Sony VPL-VW50 (Pearl) Screenshots - Page 6 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #151 of 296 Old 10-16-2006, 12:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
SOWK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wauwatosa, WI
Posts: 4,007
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 134 Post(s)
Liked: 111
Well spend $5000.00 on both and save the $1000.00 LOL

I have more invested in audio then Video, but I am close to 50/50.

I think both are Equal in terms of importance.

About $7000.00 in Video
About $9000.00 in Audio

For now.

In about 5 years my Audio will go up significantly.


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.



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


SOWK is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #152 of 296 Old 10-16-2006, 01:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cmjohnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Sharply focused on sharper focus.
Posts: 5,972
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
With sufficiently good audio equipment, there quality of the soundtrack takes on a natural, unforced feel that causes you to draw your attention to the sound only when the soundtrack is SUPPOSED to. I find lesser quality sound to be constantly irritating, like a toothache.

As of right now, my PJ is a Marquee 9500LC, with Mike Parker's 2nd generation VIM and
neck board mods, plus my own focus board mods to cap it off. It has new tubes (barely
150 hours on them as of now) and it's calibrated. Focus is murderously sharp, having
been dialed in at 2048x1536 while still in anamorphic squeeze mode, which equates to
2048x2048 in 4:3 mode.

My main L/R speakers are Aerial Acoustics 10Ts, powered by Krell monoblock amps.

The last two projectors I had were a Marquee 8000, which replaced my first projector,
a Sony VPH-722Q1.

When I got the Sony PJ, I already had these amps and speakers, and the PJ was well
calibrated but was strictly limited to only 480i/standard NTSC resolution. Colors were good.

Even then, people who saw a movie in my home theater loved it. They didn't comment
so much on the picture quality, which was merely good for NTSC, but everyone commented
on the great sound quality. Clear, natural, extremely intelligible dialog, it sounds like
the actors are there in the room with you. People who weren't audiophiles by any
stretch of the imagination were saying that.

A great picture deserves great sound. Great sound deserves a great picture. The system
isn't right if you don't have both.

CJ
cmjohnson is offline  
post #153 of 296 Old 10-16-2006, 01:57 PM
Advanced Member
 
tryingtimes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 991
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I agree that both are important (although I don't think you have to spend over $2500 to get something that does what you say).
However, I don't really get the point of telling someone they should be unhappy with their system when they quite clearly are. It just sounds mean! Especially as this is a Pearl thread.
tryingtimes is offline  
post #154 of 296 Old 10-16-2006, 02:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HoustonHoyaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 3,964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by tryingtimes View Post

...I don't really get the point of telling someone they should be unhappy with their system when they quite clearly are. I just sounds mean!

Unless CJ is going to pony up the money to buy Chako "appropriate" speakers!
HoustonHoyaFan is offline  
post #155 of 296 Old 10-16-2006, 03:09 PM
Advanced Member
 
Colmino's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 734
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kipp Jones View Post

As a Pearl owner, these shots are great but you really have too see the Pearl in person to see how good it really is. No screenshot IMO will do it any justice. Yeah, its that good.

The day is quickly approaching when I will have to settle upon a projector and tell my parents that this is what they want to buy. Right now, it's probably the Pearl, strictly because we are all succeptible to rainbow artifacts. But I absolutely despise the lumens rating.

I recently checked this projector out at a local Ultimate Electronics. It was showing The Incredibles. The room was dark but there was a very small level of ambient light. The image being projected (at an estimated 10 feet) was so dim that we could not watch it.
Colmino is offline  
post #156 of 296 Old 10-16-2006, 03:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cmjohnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Sharply focused on sharper focus.
Posts: 5,972
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
2500 bucks is enough to get very good speakers...the front pair, anyway....via the used market.

I paid 2700 for my 10Ts about 8 years ago. It was a particularly good deal for that time,
but would be easy to duplicate today.

I'd have to go listen to some new speakers at various price points in order to formulate an
opinion on what you'd have to spend to get really great sounding speakers these days.
But I've had no reason to shop for speakers for about 8 years now. Happiness has been
achieved in that respect!


