Official Sony VPL-VW500ES / VW600ES 4K Projector Thread - Page 175 - 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 #5221 of 5305 Old 07-20-2015, 08:42 PM
Senior Member
 
Naylorman32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 114 Post(s)
Liked: 48
my eyes seem to be bleeding from reading too many pages in this thread, but my question is...

who here is using an anamorphic lens in conjunction with a VP like a Lumagen with their 600es to view 2:35 content? Do you notice any major difference in picture quality when having both the lens+VP in play, rather than just a VP when viewing 2:35 content? I've got a Lumagen now, and use the zoom to view my 2:35 content. Don't get me wrong, the picture is GREAT. But am I really missing out with those "lost" pixels in the black bars? I'm just looking for someone who was once in a similar position to me, in that they considered adding a lens to their setup.

Thank you in advance forum peeps.
Naylorman32 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #5222 of 5305 Old 07-20-2015, 09:03 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,050
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2157 Post(s)
Liked: 1154
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
I went from RS45 with Lumagen and A-lens to VW600 with lumagen and A-lens. Currently not using Lumagen. Sold in preparation of 4K Lumagen. I had no choice, because I had to use an A-lens to be able to throw the image size I wanted in my room. So I purchased the larger scope screen and A-lens at the same time. Later added Lumagen and then added powered slide.

AV Geek for life. :) Contact for advice and help.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #5223 of 5305 Old 07-20-2015, 10:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
OzHDHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Antipodes aka Oz
Posts: 1,677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 221 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naylorman32 View Post
my eyes seem to be bleeding from reading too many pages in this thread, but my question is...

who here is using an anamorphic lens in conjunction with a VP like a Lumagen with their 600es to view 2:35 content? Do you notice any major difference in picture quality when having both the lens+VP in play, rather than just a VP when viewing 2:35 content? I've got a Lumagen now, and use the zoom to view my 2:35 content. Don't get me wrong, the picture is GREAT. But am I really missing out with those "lost" pixels in the black bars? I'm just looking for someone who was once in a similar position to me, in that they considered adding a lens to their setup.

Thank you in advance forum peeps.
Do you really miss the 'lost pixels' that much with the 600? I've got both a 500 with 126" 2:35 set up and a pretty close viewing distance of 11ft , plus also an 1100 that uses a 138" 2:35 with a 15" viewing distance. I've never felt like I'm missing out with either projector with scope blurays or 4K media zoomed out fill the screen.

OzHDHT is offline  
post #5224 of 5305 Old 07-21-2015, 04:28 AM
Senior Member
 
Naylorman32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 114 Post(s)
Liked: 48
im not sure, that's the thing. I know that mathematically, i'm losing pixels with the zoom, but i wonder if that really matters. will it one day when the sources are true 4K?

my setup is 138" 2:35 with 11 foot viewing distance.
Naylorman32 is offline  
post #5225 of 5305 Old 07-21-2015, 05:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
OzHDHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Antipodes aka Oz
Posts: 1,677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 221 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naylorman32 View Post
im not sure, that's the thing. I know that mathematically, i'm losing pixels with the zoom, but i wonder if that really matters. will it one day when the sources are true 4K?

my setup is 138" 2:35 with 11 foot viewing distance.
I slightly overstated my viewing distances. My my 126" is more like 10ft and 138" actually measures 13ft. But 11ft is seriously close in your set up. For me that's sitting on the end of chaise section of my lounge, which I do occasionally.

Think you'll find your on the right tip there re 4K material and zooming, I've stood next to screen with 4K movie zoomed and struggled to see a diff vs non zoomed.
OzHDHT is offline  
post #5226 of 5305 Old 07-21-2015, 06:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Wendell R. Breland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,582
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 187 Post(s)
Liked: 91
In reference to anamorphic lens there is a link in my post here that you folks may want to read.
Wendell R. Breland is offline  
post #5227 of 5305 Old 07-21-2015, 06:15 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 21,392
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1304 Post(s)
Liked: 912
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzHDHT View Post
. For me that's sitting on the end of chaise section of my lounge, which I do occasionally.



