Official Epson Pro Cinema 6030UB Owners' Thread - Page 19 - 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 #541 of 558 Old 07-02-2015, 05:42 AM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,574
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 95 Post(s)
Liked: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDLife View Post
Why not entertain Lumagen instead of an Anamorphic lens since the price has gone up so much?
Because using it, without a lens is the worst of both worlds. When in 16:9 you have an initially (always) zoomed image to fill the 2.35 screen. To see 16:9 properly (well, not properly, but at the right aspect), you downscale the 16:9 image drastically to fit the now zoomed image. When you want 2.35, you get it in a zoomed format, so you never use the projectors full panel to produce image and you lose the light that could have otherwise come from the image chip. For a Lumagen only scenario, you are always zoomed, never taking advantage of the PJ's brightness and 16:9 images are substantially reduced in resolution. Would you be happy with a 720p projector? Probably not. Then why woudl you be happy with one that's 810p? Same reason.

Now if all you are considering is a low end (lowest?) lens that is known to introduce chromatic aberation and astigmatism/focus issues, maybe you'd be happier with 810p.
GetGray is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #542 of 558 Old 07-02-2015, 08:05 AM
Member
 
HDLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: East Coast
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post
Because using it, without a lens is the worst of both worlds. When in 16:9 you have an initially (always) zoomed image to fill the 2.35 screen. To see 16:9 properly (well, not properly, but at the right aspect), you downscale the 16:9 image drastically to fit the now zoomed image. When you want 2.35, you get it in a zoomed format, so you never use the projectors full panel to produce image and you lose the light that could have otherwise come from the image chip. For a Lumagen only scenario, you are always zoomed, never taking advantage of the PJ's brightness and 16:9 images are substantially reduced in resolution. Would you be happy with a 720p projector? Probably not. Then why woudl you be happy with one that's 810p? Same reason.

Now if all you are considering is a low end (lowest?) lens that is known to introduce chromatic aberation and astigmatism/focus issues, maybe you'd be happier with 810p.
Thank you for the edification. I didn't read in detail as to how Lumagen accommodate those 2.35 Bluerays. I had assumed that it would clip off the black bars and feed the projector the rest thereby using every pixel on the chip. I could be wrong. If so, that would be my gripe. Why aren't most projectors do 2.35 natively instead of 1.78? Most of us use projectors for movies anyway right?
HDLife is offline  
post #543 of 558 Old 07-02-2015, 08:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kilgore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Huntsville Ontario
Posts: 3,709
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 541 Post(s)
Liked: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellebob View Post
How would you use the Lumagen? The Lumagen can't zoom a lens for the zoom method or be used in place of an anamorphic lens. It can be used with a lens and has better processing than what is in the projector. So, I am curious how you would use it?
The Lumagen "can't zoom a lens for the zoom method", yes, but you can set up its scaling capabilities so that you can do CIH without a lens. You sacrifice a little of the PJ's resolution when not in 2.35:1 ratio, but it's really not very noticeable at all, and besides, when I want to see the full resolution, I have another setting saved that restores full 1080P 16x9. It's really quite flexible.
Kilgore is online now  
post #544 of 558 Old 07-02-2015, 08:43 AM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,574
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 95 Post(s)
Liked: 85
Lumagens no-lens method is to do this:
a) zoom the image so only the middle area of the projectors projected beam is on your screen. The area where black bars would be is projected abov and below the screen. The Projector will project that area no matter what the Lumagen does, so it will depend on the projectors black floor as to how bright those overages are. This zooming casues teh image to get wider so while it spills ove the top and bottom, it now fills a 2.35 screen left to right.
b) When playing a 2.35 blu-ray nothing else is done. The black bars that are encoded into the video source material are projected above and below the screen. This is the "zoom method" for 2.35.
c) When playing a 16:9 image, now the image is too big natively. It takes up the projectors full 1080 panel. There are no black bars natively in the sourec material. In this now zoomed state, it fits the screen left to right, but it's projected above and below the screen in what would be black bars IF it was a 2.35 image. To "fix" that the Lumagen downscales the image so it's smaller that it used to be, going from 1080 to ~810 lines of resolution. Now there are lumagen suppied black bars above this downsized image. And dont' forget the image has ot be downscaled left to right as well to preserve the aspect, so you've lost 33% of your vertical resolution as well. Now this down-sized 16:9 imag efits on your zoomed out projector.