CJ
cmjohnson is offline  
post #157 of 296 Old 10-16-2006, 03:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
A/Vspec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 1,225
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
50/50

-Mark AKA A/Vspec
ISF certified Audio/Video Specialist

Home of the ISF and Audyssey Pro calibrated Medieval Knight Theater:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
A/Vspec is offline  
post #158 of 296 Old 10-16-2006, 04:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
gremmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 3,942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colmino View Post

The day is quickly approaching when I will have to settle upon a projector and tell my parents that this is what they want to buy. Right now, it's probably the Pearl, strictly because we are all succeptible to rainbow artifacts. But I absolutely despise the lumens rating.

I recently checked this projector out at a local Ultimate Electronics. It was showing The Incredibles. The room was dark but there was a very small level of ambient light. The image being projected (at an estimated 10 feet) was so dim that we could not watch it.

Was the bulb old?

I am totally perplexed by all these "Pearl is too dim" posts. According to the Cine4Home measurements (which I believe are true, based on my own in-home experience) you can get 36 ft-L (RPTV brightnesss) on a 1.2 gain 96 inch screen at minimum throw on high bulb. It's actually a bit too bright on some content. For me, low bulb is very watchable.

If you want to project from max throw and need a bigger screen, get a higher gain screen.

This projector throws out 800+ lumens after calibration. People who need to content with ambient light might want to consider a light canon DLP or a really big RPTV or plasma.


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

gremmy is offline  
post #159 of 296 Old 10-16-2006, 04:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cmjohnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Sharply focused on sharper focus.
Posts: 5,972
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Anyone who thinks 800 lumens is too dim is probably needing the extra power to burn through the filtering given to their eyes by a nice set of cataracts!


CJ
cmjohnson is offline  
post #160 of 296 Old 10-16-2006, 05:25 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Rob Tomlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,752
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by gremmy View Post

Was the bulb old?

I am totally perplexed by all these "Pearl is too dim" posts. According to the Cine4Home measurements (which I believe are true, based on my own in-home experience) you can get 36 ft-L (RPTV brightnesss) on a 1.2 gain 96 inch screen at minimum throw on high bulb. It's actually a bit too bright on some content. For me, low bulb is very watchable.

If you want to project from max throw and need a bigger screen, get a higher gain screen.

This projector throws out 800+ lumens after calibration. People who need to content with ambient light might want to consider a light canon DLP or a really big RPTV or plasma.

What mode do you get the 800+ post calibration lumens in? Is that with a new bulb? What throw distance?

How much brightness will be lost after 100-200 hours are on the bulb?

If I can maintain about 600 lumens, or even a bit less, the Pearl would work with my 123" diagonal 1.3 gain screen. I would love to have the Pearl as a viable option.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Rob Tomlin is offline  
post #161 of 296 Old 10-16-2006, 05:44 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Rob Tomlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,752
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post

What mode do you get the 800+ post calibration lumens in? Is that with a new bulb? What throw distance?

How much brightness will be lost after 100-200 hours are on the bulb?

If I can maintain about 600 lumens, or even a bit less, the Pearl would work with my 123" diagonal 1.3 gain screen. I would love to have the Pearl as a viable option.

Actually, doing some more calculations, 500 lumens would be enough and still give me more than 14 ftl.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Rob Tomlin is offline  
post #162 of 296 Old 10-16-2006, 08:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
gremmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 3,942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post

What mode do you get the 800+ post calibration lumens in? Is that with a new bulb? What throw distance?

How much brightness will be lost after 100-200 hours are on the bulb?

If I can maintain about 600 lumens, or even a bit less, the Pearl would work with my 123" diagonal 1.3 gain screen. I would love to have the Pearl as a viable option.

Jason Turk measured 794 lumens post-calibration with the bulb in high mode. I presume this was at minimum throw, since the Cine4Home guys measured 700 lumens (I double checked) post calibration at minimum throw, and it is doubtful that Jason's measurements would have exceeded the Cine4Home numbers by such a large margin at a lengthier throw.

If you're willing to live with a less than perfectly calibrated picture, you should be able to get 800 lumens with the color temperature set at low, which contains a hair too much blue, but not much.

According to the Cine4Home measurements, the max-throw lumens are about 18 percent less than the min throw measurements, but the contrast goes up by a third -- a good trade off in my mind.

As far as bulb degredation, I have read differing opinions. Some say that the bulb will lose 30% of its brightness in the first couple of hundred hours, while others say it's closer to 50%. I'm not sure what's closer to reality.

