic mode which might be ok for 3D for the kids.

The JVC RS45 and 46 have around 900 calibrated lumens in best image mode, mid zoom. The VW95 has been measured to have 725 lumens, mid zoom high lamp, best image mode. None of these projectors by their self are going to do a good job lighting up a 138" wide scope screen that is 1.0 gain, using best image mode. I am talking about 2D, forget about 3D. The Sharp suggested above has 532 best mode lumens, high lamp mid zoom. Your best bet is either one of the B-stock JVC's and an A-lens or the Sony HW50ES and an A-lens. Other options, go with a solid screen with some gain or up your projector budget. The screen area that you need to use, when making your calculations is 74.3 SF not 62.6 SF (138" x 77.528" = 10,698.876/144 = 74.3 SF). You have to use the 16:9 size of a 138" wide screen. A 1,000 lumens is only going to get you 13.5 Foot Lamberts. Granted in a really good room, 13.5 FL can look very bright, but that is your starting point and it is down hill from there.

Mike Garrett, AV Science Sales Call Me: 585-671-2968
Email Me:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Brands we sell: 
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
 
Call for B-stock projectors
Stewart, Seymour, SE, SI, Falcon & many more.
RBH, Martin Logan, Triad, Atlantic Technology, MK Sound, BG Radia, SVS & Def Tech.
AV Science Sales 5 is offline  
post #25 of 55 Old 04-13-2013, 07:53 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 7,579
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 290 Post(s)
Liked: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

Sorry, we were just using strong wording to emphasize a point.

Your setup is certainly not hopeless. I would go with the Sony hw50 + A-Lens if you can far over the Epson, the Sony is in another league in every way except brightness and 3D.
I don't think LCD is a match for LCOS when it comes to 70% 2d MOVIE viewing, and I think most experts would agree with that consensus.

If you really like the Epson or Panny and want to save money, then maybe you aren't as picky and can go with LCD. This being your first projector, I don't think it matters as much, most of us are borderline OCD and have owned 10+ projectors, so we don't like LCD anymore as much, but it doesn't mean you have to feel the same way. Really, you could probably just buy a USED or refurb Panasonic 7000 or 8000 and see how you like it, if you don't like it, sell it back for a minimal loss.

Audio is 50% of the experience until you've heard good audio in a non-AT setup with reference level video setup, then it's 25% smile.gif
Reason is because you lose 10% or less of the audio quality for a gain of 50% or more in video quality.

We agree on a lot of things, but not on this. I also think audio is half the experience and I doubt that I will ever have a dedicated room without an AT screen. smile.gif

Added
I do agree, that you can't just stick an AT screen in a room with speakers behind it and call it a day. Same goes for a solid screen. You do need to treat the room to get the best out of it.

Mike Garrett, AV Science Sales Call Me: 585-671-2968
Email Me:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Brands we sell: 
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
 
Call for B-stock projectors
Stewart, Seymour, SE, SI, Falcon & many more.
RBH, Martin Logan, Triad, Atlantic Technology, MK Sound, BG Radia, SVS & Def Tech.
AV Science Sales 5 is offline  
post #26 of 55 Old 04-13-2013, 08:22 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,064
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 107 Post(s)
Liked: 445
Audio for me is at least half the experience. If anything, I am personally more geared toward the audio side of this hobby, but everyone is different.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #27 of 55 Old 04-13-2013, 08:48 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 7,579
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 290 Post(s)
Liked: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Audio for me is at least half the experience. If anything, I am personally more geared toward the audio side of this hobby, but everyone is different.

Yep, that is why I just picked up a new amp for a couple of my subs. An iNuke 6000. Going to take the two amps that were on those subs and use them with my mains and center. That then sets me up for use of a 10 x 10 MiniDSP. smile.gif

Mike Garrett, AV Science Sales Call Me: 585-671-2968
Email Me:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Brands we sell: 
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
 
Call for B-stock projectors
Stewart, Seymour, SE, SI, Falcon & many more.
RBH, Martin Logan, Triad, Atlantic Technology, MK Sound, BG Radia, SVS & Def Tech.
AV Science Sales 5 is offline  
post #28 of 55 Old 04-13-2013, 08:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
blee0120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Merillville, IN 46410
Posts: 3,646
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 70
I seen an awesome AT setup. Sound was ridiculous, never thought sound would affect a room so much. Still, I would want the best video, then work around to get the best audio. Audio is important, but not at the expense of PQ. If the new hdmi specs aren't ready for this year projectors, I will use that money toward some amazing audio. Debating on which screen to use, AT, unity screen, or a bigger HP screen
blee0120 is offline  
post #29 of 55 Old 04-13-2013, 09:05 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,064
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 107 Post(s)
Liked: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

Yep, that is why I just picked up a new amp for a couple of my subs. An iNuke 6000. Going to take the two amps that were on those subs and use them with my mains and center. That then sets me up for use of a 10 x 10 MiniDSP. smile.gif

Nice Mike! cool.gif A DIY sub project is something I would love to do at some point. I imagine it is a very rewarding experience.

My next audio upgrade is going to involve beefing up my tactile system a bit more with a few more buttkickers and an additional amp. I am driving the two I have a bit hard and need some headroom.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #30 of 55 Old 04-14-2013, 04:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,983
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 147
I will have to say that I politely doubt some of the theory in here about AT screens for the average size screens we use in our rooms. Though I am not more than 80% certain of my own theory either smile.gif

There is no reason (theoretically) in a small room with screens under say 140" (don't have exact number, let's use this for a reference), that small changes in placement of only one speaker (ok sometimes more) should affect the sound so greatly if accoustical treatments, sound calibrations, EQ, and angles are used to properly redirect that sound. For larger screens, I do see the problem and NEED for AT screens, because sound waves are altered enough. I just don't see the theory working in Joe the Plumber's home theater room to any huge degree (I gave it 10% to 20% benefit of doubt). I might be wrong, but this is my theory (and people probably get sick of my heavy theoretical attitude, but it is what it is).

I doubt many (if any) of you have actually A/B'd this AT screen vs. regular screen with the same equipment on both setups (that is pretty hard to do), after a proper compensation.
We should know by now how many opinions of our own or others have been wrong when we haven't been able to A/B something.

Cheers...



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
for both one projector or dual stacks

Web Calculator v023 & v025
-
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

**Current Projector Calculator** --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Coder's Top Projector Picks of 2012 --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

coderguy is online now  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
Sony Vpl Hw50es 3d Projector , Jvc Dla Rs4810 3d Home Theater Projector , Epson Powerlite Pro Cinema 6020ub 3d 1080p 3lcd Projector , Jvc Dla X35 3d Hd Front Projector , Benq W1070 3d Ready Dlp Projector 1080p Hdtv , Sharp Xv Z30000 Dlp , Sony Vpl Vw95es Full Hd 3d Home Cinema Projector
Gear in this thread - Z30000 by PriceGrabber.com

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