Most video material is 16:9 and once you've had a theater for a while you'll find there are just as many 16:9 movies as 2.35. And TV. Many of us have huge investments in their theaters. Sound treatments, lighting control, screens, nice speakers, etc, etc. I'm not about to start watching the equivalent of a 720 projector when I've invested in a nice 1080 (or 4k) unit, just to avoid using an anamorphic lens. I'd zoom before I went with that solution, and I'm not a fan of zooming.

I'm a huge fan of Lumagen processors and recommend them highly. But definitely not for this lowest of all method of having 2.35 and 16:9. As I said, you get the worst of all methods here. Loss of brightness, down scaling to near 720 levels, artifacts from vertical and horizontal scaling, etc.
GetGray is offline  
post #545 of 558 Old 07-02-2015, 08:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kilgore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Huntsville Ontario
Posts: 3,709
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 541 Post(s)
Liked: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDLife View Post
Thank you for the edification. I didn't read in detail as to how Lumagen accommodate those 2.35 Bluerays. I had assumed that it would clip off the black bars and feed the projector the rest thereby using every pixel on the chip. I could be wrong. If so, that would be my gripe. Why aren't most projectors do 2.35 natively instead of 1.78? Most of us use projectors for movies anyway right?
Check out this video posted by an AVS user. It uses the Lumagen Mini3D, but works for all Lumagen processors. In the end, 2.35 uses full resolution, any smaller than that doesn't, but it really doesn't make a tremendously noticable difference in image quality. Besides, you can always have a separate setup for full resolution 16x9 and zoom in and out as well. The Lumagen website has a PDF that explains how to do this as well. I regularly use the setup described in this video.




Kilgore is online now  
post #546 of 558 Old 07-02-2015, 08:47 AM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,574
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 95 Post(s)
Liked: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilgore View Post
The Lumagen "can't zoom a lens for the zoom method", yes, but you can set up its scaling capabilities so that you can do CIH without a lens. You sacrifice a little of the PJ's resolution when not in 2.35:1 ratio, but it's really not very noticeable at all, and besides, when I want to see the full resolution, I have another setting saved that restores full 1080P 16x9. It's really quite flexible.
A little? 1080 to 810 is not a little. It's 33%. If that's not very noticable then you'd not notice much if you had a 720p projector. I do, both cases. I concede if 720 is enough for you, and you can't see it, this could be a viable solution.

In this setup, you can't simply restore full 1080 at the VP unless you change the projector's zoom position to accommodate the now complete image.

The video starts out with "no zoom required". Technically zoom is required 100% of the time.
GetGray is offline  
post #547 of 558 Old 07-02-2015, 09:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kilgore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Huntsville Ontario
Posts: 3,709
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 541 Post(s)
Liked: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post
A little? 1080 to 810 is not a little. It's 33%. If that's not very noticable then you'd not notice much if you had a 720p projector. I do, both cases. I concede if 720 is enough for you, and you can't see it, this could be a viable solution.

In this setup, you can't simply restore full 1080 at the VP unless you change the projector's zoom position to accommodate the now complete image.

The video starts out with "no zoom required". Technically zoom is required 100% of the time.

One, it's 20% you're losing, not 33%. Two, "no zoom required" means you don't have to manipulate the zoom to achieve CIH using this method. Three, if you are doing critical viewing in 16x9, you can always use a different scaling preset to restore full resolution and then physically zoom in to make the 16x9 fit height wise into your 2.35:1 screen.