So if you start out with 800 lumens on day 1, you'll be down to 560 lumens (if the 30% degredation figure is correct) or 400 lumens (if 50% is correct) by the time the steep part of the dimming curve is reached.

I think your screen might be a bit too big for this projector unless you want to increase the gain. Just my two cents.

Can you make a Da-Lite high power work?


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

gremmy is offline  
post #163 of 296 Old 10-16-2006, 09:16 PM
Advanced Member
 
Colmino's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 734
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by gremmy View Post

Was the bulb old?

No telling. Is that meant to be a decisionmaking concern? This seems to be implying that a bulb's lifespan is only as long as the image is satisfactorily bright.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gremmy View Post

I am totally perplexed by all these "Pearl is too dim" posts.

I can only go by what I personally saw... in conjunction with my experiences with the 1000 lumens D-ILA projector I currently own. The D-ILA is quite dim, but it actually can be watched with some ambient light. I would say the Pearl that I saw is completely unwatchable with any ambient light and I question the potential enjoyability of even a completely dark room.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gremmy View Post

This projector throws out 800+ lumens after calibration. People who need to content with ambient light might want to consider a light canon DLP or a really big RPTV or plasma.

There is exactly one "really big" plasma potentially available for purchase, and it is $60,000. Triple-chip 1080p DLP solutions do not fit the $2500-to-19,999 bracket that this forum stipulates. Whatever biological curse enables a person to very readily identify rainbow artifacts, most of my family regrettably suffers.

In the same Ultimate Electronics, there was some three-chip 720p DLP from Sharp, projecting onto a screen which had to be around twelve feet, and this was in their well-lit main area. In spite of the size of the screen and the considerable ambient light, the image was actually rather watchable. I do not recall the model, but I did try to get the employees to look up the ansi lumens rating, which they failed to do. Suffice to say, there is a very good reason why, in spite of assertations that 700 lumens is "enough" or even "too much" (!), many projectors out there can boast 1500-2000+ lumens.
Colmino is offline  
post #164 of 296 Old 10-16-2006, 09:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Liked: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmjohnson View Post


A great picture deserves great sound. Great sound deserves a great picture. The system
isn't right if you don't have both.

CJ

As a Sound Designer/Editor for film/tv, I can't help but agree sound is important.

But I have to say for me some people become so enthusiastic about the audio portion that they can end up with an imbalance of picture and sound. I've seen so many setups with relatively small displays (e.g. 42 to 70") but with BIG HONKIN' SPEAKERS
doing sound duty. So I get scenes from gladiator, sounding like I'm in the middle of a thousand full-sized troops marching, meanwhile I'm squinting my eyes to see all the tiny little figures of the troops on screen. It makes for a disconnect of sound and picture - making it hard for my brain to connect what I'm hearing to what I'm seeing.

So I personally prefer the "size" of the sound to believably match the image. Which is why my 42" plasma is flanked by a pair of Spendor 3/5 two way bookshelf high quality speakers. The size of the sound feels right and it just "sticks" to the onscreen picture magically (and with none of that hi-fi sizzle, so voices sound amazingly organic).

Then there is "subwooferitus"....don't get me started. Nothing drives me more bonkers than hearing subwoofers cranked up to "Listen to that BASS!" level - in other words, blatting around down low calling attention shouting LISTEN TO MY SUBWOOFERS! I can't stand incoherent, disconnected sound like that. I know a lot of HT buffs seem to love their subs, but I just find the typical HT set-up has the subs dialed to obnoxious levels. (To each his own, of course...just my opinion).

But sound done right, unobtrusive yet believable....is just grand.

Rich H


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.
R Harkness is offline  
post #165 of 296 Old 10-16-2006, 10:42 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Rob Tomlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,752
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by gremmy View Post

Jason Turk measured 794 lumens post-calibration with the bulb in high mode. I presume this was at minimum throw, since the Cine4Home guys measured 700 lumens (I double checked) post calibration at minimum throw, and it is doubtful that Jason's measurements would have exceeded the Cine4Home numbers by such a large margin at a lengthier throw.

If you're willing to live with a less than perfectly calibrated picture, you should be able to get 800 lumens with the color temperature set at low, which contains a hair too much blue, but not much.

