Panasonic PT-AE3000 info and video here - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 1358 Old 09-10-2008, 07:07 AM
DB2
Advanced Member
 
DB2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 899
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by mn_hokie View Post

Thanks a ton for the feedback. Did you happen to notice if the horizontal and vertical lens shift were motorized this time around?

The H and V lens shift were manual, the same as the AE2000. The lens memory function was motorized as well as the 2.35:1 picture shifting within in the 16x9 panel if that makes sense.

"I usually sit closer to 2 X screen width, or I look like a cat watching a ping pong tournament." -Free
DB2 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 1358 Old 09-10-2008, 07:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mn_hokie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
I guess I'm confused between the terms "lens shift" and "lens memory". Does the projector take a digital snapshot of where the image is after the manual adjustments have been made and then store that as lens memory? If so, that makes sense to me.
mn_hokie is offline  
post #183 of 1358 Old 09-10-2008, 07:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mn_hokie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrA View Post

I sold my AE2000 yesterday and my HT is now empty. I need a AE3000 asap. Question to all Panasonic owners: From last few years of your experience with AE700, AE900and AE2000 buys, who usually ships panasonic PJs first? I allways find myself in this miserable situation every couple of years. I remember that few years ago I ordered my AE 900 in a hurry from B&H and got stuck with 2 pixel MC problem PJ because I dicovered the problem after 2 hours of use.
I like AVS's Platinum Guarantee of 15 hours better in case of bad MC or other problems like less than 80% uniformity.
Will AVS have AE3000 in the begining?

That's definately a ballsy move. There's no way I could go without a projector for a month or two after already having one up.
mn_hokie is offline  
post #184 of 1358 Old 09-10-2008, 07:18 AM
DB2
Advanced Member
 
DB2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 899
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by tryingtimes View Post

Great to read some more observations. Thanks for that.
Just a couple of points - the zoom method does still leave the 2.35:1 image 1:1 pixel mapped (exactly the same as if you were watching a 2.35 movie on a 16:9 screen. Both will be showing an approx 820x1920 image on the projector. So I can see why it retained sharpness. Of course now the pixels are bigger and the lumens are spread across a larger area (reducing foot lamberts), so you were right to expect a drop in brightness. Nice to know that this wasn't an issue in reality though.

The other point is that white point is very difficult to judge when you see projectors side-by-side. The brighter projector will always make the whites look grey on the dimmer one. In reality though, this can be misleading as seen in isolation, your eyes adjust and see that grey as white. Obviously extra brightness can be a good thing. But it doesn't necessarily always work that way.

Thanks again for your report - the 2.35:1 feature in particular is sounding better every time we hear about it. I wonder how they've managed to hide those bars!


Your welcome for the report, hopefully it provided at the very least another set of impressions. Very good points regarding the 2.35:1 effects and the white vs. white comparison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tryingtimes View Post

Can I just ask - where was the projector placed in relation to the screen - ceiling/centre/table - upside down/rightsideup?

Cheers
tt

Both projectors were sitting on tables so that the lens was even with somewhere in the lower 1/3 of the screen. Does that make sense?

top of screen
'
'
'
lens
'
bottom of screen

"I usually sit closer to 2 X screen width, or I look like a cat watching a ping pong tournament." -Free
DB2 is offline  
post #185 of 1358 Old 09-10-2008, 07:54 AM
CJO
AVS Special Member
 
CJO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,940
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Thanks DB2- great information.

CJ

coneilliv at aol dot com

The Dark Knight Theater
(a bunch of good reference links and material in first 15 posts)
CJO is offline  
post #186 of 1358 Old 09-10-2008, 10:39 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 20,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 134
"Of course now the pixels are bigger and the lumens are spread across a larger area (reducing foot lamberts)"

Total lumen output increases with zoom, partially compensating for the larger picture.

"I guess I'm confused between the terms "lens shift" and "lens memory"."