Too much information.
OzHDHT likes this.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is online now  
post #5228 of 5305 Old 07-21-2015, 05:37 PM
Advanced Member
 
Tnedator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 892
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland View Post
In reference to anamorphic lens there is a link in my post here that you folks may want to read.
Having done a lot of reading, calculating and such over the last year, one thing I have found is that many people that compare zoom to A lens fail to take into account the change in light from changing the zoom level.

Take my case, I will be near telephoto at 1.78:1, which is where I would be if using an A lens. However, if I use the zoom method, the lens will be closer to mid zoom when displaying a 10.5' wide 1:78 image, which according to Projectorreviews is a 400 lumen increase in light, which makes up for the light lost in pixels off the screen.

Now, for people on the other end of the throw spectrum, then there might actually be a brightness gain with the A lens, but on the other hand, unless you have a 12'+ wide screen chances are you have plenty of light to burn with the Sony's anyway when at the short side of the throw range.
Tnedator is offline  
post #5229 of 5305 Old 07-21-2015, 06:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 694
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 289 Post(s)
Liked: 94
I've tested this multiple times and the A-lens is considerably brighter. A 120 x 51 2.35 screen is the equivalent of projecting 120 x 67 16:9 screen if using the zoom method. You might gain some lumens with the lens being at the shorter throw but you don't make up the 25% more square footage you are projecting onto. Plus you lose more light because you are only using 810 of the 1080 pixels. There are advantages to each method but brightness is definitely in favor of the A-lens.
Ellebob is online now  
post #5230 of 5305 Old 07-21-2015, 06:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
conan48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Igloo
Posts: 2,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 241 Post(s)
Liked: 322
I'm selling my Sony FMP-X5 4k streaming box as I no longer have a use for it. It's for streaming netflix 4K and playing 4K media files.

Sony FMP-X5 4k media player for Sony 4K projectors and TV's
conan48 is offline  
post #5231 of 5305 Old 07-21-2015, 06:59 PM
Senior Member
 
Naylorman32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 114 Post(s)
Liked: 48
I appreciate everyone's feedback so far!

I don't think the brightness is my main concern, as my basement is basically a bat-cave, and i have been using velvet around my screen wall. What i wonder is when 4K becomes available, will i regret zooming my picture and missing out on those extra pixels (and yeah, i guess that little bit of extra brightness), since isn't that the reason i invested in this great projector to begin with? for its ability to display that many pixels...
Naylorman32 is offline  
post #5232 of 5305 Old 07-21-2015, 07:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
Tnedator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 892
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellebob View Post
I've tested this multiple times and the A-lens is considerably brighter. A 120 x 51 2.35 screen is the equivalent of projecting 120 x 67 16:9 screen if using the zoom method. You might gain some lumens with the lens being at the shorter throw but you don't make up the 25% more square footage you are projecting onto. Plus you lose more light because you are only using 810 of the 1080 pixels. There are advantages to each method but brightness is definitely in favor of the A-lens.
I used to use the Draper FL calculator, but they took it down. So, I did the calculations in Excel -- assuming I have the formula right, I come up with the numbers below. Please let me know if my numbers/calculations don't look right.

I couldn't get it to post right, so posted an image, so click on thumbnail below. Based on my calculation, assuming no light loss through A lens, the lens would be about 2.5 FL brighter. Assuming A-lens light loss (3-5%), that number likely drops to some where around 1 - 1.5 FL brighter.

