Optoma HD81 1080p DLP official discussion - Page 2 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 3Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 12:57 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
RobZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South Texas
Posts: 3,576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 42
I would have upgraded my H79 for this one. No lens shift is a pretty large omission.

My Theater Room JVC RS4910, Panamorph UH480, 148 in. 2.40:1 Dalite HD Pro 1.3, Klipsch THX Ultra II's x 7, Quad JTR Captivator S1 subs
My Previous Non-Dedicated space
RobZ is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 01:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ron Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: SW Florida
Posts: 6,907
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 916 Post(s)
Liked: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by TzungILin View Post

Dear AVS,


6. The throw ratio is about 1.8 to 2.2:1 (about), the offset is 27% (of vertical height), sorry that this may not fit everyone's installation.

8. The scalar box comes with 3x HDMI, 2x BNC, 2x YPbPr, 3x Composite/S-video and one VGA. The box will send HDMI out to HD81 projector body, and a RS232 to command projector.

I have 2 follow-up questions related to the 2 items above:

#6 I assume the throw ratio is times the screen width, is this correct? For example for a 120 inch wide screen the front of the projector would need to be back somewhere in the range of 216 inches (1.8 x 120) to 264 inches (2.2 x 120).

#8 If the box to the projector needs both an HDMI and a RS232 cable, what type of connectors are required on each end of the RS232 cable (DB9, DB25, ?). I will be building a new home theater in a few months and would like to pre-wire for the cables (up the wall and across the ceiling) before the drywall goes up.

Ron Jones

Ron Jones
Blog + Reviews + Articles: projectorreviews.com
Ron Jones is offline  
post #33 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 01:01 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
HiFiGuy1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Fairhope, AL
Posts: 1,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 57
kuebler,
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with their approach. I agree that it isn't the ultimate in flexibility, but if it works for a given application, then it works. I also agree that they will (probably already working on) have a home-centric product out later. I actually think the two box solution is SUPERIOR to all in one, so there we differ. It certainly looks like they didn't compromise the video processor performance using the Gennum VXP plus the additional chipset. Bottom line, if this projector does what you want, and it fits in your room, then why would you want to swap it in the short term? Based on the few reviews I have heard from people who saw it at the show, it doesn't sound like anything is going to come along and just blow it away for the price any time soon.

Philip Springer, owner -- Apex AV Systems, Inc.
THX and ISF certified systems integration specialist
WWW:ApexAVS.com
Twitter:@ApexAVSystems
Instagram:apexavsystems
HiFiGuy1 is offline  
 
post #34 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 01:04 PM
Central Scrutinizer
 
Bob Sorel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 8,290
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Liked: 149
Falk got this pegged perfectly. Optoma threw a 1080p DMD in with a business projector light engine and then connected it to an external scaler in a huge rush to get a 1080p to market. The best of intentions...

Sony caught TI with their pants down and now manufacturers like Optoma are forced to rush something to market. I blame this on TI, not Optoma.

Nothing is what I want - a true Zen saying.

Marantz AV7005 pre/pro cheap
Bob Sorel is offline  
post #35 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 01:11 PM
Central Scrutinizer
 
Bob Sorel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 8,290
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Liked: 149
Quote:


I actually think the two box solution is SUPERIOR to all in one, so there we differ.

So do I, as long as the box is OPTIONAL. I have been eagerly awaiting any manufacturer to sell a "head only" unit that would allow me to connect my scaler of choice. This way I could afford to buy a better head end and not spend more money repeating the functionality of a scaler that I already own.

Nothing is what I want - a true Zen saying.

Marantz AV7005 pre/pro cheap
Bob Sorel is offline  
post #36 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 01:25 PM
Senior Member
 
Allen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 338
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Jones View Post

I have 2 follow-up questions related to the 2 items above:

#8 If the box to the projector needs both an HDMI and a RS232 cable, what type of connectors are required on each end of the RS232 cable (DB9, DB25, ?). I will be building a new home theater in a few months and would like to pre-wire for the cables (up the wall and across the ceiling) before the drywall goes up.

