Video Demos at CEDIA Expo 2013 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 12 Old 10-04-2013, 12:55 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Scott Wilkinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 1,292
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 303 Post(s)
Liked: 1083

Aside from shooting a ton of video interviews, Mark Henninger (imagic) and I managed to attend a few demos at CEDIA Expo 2013. On the video side of things, I was somewhat disappointed that there weren't more 4K/UHD projectors at the show, but I suppose it makes sense, since some standards of the new format (particularly color gamut, bit depth, and chroma subsampling) are not yet standardized, and there are no HDMI 2.0 chipsets currently available—notwithstanding claims of HDMI 2.0 capability by various manufacturers.

 

Sony's VPL-VW600ES brings 4K projection to the $15,000 level.

 

Even so, Sony demonstrated it's new VPL-VW600ES true 4K projector (4096x2160), which carries a price tag of $15,000—$10,000 less than last year's VPL-VW1000ES. In addition, the VW600ES is compatible with Sony's FMP-X1 4K server, while the VW1000ES is not. (At $28,000, the new VPL-VW1100ES is compatible with the server, and owners of the VW1000ES can upgrade it to become equivalent to the VW1100ES.) You can buy the VW600ES by itself or in a bundle with the server for $16,000.

 

The demo was in a more-or-less light-sealed room (there was a bit of light leakage from the double-curtain entrance) on a 179-inch-diagonal, 16:9 Stewart StudioTek 130 screen. It started with native 4K footage from Carnival in Rio de Janeiro, which looked fantastic with gorgeous colors and deep blacks. Also shown was upscaled 1080p from The Amazing Spider-Man and some concert footage by Billy Joel, which also looked great, though it was easy to see that it wasn't native 4K.

 

Display Development demonstrated a rebadged Christie 4K digital-cinema projector, but they had no native 4K content to show. Photo courtesy of Display Development

 

The only other true 4K (or even UHD) projector at the show was in the Display Development booth—a rebadged Christie digital-cinema projector that was firing onto an 18-foot-wide Stewart GrayHawk CineCurve screen. Using GrayHawk material made some sense in this instance, because the demo was not entirely enclosed, with lots of light leaking in from the show floor. Unfortunately, the company did not receive the native 4K content it was expecting in time for the show, so it was displaying upconverted 1080p—The Great Gatsby on Blu-ray, to be exact. The seats were way too close to the screen for its size, so the image didn't look all that great, though it looked a lot better from the aisle, which was a more appropriate distance to the screen.

 

Adjoining the main Display Development booth was a small, completely light-controlled room in which several companies were demonstrating a kick-ass audio system, which I'll discuss when I get to the audio demos I heard. I mention it here only because the video was provided by Display Development HD20 1080p projector on a 106-inch-wide Stewart GrayMatte 70 screen. The projector was calibrated by Jim Doolittle, a well-known ISF calibrator, and it looked fabulous playing a clip from Iron Man 3.

 

I had thought that JVC might show a native 4K/UHD projector, but no—its 2014 models use the company's eShift technology—called eShift3 in this generation—to produce what some jokingly call "faux-K" by rapidly shifting the pixels on a 1080p panel back and forth by half a pixel. Aside from the new models' ability to accept a 4K/UHD signal via HDMI, the big news from JVC this year is the addition of a dynamic iris—JVC calls it Intelligent Aperture—to increase the projectors' already industry-leading native contrast ratio.

 

The mid-line DLA-X700R ($8000) was being demonstrated in a semi-blacked-out area using a Nanotech Nuvola NP-1 Windows-based 4K server, and it looked pretty poor, with lots of artifacts that were attributed to the low bit rate from the server. So why not up the bit rate for the demo? Also, the screen looked like it had some schmutz on it.

 

JVC's new flagship DLA-X900R looked great playing native 4K from a RedRay server.

 

The demo of the flagship DLA-X900R ($12,000) was much better. Using a RedRay 4K server as the source and firing onto a 150-inch-diagonal, 16:9 Stewart Reflections 170 screen, we were among the few who got to see some footage that JVC thought it had permission to use at the show, but actually didn't. It was shot at 4K on Red cameras, and it looked spectacular—certainly sharper than 1080p—though we did notice a very slight, momentary judder every minute or two, which was attributed to beta firmware in the projector and player. We also saw the clips that had been approved for use at the show, also shot on Red cameras, and it didn't look quite as good, but still not bad at all. Blacks were super deep, and the dynamic iris wasn't even enabled.

 

Digital Projection showed a version of its Titan 3-chip DLP projector illuminated with LEDs.

 

One company I thought for sure would have a 4K DLP projector was Digital Projection International, but it didn't. The explanation was that Texas Instruments, the supplier of DLP technology, limits 4K systems to commercial-cinema products at this time. The big news at DPI was the Titan 1080p LED-illuminated projector ($79,000), which boasts a light output of 2000 lumens, more than twice what other LED-based projectors can pump out.