That said, my buddy has an 1100 on a similar size screen to what I'm showing. He has an A lens and is setup for zoom (he's stopped using the A lens). I might bring might light meter over there and check the brightness of each.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	fl-calcs.JPG
Views:	38
Size:	66.3 KB
ID:	842682  

Last edited by Tnedator; 07-21-2015 at 08:23 PM.
Tnedator is offline  
post #5233 of 5305 Old 07-21-2015, 09:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 694
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 289 Post(s)
Liked: 94
I've done this several times, real world it is about 20%. Calculated it is about 25% screen size difference and about 20% pixel difference minus A-lens light lost and zoom difference. You usually don't make up the difference with the zoom and light loss through the A-lens. I'm not where I can check these for a few days but I can try it with one of several projectors we have here now, an Epson 3500, 4030, 6030 and 10000 and I know we have a Cinevista A-lens kicking around which is the lower end of A-lens scale. Plus the lower end projectors should have a bigger difference when using the zoom. I'll post the measurements.
Ellebob is online now  
post #5234 of 5305 Old 07-21-2015, 09:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
OzHDHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Antipodes aka Oz
Posts: 1,677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 221 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naylorman32 View Post
I appreciate everyone's feedback so far!

I don't think the brightness is my main concern, as my basement is basically a bat-cave, and i have been using velvet around my screen wall. What i wonder is when 4K becomes available, will i regret zooming my picture and missing out on those extra pixels (and yeah, i guess that little bit of extra brightness), since isn't that the reason i invested in this great projector to begin with? for its ability to display that many pixels...
Your setup sounds a lot like the dark media room I've got my 500 in currently. Its set a quite close throw distance and on the smaller 126" 2:35 screen and even in zoomed mode I have to use low light as high lamp is overly bright with 350 hours on the bulb. In my non optimised room with the 1100 on the 138" and approx 800 lamps hours on my second bulb, I'm still using low lamp when zoomed on my ST130. When my new dedicated room is setup also with 1100 at min throw, the image will benefit again thanks to the properly optimised setup, instead of only having a dark wall behind the screen currently. With pixels, let your eyes be the judge. Literally test it out at your viewing distance with the best material you have. No good having other people tell you you are or aren't going to missing the extra pixels in zooming. My thoughts are more along the lines of the benefit of the 4K panel's upscaling is giving you the freedom to zoom 1080p content with a lesser penalty than you can with a native 1080p projector. On top of that, to me zooming true 4K is its hard to discern the lost pixels.
Naylorman32 likes this.

OzHDHT is offline  
post #5235 of 5305 Old 07-22-2015, 12:00 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 21,392
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1304 Post(s)
Liked: 912
Most of the projector calculators are simply not accurate in predicting light projected out of the primary lenses other than at the zoom extremes. Usually one can find out the effective F stops of a zoom lens that is not designed to have a constant effective apertures. No projector zoom lens has a constant aperture Economics dictate that the lens at long zoom will have a smaller effective light loss at the long end than at the close or wide angle end. The effective F stops for projector are usually not a full F stop difference but about half an F stop causing about a 30 to 40% reduction in light out of the lens at long zoom compared to short. Where the calculators go wrong is that the loss or the gain if you go the other way IS NOT LINEAR. The curve is a log curve which means the fall off from the close end is very steep and by the time you get to mid zoom one will have suffered almost as much loss as going al the way to long zoom. This means if you want to maximize the light at wide aspect, wideaspect should be set up at the shortest throw and as one zooms OUT for 1.78, incurring a rather substantial light loss by doing so, it will be almost made up by the smaller screen area being lit.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536

Last edited by mark haflich; 07-22-2015 at 06:55 AM.
mark haflich is online now  
post #5236 of 5305 Old 07-22-2015, 04:55 AM
Advanced Member
 
Tnedator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 892
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellebob View Post
I've done this several times, real world it is about 20%. Calculated it is about 25% screen size difference and about 20% pixel difference minus A-lens light lost and zoom difference. You usually don't make up the difference with the zoom and light loss through the A-lens. I'm not where I can check these for a few days but I can try it with one of several projectors we have here now, an Epson 3500, 4030, 6030 and 10000 and I know we have a Cinevista A-lens kicking around which is the lower end of A-lens scale. Plus the lower end projectors should have a bigger difference when using the zoom. I'll post the measurements.
A lot may have to do with the projector model (different light loss curves as you zoom) and if you are on the telephoto or wide angle end of the spectrum. According to Projector reviews, the first half of the 600ES zoom is relatively flat, with little light loss from wide angle to mid zoom (~4%). However, they show just over 19% drop in light from mid zoom to full telephoto.