Ron Jones

As I read (and it could be wishful reading) it the RS232 connection is on the scaler, allowing it to be controlled by RS232 control devices. The only connection to the projector is the video cable, which some are saying is an HDMI connection. I seem to remember reading that the scaler to projector connection is Fiber Optic, but I can't find it now and I may be confusing it with another projector scaler combination.

Allen
Allen is offline  
post #37 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 01:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Al Sherwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Victoria, BC Canada
Posts: 4,264
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 754 Post(s)
Liked: 277
Oh no!

This will make for a bit of a problem, currently my HT room is 91" tall and my 106" diag screen is mounted 12.5" below the ceiling, assuming a 52" tall screen I'm already in trouble as this requires a 14" offset!

I just checked and concrete to floor joist is only 93"... I was hoping to increase the screen size but even with the screen I have, I would need to drop it lower on the wall to accommodate this PJ.

Al
Al Sherwood is offline  
post #38 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 01:33 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ohlson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Falun, Sweden
Posts: 5,445
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwishred View Post

Some specific questions:
- Was the CES demo at iris full open ?


Thanks,
Brent

I will add to this question. The calibrated lumen output mentioned by TzungILin was very nice but if that is with an open iris we would like to know the contrast at that brightness.

It is good to hear that a variable iris will be added so brightness can be traded for contrast.

Mattias Ohlson
Ohlson is offline  
post #39 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 01:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
HiFiGuy1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Fairhope, AL
Posts: 1,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Bob,
In your case, I agree, but not everyone who will buy a video projector like the HD81 already has a scaler, and even if they do, it may not be as good as this one looks to be, with the Gennum and the flexible input switching. I, for one, would be happy with it as it is, since I have an HDLeeza I want to get rid of anyway. I think the processor included with this bundle is better than what I have right now. I would definitely like to see them offer just the head unit separately, but if I were to buy one, I would get the combo anyway.

I sure would like TzungLin to come back and clear up this positive/negative offset question. I hope he has time this evening to post a response. 27% outside the image height is fairly substantial, but for me it would be better than the alternative you suggested where it is inside the image height.

Philip Springer, owner -- Apex AV Systems, Inc.
THX and ISF certified systems integration specialist
WWW:ApexAVS.com
Twitter:@ApexAVSystems
Instagram:apexavsystems
HiFiGuy1 is offline  
post #40 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 01:42 PM
Advanced Member
 
tyree91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Colorado High Country
Posts: 885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen View Post

As I read it the RS232 connection is on the scaler, allowing it to be controlled by RS232 control devices. The only connection to the projector is the video cable, which some are saying is an HDMI connection. I seem to remember reading that the scaler to projector connection is Fiber Optic, but I can't find it now and I may be confusing it with another projector scaler combination.

Allen

The RS-232 is a DB9 connector on the Scaler. The interface from the Scaler to the projector is HDMI. I've got their color brochure with a photo of the Scaler connections. The IR extension and the 12V triggers are on the Scaler as well as an AV receiver loop on HDMI. Hope this helps.
tyree91 is offline  
post #41 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 01:51 PM
Advanced Member
 
kiwishred's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Christchurch, NZ
Posts: 672
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by TzungILin View Post

6. The throw ratio is about 1.8 to 2.2:1 (about), the offset is 27% (of vertical height), sorry that this may not fit everyone's installation.

TzungILin - Just to be absolutely clear, is the 27% (of vertical height) referenced to:

a) the centre of the screen ?
b) the top (or bottom) of the screen ?

If it is b) is the offset outside the screen or inside the screen ?

A numerical example might be helpful. Sorry if this has already been adressed.

Thanks,
Brent
kiwishred is offline  
post #42 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 01:52 PM
Central Scrutinizer
 
Bob Sorel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 8,290
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Liked: 149
Quote:


In your case, I agree, but not everyone who will buy a video projector like the HD81 already has a scaler, and even if they do, it may not be as good as this one looks to be, with the Gennum and the flexible input switching. I, for one, would be happy with it as it is, since I have an HDLeeza I want to get rid of anyway. I think the processor included with this bundle is better than what I have right now. I would definitely like to see them offer just the head unit separately, but if I were to buy one, I would get the combo anyway.

Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I am in complete agreement that the two package solution is superior to having the scaler built into the projector. My point is just an addition to what you said - since the head and scaler are two separate units, hopefully connected by a HDMI cable, why not keep the scaler optional in order to please everybody? It's kinda like the audio receiver vs. prepro/power amp situation. Separates offer greater versatility and options.

Nothing is what I want - a true Zen saying.

Marantz AV7005 pre/pro cheap
Bob Sorel is offline  
post #43 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 01:57 PM
Member
 
Aero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sweden
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well, in the end Coretronic/Optoma is a company, as such they need to have a high customer orientation but also secure their yields, of course they are dependent of each other.
Yes, lens-shift mechanism let alone can be done tomorrow(CAD drawings, Raytraycing, establish correct dimensions, manufuacturing establishment, Design for Robust construction/ assembly/manufacturing etc)

As kuebler already said, the profit window in this market is small, very small. Even worse(for them), the pay-off time has increased. High start up(like in this case) and warranty HIGHLY affects the profits. A product that misses the market within the "correct" time frame (hello benq) can misses 1/3 or even more of the potential life cyle profit. Being in time but 50% overspent budget normaly only cut profit with 3-4%.
so they better start doing something about it NOW, but then..

As for introducing LATE engineering changes, it will have a devasting affect in final verification and quality. Don't! espacially if the R&D and production aren't located in the same country.

In this case, the update is minor(from the 910 model) so there may be no need for a extended start-up phase requering low production(yet still they need full speed in this phase)(training, set up machines, inspection etc). Therfore ramp-up can start.
So both load and capacaity paramteters can be "undercut" this way.

So it isn't really about "a lens shift mechnism"

Yes i agree with bob, Falk and the rest of you BUT!!
On the other hand, this CAN't be a suprise for Optoma??

They need better customer orientation.
Really, did TI called them last week and told them about a 1080p dmd with DC3 manufacturing ?

No they didn't....

Did customers started to ask about lens-shift and 1080p projectors last week?..

No they didn't...

i blame it on TI AND optoma =)

Still, i am looking forwad to the product AND i do like optoma.

if you can't afford a Saab you can always buy a Mercedes ;)
Aero is offline  
post #44 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 02:00 PM
Senior Member
 
JUSTIN MELHADO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 329
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks for starting thread so quickly, I have a RUBY on order and was still a little gun-shy about the purchase. But this makes it easier for me, because I know the HD81 wont fit, even if I removed the ceiling fan completely. This does look like a great projector though. I love the idea of being able to move your equipment around the room where ever you want, and keeping dvd and set top box cables to a minimum length. And I have always wondered why so many projectors come in bright reflective colors when the whole idea is to get the room as dark as a cave. Hope every one catches on, I personally like the black look much better, regardless of what it does to help improve the picture.
JUSTIN MELHADO is offline  
post #45 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 02:41 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
gmanhdtv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: windermere, florida
Posts: 1,269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Did Sony rush the Ruby to market? I have been on the fence awaiting news from the DLP camp. The Sony was never intended for screens over 100". How could Sony ignore so many projector users wanting to upgrade to 1080P buy selling a $10,000 projector that has such low lumens? Should buyers of the Sony be forced to replace their current screen in order to use a "high gain alternative" in order to have a "large" viewing experience.

I also never recall anyone chastising Dwin with their choice of a "2" box solution on their dlp projectors or Runco?

Every projector has strengths and weakness's that each purchaser must weigh before the make a purchase based on their install needs.

This constant bashing of DLP and the slant that "Sony is the Only" is fruitless.
gmanhdtv is offline  
post #46 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 02:45 PM
Senior Member
 
bdavidson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 414
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by TzungILin View Post

6. The throw ratio is about 1.8 to 2.2:1 (about), the offset is 27% (of vertical height), sorry that this may not fit everyone's installation.

Useless for me also. I wont be able to upgrade my H79 either. I'm guessing anyone with 8.5 foot or less ceilings wont be able to ceiling mount this projector.