According to the Cine4Home measurements, the max-throw lumens are about 18 percent less than the min throw measurements, but the contrast goes up by a third -- a good trade off in my mind.

As far as bulb degredation, I have read differing opinions. Some say that the bulb will lose 30% of its brightness in the first couple of hundred hours, while others say it's closer to 50%. I'm not sure what's closer to reality.

So if you start out with 800 lumens on day 1, you'll be down to 560 lumens (if the 30% degredation figure is correct) or 400 lumens (if 50% is correct) by the time the steep part of the dimming curve is reached.

I think your screen might be a bit too big for this projector unless you want to increase the gain. Just my two cents.

Can you make a Da-Lite high power work?

Thanks for the reply gremmy.

It sounds like the biggest unknown is the amount of light output the bulb will lose. If 30% is accurate, I would think the Pearl could be bright enough for my screen based on my calculations: 560 lumens x 1.3 gain / 45 sq feet = 16.18 ftl.

Of course if 50% is correct, 400 lumens would put me a tad under 12 ftl.

Either way, it appears to me that there is at least a possibility the Pearl would be (barely) bright enough for my screen. I do have complete light control.

And no, a HP screen will not work for me as my PJ must be mounted on the ceiling.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Rob Tomlin is offline  
post #166 of 296 Old 10-16-2006, 11:03 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post

And no, a HP screen will not work for me as my PJ must be mounted on the ceiling.

The Draper M2500 is a retro-reflective screen that is not as high gain as an HP, but supposedly more than 1.3 (I've seen it quoted as 1.8, and on the Draper site its 'gain curve' shows 2.0 max). But I never hear anybody talk about these screens nowadays. Apparantly they had some texture problems several years ago that some persons have said have been solved. Are they just crap, and just completely written off, or not? If they were of good quality, they might be a good choice for the Pearl if it must be ceiling mounted (higher gain than a Firehawk, and less expensive).
millerwill is online now  
post #167 of 296 Old 10-17-2006, 05:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
scaesare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ashburn, VA
Posts: 4,637
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmjohnson View Post

With sufficiently good audio equipment, there quality of the soundtrack takes on a natural, unforced feel that causes you to draw your attention to the sound only when the soundtrack is SUPPOSED to. I find lesser quality sound to be constantly irritating, like a toothache.

{SNIP}

CJ

Quite franky, your original post comes off rather elitist.

Why is it in a discussion of a projector's capabilities, colorimitry, shading, grayscale, etc... are measured and used as objective comparison points. whereas with people justifying 5-digit-cost speaker purchases we get "unforced", "natural", "airy", "effortless", and the like?

Why no discussion of frequency response and distortion?

-Steve
scaesare is offline  
post #168 of 296 Old 10-17-2006, 05:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
scaesare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ashburn, VA
Posts: 4,637
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post


And no, a HP screen will not work for me as my PJ must be mounted on the ceiling.

Mine's mounted on the ceiling (well, 1' down on a soffit), and HP works for me...

-Steve
scaesare is offline  
post #169 of 296 Old 10-17-2006, 06:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gremmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 3,942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colmino View Post

No telling. Is that meant to be a decisionmaking concern?

No. It was just a question.

Quote:


This seems to be implying that a bulb's lifespan is only as long as the image is satisfactorily bright.

That is not at all what I intended, but now that you mention it, there does come a point when bulb replacement is advisable, and that point can happen long before the bulb actually pops. I saw a recent-model Sony LCD projector with a very old bulb (it was so dim you really couldn't make out anything in a completely dark room), but the bulb was still burning after 18 months at 10 hours a day, so it hadn't been replaced. Price differences aside (which are important, I know) bulbs are like bars of soap -- you don't have to keep using it just because there is a tiny piece of it still left unused. But I doubt this was the case on the Pearl you saw, since these projectors haven't been out for very long, so that's really not what I was getting at.

I was merely trying to understand the factors that make this projector appear so dim. Several things can contribute: mounting at max throw, having it on "low bulb" mode, having the colors undersaturated, using an old bulb, ambient light (a real killer on most projectors), using a screen that's too big, and projecting onto a screen with a gain of 1 or below can all be contibuting factors. Put all of these things together and you've created the perfect storm for a craptastic viewing experience, although some of these can be big problems even in isolation. It is important to understand the lumens rating of whatever projector you buy and to design accordingly, if possible.