So, in my room, and therefore my calculations, I'm basing it on A-lens (and 1.78 viewing) at full telephoto, and zoom method being not quite mid zoom. Therefore, the projector is picking up nearly all of that 19% by being near the mid zoom point, even though the light is being spread out over more square feet.

If on the other hand, you were dealing with the other end of the zoom spectrum, with 1.78/A-lens at mid zoom, and zoom at nearly full wide, then based on Projectorreview numbers you would be looking at 34FL for A lens and 27FL for Zoom, because they show picking up less than 4% on that half of the zoom curve.

FWIW, Projector Central claims that in their testing the light output from full wide to full telephoto is linear and drops 30% in total, with roughly a 15% drop at mid zoom. Using PC numbers weather you are on the long side of the throw curve or the short side, there is only a 1-2 FL difference between Zoom and lens (a lot depends on real world A lens light loss -- 3%, 5%, 8%??)
mark haflich likes this.
Tnedator is offline  
post #5237 of 5305 Old 07-22-2015, 07:41 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,050
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2157 Post(s)
Liked: 1154
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tnedator View Post
I used to use the Draper FL calculator, but they took it down. So, I did the calculations in Excel -- assuming I have the formula right, I come up with the numbers below. Please let me know if my numbers/calculations don't look right.

I couldn't get it to post right, so posted an image, so click on thumbnail below. Based on my calculation, assuming no light loss through A lens, the lens would be about 2.5 FL brighter. Assuming A-lens light loss (3-5%), that number likely drops to some where around 1 - 1.5 FL brighter.

That said, my buddy has an 1100 on a similar size screen to what I'm showing. He has an A lens and is setup for zoom (he's stopped using the A lens). I might bring might light meter over there and check the brightness of each.
In your calculations, why are you using a wider screen (126") for A-lens and (124") for zoom? Calculations should be based on the same width. Minimum throw using zoom method (VW1100) on 126" screen is 14'-2". Minimum throw using an A-lens to achieve a throw ratio of 2.0 (for flat not curved screen is 16') Not going to be much difference in the lumens output of the projector going from 14'-2" to 16'. Based on my calculations for the 126" wide 2.35 screen, you would get 25FL using zoom. For A-lens I get 31FL if no light loss through the lens and 30FL with 3% light loss. If you use a curved screen, then the minimum throw for the A-lens can be shorter than the throw for zoom method, so you pick up light for shorter throw and pick up the light from the black bars. I happen to use an A-lens with a throw that is shorter than what zoom method can do. I also use a curved screen because of this short throw. Any way you look at it, you get more light when using an A-lens. The longer the throw with an A-lens, the closer the numbers will get.

If using a VW600 for calculations, the minimum throws are: 14'-7" for zoom and 16' for A-lens, based on 2.0 throw ratio for flat screen, curved screen is even less). Now we are even closer together and hardly any difference in light output from the projector. I am using minimum throw for flat screen, since we are talking about light output of the projector. Not fair to handicap the A-lens and use the longest throw possible. Especially since most people can't even use the longest throw in their rooms.

AV Geek for life. :) Contact for advice and help.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #5238 of 5305 Old 07-22-2015, 07:55 AM
Projector Addict !
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 7,147
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1062 Post(s)
Liked: 740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naylorman32 View Post
I appreciate everyone's feedback so far!

I don't think the brightness is my main concern, as my basement is basically a bat-cave, and i have been using velvet around my screen wall. What i wonder is when 4K becomes available, will i regret zooming my picture and missing out on those extra pixels (and yeah, i guess that little bit of extra brightness), since isn't that the reason i invested in this great projector to begin with? for its ability to display that many pixels...
As a person that zooms onto a 2.35:1 screen with a VW600, I don't feel I'm missing anything. Heck, I've got pixels to burn !
OzHDHT, DavidHir and Naylorman32 like this.