 

The demo was in a completely light-sealed, blacked-out room with a 12-foot-wide, 16:9 Stewart StudioTek 130 screen. First, we saw a bit of the smaller M-Cine LED projector, but the colors were off—in particular, skin tones were too red. When we asked about this, we were told that DPI wanted to show that the color gamut of the projector was wider than Rec.709. When the demo switched to the Titan LED, the problem got much worse, but again, the company rep insisted this was a good thing. It might well be a good thing when studios start mastering consumer content in a wider color gamut, but I wanted to see how the projector performed in a well-calibrated state for today's content. Alas, it was not to be at CEDIA. On the plus side, it was nice to see an LED-illuminated projector light up a screen that big with plenty of brightness.

 

The Epson PowerLite Pro Cinema 6030 produced a beautiful picture with a Panamorph CineVista anamorphic lens. Photo by Mark Henninger

 

One of the most impressive demos—especially in terms of value—was Epson's new flagship PowerLite Pro Cinema 6030 ($3500). Calibrated by ISF wizard Kevin Miller in a blacked out room, the demo was presented on an 11-foot-wide, 2.35:1 Stewart StudioTek 130 using a fixed Panamorph CineVista anamorphic lens ($2000). That's right—a 2.35:1 projection system for $5500 (not including the screen). And the picture quality was superb. We watched a clip from Oz The Great and Powerful in 2D—skin tones were entirely natural, and shadow detail in Oz's black coat was excellent.

 

Like AVS Forum on Facebook

Follow AVS Forum on Twitter

Follow AVS Forum on Google+

Stuntman_Mike and larrygeary like this.

Scott Wilkinson
AVS Editor
Scott Wilkinson is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 12 Old 10-05-2013, 05:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,501
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 166 Post(s)
Liked: 164
The big question for Epson will be -- how good will the 3D be with respect to "ghosting"? I saw Gravity in 3D at the IMAX in Toronto last night and it looked great, except for some obvious ghosting in the many high contrast scenes. Is the Epson going to be able to handle a movie such as this ghost-free?
Deja Vu is offline  
post #3 of 12 Old 10-06-2013, 06:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BrolicBeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Charles County, MD
Posts: 2,985
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 219 Post(s)
Liked: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post

The big question for Epson will be -- how good will the 3D be with respect to "ghosting"? I saw Gravity in 3D at the IMAX in Toronto last night and it looked great, except for some obvious ghosting in the many high contrast scenes. Is the Epson going to be able to handle a movie such as this ghost-free?
I'm not an expert, but I think ghosting can sometimes just be an issue with the movie authoring itself. For instance, Avatar had very little ghosting, while I noticed some native ghosting in the 3D presentation of Star Trek Into Darkness.
BrolicBeast is online now  
post #4 of 12 Old 10-07-2013, 06:48 PM
Member
 
larrygeary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somerset County, NJ
Posts: 153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 46
I'm glad to see the projectors using 4096. I wish the panel manufacturers had waited for the other technologies (e.g. cables) to develop and settle, and then used 4096 as well, instead of 3840. Content produced in (or scaled up to) 3840 can be displayed on a 4096 set with small vertical bars, but 4096 content can't be displayed on a 3840 set without some compromises.
larrygeary is offline  
post #5 of 12 Old 10-08-2013, 11:34 AM
Advanced Member
 
rastargate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 26
I am in the market for a new projector and it seems like the reviews from CEDIA under the $5k mark the Pro Cinema 6030 seems to be the one to beat right now? Any additional insight?
rastargate is offline  
post #6 of 12 Old 10-08-2013, 03:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Viche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,066
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Does the 6030 have a lens memory feature like Panasonic's 4k, 7k, 8k models?

I'm also confused about that feature; I've read that when you use a projector's zoom to account for a 2.35:1 movie, you are losing resolution because you are cropping off a portion of the 16:9 lcd panels. This results in loss of light and blur. I've also read, however, that having the projector squeeze the image and the anamorphic lens unsqueeze it results in some blur as well. So which is better?
Viche is offline  
post #7 of 12 Old 10-08-2013, 09:45 PM
Member
 
Justin Morgan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Bellevue, WA, USA
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viche View Post

Does the 6030 have a lens memory feature like Panasonic's 4k, 7k, 8k models?

I'm also confused about that feature; I've read that when you use a projector's zoom to account for a 2.35:1 movie, you are losing resolution because you are cropping off a portion of the 16:9 lcd panels. This results in loss of light and blur. I've also read, however, that having the projector squeeze the image and the anamorphic lens unsqueeze it results in some blur as well. So which is better?

Regarding your 2.35:1 question, there's a good explanation over here (hope it's okay to link offsite?).

The 5030/6030 are manual focus / zoom.
Justin Morgan is online now  
post #8 of 12 Old 10-08-2013, 09:50 PM
Member
 
Justin Morgan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Bellevue, WA, USA
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post

One of the most impressive demos—especially in terms of value—was Epson's new flagship PowerLite Pro Cinema 6030 ($3500). Calibrated by ISF wizard Kevin Miller in a blacked out room, the demo was presented on an 11-foot-wide, 2.35:1 Stewart StudioTek 130 using a fixed Panamorph CineVista anamorphic lens ($2000). That's right—a 2.35:1 projection system for $5500 (not including the screen). And the picture quality was superb. We watched a clip from Oz The Great and Powerful in 2D—skin tones were entirely natural, and shadow detail in Oz's black coat was excellent.