I would have to lower my screen about 4 inches to utilize a 27% offset. My 8 foot ceilings just wont allow it.

Brad
bdavidson is offline  
post #47 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 02:53 PM
Advanced Member
 
Kabillyhop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: True North
Posts: 659
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmanhdtv View Post

This constant bashing of DLP and the slant that "Sony is the Only" is fruitless.

What bashing? Most of the comments here are from DLP owners who want to upgrade to a 1080p DLP, but are disappointed with the mounting limitations of this projector.

The bitterness of poor quality lingers long after the sweetness of low price has passed.
Kabillyhop is offline  
post #48 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 03:36 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
D_B_0673's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: MD
Posts: 1,741
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Now I hope that the "offset" is within the screen as some suggest. My apologies to HiFiGuy1 as he was trying to get me to understand that this was a possibility. I had not heard of it before. With my low ceiling that might just work if the pj is at the outer reach of the throw distance.

Hope still lives

Dan
D_B_0673 is offline  
post #49 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 03:48 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
joerod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: MIDWEST (just outside Chicago)
Posts: 23,268
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 719 Post(s)
Liked: 653
I was possibly looking to upgrade to this PJ as well. But given the parameters, I doubt I could either. I guess I could try Optoma's future flagship HD83 or HD84 when they include all the features. I like having lens shift. I am spoiled on it. Besides, wouldn't a 3 chip 1080p PJ be worth the wait? People tend to get over excited when a new product comes (I do as well), but let's not forget how excited they were over the H79 and other great pjs as well. Now hearing some of the specs and features (or lack there of) is turning this into a killjoy for me.

My Martin Logan Illusion & Impressions Review:
http://hstrial-jrodriguez996.homeste...=1494808387395
joerod is online now  
post #50 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 04:23 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
flint350's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Baltimore, Md.
Posts: 2,206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Just joining the chorus. I was cheered by the early news on this piece. But, the combination of limiting throw in concert with such a high offset are potential deal killers for many. Not just a few, many. I believe (personal opinion only) that most of us have 2 interests in this pj: good brightness output for use on large screens and a resolution to meet Ruby and others. So, it would seem counter-productive to me to have such a very large offset. The larger the screen (which is why you want all that brightness to begin with), the worse the offset becomes. They tantalize you with how nice it looks on a 135" Studiotek - BUT - the avg. HT probably has 8' or possibly 9' ceilings. Do the math. The min. throw on that would be 18 or more and require ceilings of 11' or so for normal setup.

You'd have to mount that size screen about at floor level or slightly above to get it to work! Even using a 123"d Firehawk (which was my original choice for my new HT with 8' ceilings but all else flexible), you are looking at a 9' wide screen, yielding 60" ht. This means mounting at about 16" or a little more above the screen. Just assuming an 8' ceiling requiring a pj mounted as close to ceiling as possible (assuming at least 8-10" of clearance below ceiling for mounting) results in:

ceiling (8') = 96" minus 10" mount clearance
pj mount position = 86" minus 27%offset (16") for 60" high scrn (123"diag)
max top of scrn (offset)= 70" minus scrn physical ht of 60"
bottom scrn to floor = 10" left for center speaker, etc and abnormally low viewing angle

This pj screams for a larger than Ruby screen, but needs a 10' or higher room to do it and a potential throw distance starting at about 16.5' and rapidly growing with screen size and desire not to minimally mount so close.

Too bad, unless I misread it, this PJ had all the potential but the very large offset amount works against its proposed use of brightness for large screens. It seems to miss the room conditions of its intended audience to a large extent. I don't mind the 2 box solution, I just want it optional so I can use my box of choice. All of this is really disappointing after such initial terrific reports. Sounds great for those of you with really tall rooms or those willing to seriously downsize the screen, but when you do that, you eliminate the brightness advantage and enter Ruby territory with 3 chips and better contrast. A real mix of conflicting specs. Too bad.

Ray
"You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place." -Jonathan Swift
flint350 is offline  
post #51 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 04:31 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Rob Tomlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,826
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1 View Post


27% outside the image height is fairly substantial, but for me it would be better than the alternative you suggested where it is inside the image height.