Home theater builder and enthusiast since 2002. PM me for advice or help anytime !
Theater pics - http://www.avsforum.com/photopost/sh...hp?cat=2386514
Craig Peer is online now  
post #5239 of 5305 Old 07-22-2015, 10:41 AM
Advanced Member
 
Tnedator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 892
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post
In your calculations, why are you using a wider screen (126") for A-lens and (124") for zoom? Calculations should be based on the same width. Minimum throw using zoom method (VW1100) on 126" screen is 14'-2". Minimum throw using an A-lens to achieve a throw ratio of 2.0 (for flat not curved screen is 16') Not going to be much difference in the lumens output of the projector going from 14'-2" to 16'. Based on my calculations for the 126" wide 2.35 screen, you would get 25FL using zoom. For A-lens I get 31FL if no light loss through the lens and 30FL with 3% light loss. If you use a curved screen, then the minimum throw for the A-lens can be shorter than the throw for zoom method, so you pick up light for shorter throw and pick up the light from the black bars. I happen to use an A-lens with a throw that is shorter than what zoom method can do. I also use a curved screen because of this short throw. Any way you look at it, you get more light when using an A-lens. The longer the throw with an A-lens, the closer the numbers will get.

If using a VW600 for calculations, the minimum throws are: 14'-7" for zoom and 16' for A-lens, based on 2.0 throw ratio for flat screen, curved screen is even less). Now we are even closer together and hardly any difference in light output from the projector. I am using minimum throw for flat screen, since we are talking about light output of the projector. Not fair to handicap the A-lens and use the longest throw possible. Especially since most people can't even use the longest throw in their rooms.

The 124 vs 126 was a typo. I would have to look at my formula at home to see if I made the mistake in there as well (I had the 71" high correct, just not the 124). If so, that would lower the Zoom output as well.

In my case, I'm at near maximum throw for 1.78, and almost mid zoom when zooming to the 126" wide, which results in a 15-19% increase in light, which offsets a lot of the increase in SF.

As you said, the A lens will still be brighter, I was simply pointing out that at least at long throw distances with the 600, it's not the 20-30% that we often see thrown out. Instead, it's going to be more like 7-10% brighter, depending on what the actual light loss is for the A lens.
Tnedator is offline  
post #5240 of 5305 Old 07-22-2015, 02:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 21,392
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1304 Post(s)
Liked: 912
The only proper way to set up an A lens is to set up at the longest possible throw. YOU MUST STRIVE TO KEEP THE IMAGE ENTERING THE A LENS AS SMALL AS POSSIBLE.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is online now  
post #5241 of 5305 Old 08-01-2015, 07:24 AM
wse
AVS Special Member
 
wse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 7,916
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1104 Post(s)
Liked: 540
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post
Iris problem. Will need to go in for repair.
That's why I like JVC no IRIS
wse is offline  
post #5242 of 5305 Old 08-01-2015, 07:58 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,050
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2157 Post(s)
Liked: 1154
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post
That's why I like JVC no IRIS
You mean your JVC (RS35) All current JVC's have a dynamic iris. Does not mean you have to use it. Many just turn them off.

AV Geek for life. :) Contact for advice and help.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #5243 of 5305 Old 08-01-2015, 10:56 AM
Senior Member
 
nucky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: scotland
Posts: 300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 90 Post(s)
Liked: 52
I have just got the Sony vw500es what do you set the iris at, there is full and limited 1 to 99 max. Thanks

AV Tag McLaren 100x3R Denon X7200WA, PS4, Oppo-93, TV LG 930 oled,Bose solo 15,HD projector Sony vw500es 4k, Sub Paradigm sub1, Speakers kef R500 & R600c, Dali phantom ikon in wall & 4 phantom kompas 6m in ceiling speakers,
nucky is online now  
post #5244 of 5305 Old 08-02-2015, 06:09 AM
Senior Member
 
console's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by nucky View Post
I have just got the Sony vw500es what do you set the iris at, there is full and limited 1 to 99 max. Thanks
Nucky (Boardwalk Empire?),

You adjust to personal preference - I would guess that most leave it on full for max brightness. If bright scenes are too bright/harsh then engage limited and back it off a bit.