Scott, I've read conflicting reports over the years about an apparent screen door effect in Epsons 6010/6020 models, at least more apparent than rival projectors. How did the 6030 look? Any visible SDE?

Anyone know if it would it be possible to get rid of SDE by very slightly de-focusing the picture?
Justin Morgan is online now  
post #9 of 12 Old 10-09-2013, 02:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Viche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,066
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Morgan View Post

Regarding your 2.35:1 question, there's a good explanation over here (hope it's okay to link offsite?).

The 5030/6030 are manual focus / zoom.

Great! Thanks for the article. So if the zoom method produces a higher resolution, sharper, less distorted image, then why were they using an anamorphic lens to show off the 6030 at the show? $$$?

Also, what should I look for in specs when I want to know if a projector supports either method? Do all projectors have the ability to distort the image internally so that an anamorphic lens can be used? Can all projectors zoom to 2.35:1 but not do so remotely?
Viche is offline  
post #10 of 12 Old 10-09-2013, 02:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
Keith Mickunas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Wylie, TX, USA
Posts: 767
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Morgan View Post

Regarding your 2.35:1 question, there's a good explanation over here (hope it's okay to link offsite?).

The 5030/6030 are manual focus / zoom.

That article claims that the Epson projectors have lens memory, which at least with regards to the 5030/6030 and their predecessors is false. Otherwise it's a pretty good explanation of what's going on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viche View Post

Great! Thanks for the article. So if the zoom method produces a higher resolution, sharper, less distorted image, then why were they using an anamorphic lens to show off the 6030 at the show? $$$?

Also, what should I look for in specs when I want to know if a projector supports either method? Do all projectors have the ability to distort the image internally so that an anamorphic lens can be used? Can all projectors zoom to 2.35:1 but not do so remotely?

No, not all projectors support either of these methods. For instance the Epson 5030 neither has lens memory nor does it perform the anamorphic conversion. However I believe there are devices that perform the anamorphic conversion inline. So you'd place that between the source component and the projector. Then you have to figure out how to integrate an anamorphic lens yourself. So you need to look for projectors that have either lens (or zoom) memory or specifically state that they support an anamorphic lens, or else you have to look into a DIY method. If you want to go with either route, spend a lot of time researching here in the CIH forums first.
Keith Mickunas is online now  
post #11 of 12 Old 10-09-2013, 07:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,331
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Morgan View Post

Regarding your 2.35:1 question, there's a good explanation over here (hope it's okay to link offsite?).

The 5030/6030 are manual focus / zoom.

Correct, the Epson projectors do not have lens memory.

RE: the article you linked to. First, full disclosure. I sometimes consult for Panamorph, an anamorphic lens manufacturer.

Second, that article was debated for quite a long time on the 2.35:1 sub-forum here on AVS. I think it was pretty thoroughly challenged, at least in terms of some people thinking it represented some kind of definitive answer:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1478795/anamorphic-lens-vs-zoom-best-review-yet

Truth is, both zoom and lens solutions for 2.35:1 UltraWide have their pluses and minuses, which can vary by projector model / manufacturer, by throw distance, by quality of scaling, the list goes on and on. To say that one method is automatically superior to the other in all circumstances is just plain wrong; there are just too many variables to discuss (besides the above, you also have ease of use, ability to fill the 2.35:1 screen with 16:9 material, willingness on the part of the consumer to paint the screen wall black when using the zoom method, etc). For anyone really interested in the pluses and minuses of lens vs. zoom, check out the AVS link I pasted above.

For other outside opinions on lens vs. zoom, check out Josh Zyber's extensive articles on 2.35:1 on his blog (this is an excellent place to start for people who want to learn all about 2.35:1 projection, the hows and whys, and the different solutions):

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/constant-image-height-refresher-2013/

You might also check out Mark Henninger's comments (imagic) about the same Epson demo:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1493056/avs-newsbreaker-social-media-manager-mark-henninger-imagic-at-cedia-2013

Also, check out Geoff Morrison's review of the CineVista in the current Sound and Vision magazine. He measured a much greater light output measurement with the lens than without than referenced in the linked article.

From my experience with Panamorph, improvement in light output depends on throw distance and the optical design of the projector in question. For example, JVC projects a brighter image when zoomed, so the brightness gain with the lens is not very great. However, that increase in brightness using zoom comes at the expense of contrast (which is mostly maintained using a lens). With Epson and Sony projectors, the increase in brightness using a lens is more substantial. My point here is that there are many variables not accounted for in the linked article. Spend some time on the 2.35:1 sub-forum here on AVS and you will see the knowledgeable persons there asking those looking for advice about the particulars of their setup before making any kind of recommendation.

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is offline  
post #12 of 12 Old 10-11-2013, 02:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Viche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,066
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Thanks for the links. So am I correct in saying that both methods use the same number of lines of resolution from the chip to generate their final images?

Also, if a projector does not have lens memory, can you still switch to a 2.35:1 ratio manually using zoom and lens shift?
Viche is offline  
Reply Latest Industry News

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