Ideally, I would spend +$3000 on a cylindrical anamorphic lens. It is the absolute best solution. However, I can't justify spending $3000 on a lens with the income I have.
Kilgore is online now  
post #548 of 558 Old 07-02-2015, 09:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 660
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 274 Post(s)
Liked: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post
Why would he do that?

Because with an anamorphic lens to eliminate chromatic aberration you need a another lens or lens coating in the anamorphic assembly to correct for aberration that happens. The cinevista does not have this and that is why it is recommended with projectors that have ECC (error color correction) aka convergence adjustment. If you curve the screen to match the curve of the lens it will eliminate or reduce the chromatic aberration, plus curving the screen helps the with the angle incidence = the angle of reflection to give better screen uniformity.

I see what you are trying to do with the Lumagen by zooming the projector to 2.35 and then 'squeezing' the 16:9 image vertically to make it fit the 2.35 screen. For the cost of a Lumagen I'd rather spend the same or a little extra and get an A-lens.
Ellebob is online now  
post #549 of 558 Old 07-03-2015, 09:55 AM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,574
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 95 Post(s)
Liked: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellebob View Post
Because with an anamorphic lens to eliminate chromatic aberration you need a another lens or lens coating in the anamorphic assembly to correct for aberration that happens. The cinevista does not have this and that is why it is recommended with projectors that have ECC (error color correction) aka convergence adjustment. If you curve the screen to match the curve of the lens it will eliminate or reduce the chromatic aberration, plus curving the screen helps the with the angle incidence = the angle of reflection to give better screen uniformity.

I see what you are trying to do with the Lumagen by zooming the projector to 2.35 and then 'squeezing' the 16:9 image vertically to make it fit the 2.35 screen. For the cost of a Lumagen I'd rather spend the same or a little extra and get an A-lens.
No. You don't match the curve of a screen to match the curve of a lens. It has zero to do with chromatic aberration.
GetGray is offline  
post #550 of 558 Old 07-03-2015, 12:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kilgore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Huntsville Ontario
Posts: 3,709
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 541 Post(s)
Liked: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post
No. You don't match the curve of a screen to match the curve of a lens. It has zero to do with chromatic aberration.
I believe it's to account for pincushioning.
Kilgore is online now  
post #551 of 558 Old 07-03-2015, 01:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 660
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 274 Post(s)
Liked: 88
I was trying to keep it simple. The different wavelengths of light is what causes chromatic aberration through the refractive/ dispersion qualities of a lens. This can be corrected with achromat or apochromat elements or in some cases it can be done as a coating to one of the elements. Just like some screens can have a coating to change its optical characteristics (gain). The type and quality of these corrective elements can add quite a bit to the cost of a lens. Again simplistically we are taking white light and dispersing its colors as it passes through a lens. Similar to how a white light through a prism disperses into the different colors because of the different wavelengths of light. Then these wavelengths are reflecting off their next medium the screen, if we curve the screen we are changing how the wavelengths are reflected/ dispersed. There are different types of chromatic aberration and what is typically seen with an anamorphic lens is called lateral chromatic aberration, another distortion we see with an anamorphic lens is pincushion distortion. This happens where the center of the picture horizontally is not as tall as ends of the screen, some will say it is bowed inward. This happens because part of the picture is going through the outer parts of the lens instead of the center of the lens. Of course factors effect this as well like where in the zoom range the projector's zoom lens is, how far in front of the lens that anamorphic lens is placed. In general when using an anamorphic lens it is better to place the projector further back in its zoom range and have the anamorphic lens as close as possible to the projectors lens.


Obviously there are number of factors in the optical qualities of lenses and screens. To keep it simple, if you are using an anamorphic lens it may be beneficial to use a curved screen because less convergence adjustment may be required, it will often have better uniformity (depends on screen material), can reduce the pincushion effect, and reduce the effect of reflections from the side walls.
Ellebob is online now  
post #552 of 558 Old 07-03-2015, 08:52 PM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,574
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 95 Post(s)
Liked: 85
I disagree. A curved sreen will have no effect on chromatic aberation of any kind, nor on convergence.