Even in low lamp, it is sometimes too bright on my 1.3 gain screen but I still leave it on full. Every so often I see the iris in action, which is not good, but not enough to get me to engage limited.
nucky likes this.
console is offline  
post #5245 of 5305 Old 08-02-2015, 12:56 PM
Advanced Member
 
Tnedator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 892
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 80
I'm hoping someone has a nice trick about how to get this working, but I'm thinking I have a problem with my 600ES.

I tried setting up lens memory positions today, and it will not reliably reposition itself. Let's say I have the 2.35 zoom perfect and then go and switch to 1.85, and then back to 2.35, the hoziontal position will be off every time. It typically has the image several inches lower than it should be. It's doing the same on the 1.85 and 1.78 settings as well.

I have the aspect set to normal on 1.78 (Custom 1 position), set to 1.85 stretch and 2.35 stretch for the other two positions.

Is there something I'm missing to get reliable lens positions, or is my 600 hosed?
Tnedator is offline  
post #5246 of 5305 Old 08-02-2015, 01:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
bweissman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: California
Posts: 910
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tnedator View Post
I'm hoping someone has a nice trick about how to get this working, but I'm thinking I have a problem with my 600ES.

I tried setting up lens memory positions today, and it will not reliably reposition itself.

Is there something I'm missing to get reliable lens positions, or is my 600 hosed?
Screen Menu > Picture Position > Save

Simply setting the position does not memorize it. You have to go into the menu and save it.
bweissman is online now  
post #5247 of 5305 Old 08-02-2015, 01:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
Tnedator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 892
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by bweissman View Post
Screen Menu > Picture Position > Save

Simply setting the position does not memorize it. You have to go into the menu and save it.

That's how I was saving the positions. I tried adjusting and resaving the 2.35 setting at least five times and could not get it to ever return to what I saved.

Last edited by Tnedator; 08-02-2015 at 01:33 PM.
Tnedator is offline  
post #5248 of 5305 Old 08-03-2015, 05:53 AM
Senior Member
 
console's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tnedator View Post
That's how I was saving the positions. I tried adjusting and resaving the 2.35 setting at least five times and could not get it to ever return to what I saved.
Your 600 is not defective. This is the way it works - or doesn't. I too find it very frustrating that I laboriously get all my lens presets perfectly positioned, zoomed and focused, only to have them become slightly off when I engaged preset.

Mark H. mentioned to me that you can try to compensate for the errors by tricking the lens memory presets and setting them in a way that even though you are setting them slightly wrong when the memory action is engaged they become right. I haven't tried this yet.
console is offline  
post #5249 of 5305 Old 08-03-2015, 11:43 AM
Advanced Member
 
Tnedator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 892
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by console View Post
Your 600 is not defective. This is the way it works - or doesn't. I too find it very frustrating that I laboriously get all my lens presets perfectly positioned, zoomed and focused, only to have them become slightly off when I engaged preset.

Mark H. mentioned to me that you can try to compensate for the errors by tricking the lens memory presets and setting them in a way that even though you are setting them slightly wrong when the memory action is engaged they become right. I haven't tried this yet.
Yea, I was wondering about that, but thought about it after I had things disconnected. I was thinking about trying that and will. Was really hoping that it would be more reliable than that, since when my wife uses it without me around, that will be a pain for her.
Tnedator is offline  
post #5250 of 5305 Old 08-03-2015, 11:47 AM
Member
 
Oilmanmojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Indianapolis, In
Posts: 57
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 12
500es is the same, always slightly off, usually with vertical. I tend to readjust during warmup time or previews
Oilmanmojo is offline  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
Sony Vpl Vw500es , Sony Vpl Vw1000es Projector , Sony Fmp X1 4k Ultra Hd Media Player
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