Same here.

I actually have tall ceilings (10 feet high) so while this will technically work for me, I would still prefer the flexibility of having a lens shift.
Rob Tomlin is offline  
post #52 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 04:49 PM
Central Scrutinizer
 
Bob Sorel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 8,290
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Liked: 149
Guys, I was half joking when I suggested that the 27% offset might possibly be within the confines of the screen - It was more like wishful thinking. Since then I discovered that this projector uses a business/presentation light engine, and it would be very typical to have a 27% external offset for such a unit (think large board room with projector mounted on table). Unfortunately this is not optimum for us home theater folks. But please don't get your hopes up thinking that the 27% offset might be within the screen borders - the chances of this are almost zero.

Nothing is what I want - a true Zen saying.

Marantz AV7005 pre/pro cheap
Bob Sorel is offline  
post #53 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 05:04 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
HiFiGuy1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Fairhope, AL
Posts: 1,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Bob,
Definitely with you on that, but it is at least a possibility, and I would very much appreciate a direct response for us from TzungLin himself as to the specifics of the offset (from screen center or edge, positive/negative offset, etc.). I am not holding my breath, though. Actually, it works fine for me the way we already think it will be, I am just hoping for the sake of my basement-enhanced AVS brethren that it will work for them. I can't really afford one yet anyway, even if it fits, unfortunately.

Philip Springer, owner -- Apex AV Systems, Inc.
THX and ISF certified systems integration specialist
WWW:ApexAVS.com
Twitter:@ApexAVSystems
Instagram:apexavsystems
HiFiGuy1 is offline  
post #54 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 05:33 PM
Central Scrutinizer
 
Bob Sorel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 8,290
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Liked: 149
Ok, I've created a sample installation so that people could get an idea of what 27% offset will mean in real life. I am going to use a standard 8' (96") ceiling for my example, and I am going to assume that I am able to build a "hugger" ceiling mount for the projector in order to get it within 4" of the ceiling. Also, I am going to use my actual screen, a 16:9 100" X 56" wall mount (114" diagonal) with 1.5" frame all around. Here's how it fits:

96" total height
92" high is center of lens (4" down from ceiling)
77" high is top of viewable screen (I rounded off 15.12" to 15" - top of frame would be 78.5" high)
21" high is bottom of viewable screen
19.5" high is bottom of frame

Using a 114" diagonal screen in an 8' room, "hugging" the ceiling with the projector would then leave you with 19.5" below your screen to place your center speaker, or you could mount it above the screen since your screen will be 78.5" down from the ceiling (Edit: oops, that's 78.5" up from the floor), giving you 17.5" above to work with.

Now, if you increase the size of the screen, don't forget that the screen will need to mount lower on the wall, as the 27% of screen height offset will increase as the screen gets larger.

If you use a more normal mount with a drop of 8" instead of 4", shift everything down 4".

You can also "fudge" things a bit by tilting the projector in order to mount the screen up higher and/or use a larger screen, but make sure you have a fairly wide black border to absorb the slightly trapezoidal image that will result from tilting the projector.

I have provided this example just so that people can get a feel for how this projector will or will not fit into their particular plans.

I have a 7' ceiling and my center speaker speaker measures 72" X 18" X 18" (yes, it really is that huge!), so unfortunately the HD81 won't work for me.

Nothing is what I want - a true Zen saying.

Marantz AV7005 pre/pro cheap
Bob Sorel is offline  
post #55 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 06:00 PM
 
Randall Morton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Mid South
Posts: 1,749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It would work for me, but I would also prefer a lens shift. I'm not in that big of a rush, but I admit that this projector is tempting. I would like to see a big improvement over my current 720p DC3. I don't sit that close to the screen so I'm not sure how much of an improvement the 1080p would actually be. With this projector I would require a new screen also as I currently use a 92" wide HighPower.
I think a 10 ft. wide screen would work quite well.