There are reasons to spec them, I do them all the time, and there are reasons not to spec them. None of those reasons have to do with either issue above.

I'm leaving it at that. This is the wrong thread to get into explaining it.
SimpleTheater likes this.
GetGray is offline  
post #553 of 558 Old 07-04-2015, 06:47 AM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 660
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 274 Post(s)
Liked: 88
We can agree to disagree, that's fine. But, I have a lot of experience as well and having been doing this a long time, since well into the CRT days. I don't miss working on those I have installed and calibrated over 100 projectors this year alone in both residential and commercial applications. I hope we can agree that a curved screen for many of the other reasons stated is a good combination with the lens being considered.
Ellebob is online now  
post #554 of 558 Old 07-04-2015, 09:24 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Hi all.

Last night my 6030 started displaying a heap of random white dots that looked the size of a pixel. It was very noticeable in blacks.

This morning I did some trouble shooting by swapping cables and devices. I didn't reproduce the problem until I when into dynamic color mode. The dots were present in THX mode, not as bad though.

Any ideas? It only has 70hrs on it.

Last edited by Dbuns; 07-04-2015 at 09:25 PM.
Dbuns is offline  
post #555 of 558 Old 07-19-2015, 06:41 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Lightning Damage

I believe my Epson 6030 was damaged due to a nearby lighning strike. It still projects an image from the video-in port and the menus seem to work fine. Unfortunately it will not project an image from either HDMI port. Any ideas?
jrw91765 is offline  
post #556 of 558 Old 07-20-2015, 05:18 AM
Advanced Member
 
Tasdom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Albuquerque, N.M.
Posts: 717
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Liked: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrw91765 View Post
I believe my Epson 6030 was damaged due to a nearby lighning strike. It still projects an image from the video-in port and the menus seem to work fine. Unfortunately it will not project an image from either HDMI port. Any ideas?
Have you tried a different HDMI cable?

Onkyo Pre/Pro PR-SC5508 & Emotiva XPA-5's x 2
Klipsch RF-7II's Mains RC64II Center RB75's Heights RS-7's Sides RS-52II's Rears
Klipsch RW-12D Subs x 2
Klipsch Belle's x 4
OPPO BDP-105 with Roku Streaming Stick
Epson 6030UB / Vapex 120" Electric Tensioned Screen
Tasdom is offline  
post #557 of 558 Old Yesterday, 06:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SimpleTheater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 2,713
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 29
I've been holding off on getting the 6030 because I'm assuming something new is going to be announced in October at CES. Has anyone heard news/rumors of the 6040? I'm crossing my fingers that 4k will be added and the price will stay under $4k.

Why is there NO perfect equipment, only compromises?
SimpleTheater is online now  
post #558 of 558 Old Today, 09:18 AM
Advanced Member
 
AlexanderDelarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Omaha
Posts: 845
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 90 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimpleTheater View Post
I've been holding off on getting the 6030 because I'm assuming something new is going to be announced in October at CES. Has anyone heard news/rumors of the 6040? I'm crossing my fingers that 4k will be added and the price will stay under $4k.
No 6040 this year for Epson.

Epson Pro Cinema 6030 | OPPO BDP - 103 | Pioneer Elite VSX 70 | Definitive Technology PM 1000 (L/R) | PC 2000 (C) | SR8040BP's (7.1) | Rythmik LV12R | Carada Criterion Brilliant White 118" | URC MX 780 & MRF 350 | ATS Acoustic Panels | Sanus AV Rack | DirecTv | Roku 2 | Monoprice 12AWG |
AlexanderDelarg is online now  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
Epson Powerlite Pro Cinema 6020ub 3d 1080p 3lcd Projector , Oppo Bdp 103d Universal 3d Blu Ray Player Darbee Edition
Gear in this thread - 6020ub 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