Quote:


, in spite of assertations that 700 lumens is "enough" or even "too much" (!), many projectors out there can boast 1500-2000+ lumens.

Oh, I think here we're dealing with differences in expectations. I'm at 80 hours on my bulb, and I'm still watching in "low bulb" mode. One thing I've noticed is that once the bulb starts to dim, a recalibration is in order -- primarly a lifting of black level and maybe some gamma tweaking. It is quite likely that this was not done on the projector you were viewing.

In addition, while I recognize that brightness can be very seductive, it can also destroy black levels unless paired with very high contrast. In my environment, the additional brightness would be wasted, since I would never ask the Pearl to deal with *any* ambient light, and I don't need a screen any bigger than 96 inches.

I bought my projector to watch movies in a completely light controlled room with dark walls. Now that digital projectors can throw an image with a bit of brightness to it, people are pulling them into their rec rooms to view while playing pool with the guys. My personal opinion is that this is not an optimum environment for watching movies or for most projectors (digital or otherwise), and if that's what people want to do, they will have to spend for something with more lumens or find a way to make a higher gain (more directional) screen function in their environment.

Or they might want to consider a big RPTV, which is much more affordable than the big plasma I mentioned earlier.


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

gremmy is offline  
post #170 of 296 Old 10-17-2006, 09:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cmjohnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Sharply focused on sharper focus.
Posts: 5,972
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Elitist? Well, I've had to suffer my way through my share of speakers that some people thought were good, and then one day I walked into a room with my speakers playing,
with very good electronics running them, and it was sound as I'd never heard it before.
It was so much better than I even imagined that recorded sound could be that I decided
instantly that those speakers would be mine.

And it wasn't two years later that I ended up owning not just a pair of the same type, but
the actual pair that was on demonstration.

I could NEVER go back. Walking through a Best Buy or Circuit City and trying to listen to
the speakers they're selling makes me want to put a drill through my ear. It'd sound better.

I don't make much money and I don't have much to spend on toys, so I work in the used
market almost exclusively. It allows me to get huge performance for small money.

Incidentally, speakers that really DO sound THAT good are assured to measure well
with regard to frequency response and distortion. (FYI, my speakers measure flat from
28 KHz down to 21 Hz. They outperform most subwoofers in bass extension.)



Anyway, back to video equipment.


I am only making an observation here, not a criticism: It seems to me that digital PJs
constantly have issues with uniformity of brightness over time and color balance issues
as well due to bulb ageing, which seems to become a factor more quickly in a bulb's life
than I might have thought.

That's an issue for me, the owner of a top flight CRT projector with very young tubes.
I can look foward to no perceptible changes in color balance or light output for many
thousands of hours of operation, which in my case means MANY years of use as I reserve
my PJ for viewing movies and not watching broadcast material at this time.

Lamp life and stability issues are going to have to be solved in order to overcome that
one of my remaining reservations.

I think the answer is LED lamp sources. They're getting stupid light output out of single
LEDs now. I can buy single LEDs that put out 60,000 mcd now, which is 60 lumens.
So clearly, with that much available light from very small LEDs, it is only a matter of time
(and briefly, I imagine) before LED lamp sources will enter the front projection market,
and the advantages will be manyfold. Low heat, meaning long optical core life.
The possibility that the heat in the optical core may be so low as to allow passive cooling,
which would allow the optical path to be hermetically sealed, which means no contamination by dust, dirt, or humidity problems. Only the external optics would need
periodic cleaning.

This would create the "lifetime projector", with a service life of maybe 100,000 hours
with no maintenance requirements other than occasional lens cleaning.

Give a contrast ratio of 25,000 to 1, ZERO pixel alignment issues, and at least 1080p
full resolution, and you'll have an absolute winner on your hands that will last as long
as a good car.

I think it's not that far in the future.

CJ
cmjohnson is offline  
post #171 of 296 Old 10-17-2006, 10:32 AM
Member
 
Friguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmjohnson View Post

This would create the "lifetime projector", with a service life of maybe 100,000 hours
with no maintenance requirements other than occasional lens cleaning.

Give a contrast ratio of 25,000 to 1, ZERO pixel alignment issues, and at least 1080p
full resolution, and you'll have an absolute winner on your hands that will last as long
as a good car.