Noone here here has to make a decision now as the projector is not even available yet, and by the time it is there may be some other choices in the works and I guess it may even be possible that lens shift could be added. I would also like to know about lamp price and how many hours it is rated for.
Randall Morton is offline  
post #56 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 06:02 PM
Advanced Member
 
rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: N. VA
Posts: 985
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I'm out too.....fixed 27% offset makes it a non-starter for my installation...
Looks like I'll have to keep my Sharp 12K till Q3 and then get the 20K.

"I am determined to be cheerful & happy in whatever situation I may be; for I have also learned from experience that the greater part of happiness or misery depends upon our dispositions & not upon our circumstances."
Martha Washington
rider is offline  
post #57 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 06:07 PM
Central Scrutinizer
 
Bob Sorel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 8,290
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Liked: 149
Oh yeah, and one more thing - retroreflective screens like the High Power and Optoma's own Graywolf would not be recommended in these types of installations. You'd be best to stick with angular reflective screens with such a large offset.

Nothing is what I want - a true Zen saying.

Marantz AV7005 pre/pro cheap
Bob Sorel is offline  
post #58 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 06:08 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Rob Tomlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,826
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Sorel View Post

Ok, I've created a sample installation so that people could get an idea of what 27% offset will mean in real life. I am going to use a standard 8' (96") ceiling for my example, and I am going to assume that I am able to build a "hugger" ceiling mount for the projector in order to get it within 4" of the ceiling. Also, I am going to use my actual screen, a 16:9 100" X 56" wall mount (114" diagonal) with 1.5" frame all around. Here's how it fits:

96" total height
92" high is center of lens (4" down from ceiling)
77" high is top of viewable screen (I rounded off 15.12" to 15" - top of frame would be 78.5" high)
21" high is bottom of viewable screen
19.5" high is bottom of frame

Using a 114" diagonal screen in an 8' room, "hugging" the ceiling with the projector would then leave you with 19.5" below your screen to place your center speaker, or you could mount it above the screen since your screen will be 78.5" down from the ceiling, giving you 17.5" above to work with.

Now, if you increase the size of the screen, don't forget that the screen will need to mount lower on the wall, as the 27% of screen height offset will increase as the screen gets larger.

If you use a more normal mount with a drop of 8" instead of 4", shift everything down 4".

You can also "fudge" things a bit by tilting the projector in order to mount the screen up higher and/or use a larger screen, but make sure you have a fairly wide black border to absorb the slightly trapezoidal image that will result from tilting the projector.

I have provided this example just so that people can get a feel for how this projector will or will not fit into their particular plans.

I have a 7' ceiling and my center speaker speaker measures 72" X 18" X 18" (yes, it really is that huge!), so unfortunately the HD81 won't work for me.


Good work Bob!

Still looks like this will be a close call for those with 8 foot ceilings, especially if they have a larger screen.
Rob Tomlin is offline  
post #59 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 06:10 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
HiFiGuy1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Fairhope, AL
Posts: 1,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Bob,
Excellent point to make about angular vs retro-reflective screens. It is even more important to heed this advice when a projector has a substantial offset.

Philip Springer, owner -- Apex AV Systems, Inc.
THX and ISF certified systems integration specialist
WWW:ApexAVS.com
Twitter:@ApexAVSystems
Instagram:apexavsystems
HiFiGuy1 is offline  
post #60 of 4830 Old 01-08-2006, 06:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
KenLand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Sugar Land, TX, USA
Posts: 3,666
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Sorel View Post

Falk got this pegged perfectly. Optoma threw a 1080p DMD in with a business projector light engine and then connected it to an external scaler in a huge rush to get a 1080p to market. The best of intentions...

Sony caught TI with their pants down and now manufacturers like Optoma are forced to rush something to market. I blame this on TI, not Optoma.

That explains why it looks just like a EP910 with a different lens.

On making the scaler optional:

I have (or will have) a nice Gennum scaler in my Anthem D2. I'd probably sell the included scaler and think of it as a rebate. Should fetch more than $2k on the open market? It's pretty much bleeding edge.

Ken
KenLand is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
Optoma , Vivitek D950hd 3000 Lumen 1080p Office And Home Theater Projector , Casio Rs 232 Adapter Catalog Category Projectors Accessories

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