I think it's not that far in the future.

CJ


Cool then I can hop into my flying car and go pick it up The odds of seeing something like this at a price that all but a select few would be able to afford is very slim. because if you built it they will not come back.

Projector manf are like car manf in many ways. Why would they build the holy grail of projectors when by not building it they know that those that want projectors will on most cases upgrade every 3-5 years as updates are slowly released to keep the consumer chasing the next greatest thing
Friguy is offline  
post #172 of 296 Old 10-17-2006, 04:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
johnathan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Fort Worth / DFW Texas
Posts: 921
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Wow
I was expecting screen shots ? Johnathan

I'm the "Thread Cooler" ! When I post that usually kills interest in the thread.

See my
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
johnathan is offline  
post #173 of 296 Old 10-17-2006, 05:16 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Rob Tomlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,752
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnathan View Post

Wow
I was expecting screen shots ? Johnathan

Apparently you already saw them:

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnathan View Post

Beautiful !


Johnathan




To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Rob Tomlin is offline  
post #174 of 296 Old 10-17-2006, 11:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
drapp1952's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 1,536
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Did I hear someone requesting screenshots? Here's more to entertain, and a couple of my HT. The source material is HD recorded off Dish - 2001: A Space Odyssey and SWIII.

Black velvet draped everywhere at the viewing end of the HT to minimize back reflections to the retroflective High Power:

Black all around the screen end and, if you'll pardon the mention of audio equipment, 25 year-old Martin Logan CLSes (Velodyne 18" subwoofer behind the right speaker), and a ML Cinema, invisible in this shot, hanging from the ceiling:




This scene has nice dimensionality:

This shot is not as clean as I'd like or in the best focus, but shows shadow detail that is a strong suit with the Pearl. Ironically, on my monitor it looks a bit darker here and more like the image thrown by the HD81 that we compared with the Pearl last night. Just another example of screenshots not really doing the job of portraying what the projector will look like in real life:




Dan
drapp1952 is online now  
post #175 of 296 Old 10-18-2006, 08:25 AM - Thread Starter
 
Chako's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I always love your pics drapp. Sweet setup you have there.

I was watching The Chronicles of Narnia in HD the other night and the scene before Aslan is killed with Susan and Lucy in the woods at night looks fantastic! I could not get a good shot of it though but the shadow detail was awesome.
Chako is offline  
post #176 of 296 Old 10-18-2006, 08:40 AM
Advanced Member
 
johnathan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Fort Worth / DFW Texas
Posts: 921
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Thanks Rob
I should have said more screen shots ! After all that is the title of this thread. My comment was aimed at all the off topic talk .Audio vs video.

Thanks Dan
You look like you have the optimal setup ! Very nice. Johnathan

I'm the "Thread Cooler" ! When I post that usually kills interest in the thread.

See my
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
johnathan is offline  
post #177 of 296 Old 10-18-2006, 08:52 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Rob Tomlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,752
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnathan View Post

Thanks Rob
I should have said more screen shots ! After all that is the title of this thread. My comment was aimed at all the off topic talk .Audio vs video.

Thanks Dan
You look like you have the optimal setup ! Very nice. Johnathan

I know Johnathan, I was just givin' ya a hard time!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Rob Tomlin is offline  
post #178 of 296 Old 10-18-2006, 09:06 AM
Advanced Member
 
johnathan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Fort Worth / DFW Texas
Posts: 921
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Rob
I didn't see the smile until I had posted. Cheers Johnathan

I'm the "Thread Cooler" ! When I post that usually kills interest in the thread.

See my
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
johnathan is offline  
post #179 of 296 Old 10-18-2006, 09:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kevin R. Anderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Great shots Dan. Other than the Obi-Wan photo (which is much better in real life), I think they do a good job of capturing the Pearl look.

ISF Certified
Kevin R. Anderson is offline  
post #180 of 296 Old 10-18-2006, 09:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
drapp1952's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 1,536
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Yeah, I think I'll redo that Obi-Wan shot - it looks way too noisy and out of focus. To me the last shot in particular conveys the Pearl look best.

BTW, here at work on my LCD monitor all the shots look different due to different gamma, brightness, etc. which is just another example of how screenshots vary with each setup and monitor and why they should not be taken seriously.

Dan
drapp1952 is online now  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

User Tag List

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