Given the reported repeatability, I'd guess encoders are used somewhere in the mechanical system.

Noah
noah katz is offline  
post #187 of 1358 Old 09-10-2008, 11:29 AM
DrA
Senior Member
 
DrA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mn_hokie View Post

That's definately a ballsy move. There's no way I could go without a projector for a month or two after already having one up.

"month or two"
I read somewhere that it wil ship in october.
I hope AE3000 starts shiping in less than a month. 2 months is too long when football allready started and hockey, basketball starts in few weeks. I have an old AE900 in my bedroom with 2500 hours dim lamp which is ok for 90 inch screen there. But my HT screen is 120 inches and the mount is 20 feet away and will be too dim. I need a new chip bulb that I can use in the old lamp housing.

Improvise, adapt to the environment, Darwin, **** happens, I Ching.
DrA is offline  
post #188 of 1358 Old 09-10-2008, 11:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mn_hokie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
My understanding is that it will be released in japan in october, and then US to follow.
mn_hokie is offline  
post #189 of 1358 Old 09-10-2008, 12:09 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
darryl b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: wi
Posts: 709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
i posted a similar question on the jvc thread, but putting it here also woll give the other point of view.
for those who made the cedia show, how did the panasonic 3000 compare to the jvc rs20?
darryl b is offline  
post #190 of 1358 Old 09-10-2008, 02:47 PM
Member
 
scoote69's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Ive searched but could find what real world calibrated lumens should be. Any ideas?
scoote69 is offline  
post #191 of 1358 Old 09-11-2008, 06:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jamis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,919
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Hopefully someone reputable will start taking preorders soon. I'd also love to hear a more firm release date for the US, but I guess I'll just have to wait and see like everyone else.
jamis is offline  
post #192 of 1358 Old 09-11-2008, 09:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Philnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 1,011
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 28
As at least one commenter has pointed out, movies don't come only in 16:9 or 2.35:1. Many are in 2.20:1 (Stanley Kubrick's preferred aspect ratio) and if you canvass the aspect ratios of Paramount's Star Trek movies, you'll see that there's no standardization, with all kinds of aspect ratios being used.

If the AE3000 allows unlimited preset creation, then great.

With my one-month old AE2000, I got tired of zooming and shifting to maintain constant image height and decided to just use constant image width instead - horrors! heresy! - by zooming to maximum size, centering the image on my screenwall, and leaving it alone.

I've got a 9.5' wide image that's 5'4" tall for 16:9 and 4' tall for 2.35:1, with other image heights for other aspect ratios. I can imagine programming an AE3000 for six or seven aspect ratios (if it lets you), but I don't want to have to keep track of which one any particular film uses!

Be honest with yourself: isn't the only reason to enforce constant image height to handicap 16:9 to make sure 2.35:1 looks bigger, out of loyalty to CinemaScope? As a recovering CIH believer, I'm here to say that it's OK to let the image height vary, as long as CinemaScope is satisfyingly big.

I commit another heresy and sit 9' from the screen. With 16:9 films in particular, it feels like being in the picture. My mini-IMAX (as one of the posters in the AE2000U forum called it when he read my description) looks great. Since I can black-out my theater completely, I'm using as screen paint the "Cream & Sugar" recipe of 2 parts Sherwin Williams Luminous White to 1 part Michael's Craft Smart Metallic Silver that was developed over at HomeTheaterShack.com. This homebrew screen paint increases contrast by deepening black levels and kicking up the highlights. The paint mixers there subject all of their recipes to reflectometer tests to assure flat color response.

If you want to boost contrast further, they've designed another recipe called "Black Widow" -a darker screen to deepen black levels in rooms that can't be fully darkened, which uses auto body shop aluminum paint mixed in to kick up the highlights

Since the black bars above and below 2.35:1 images are as dark as the darkest parts of the image - and the AE2000 has great blacks, particularly with good screen paint - I don't worry about them.

My previous projector, a Dell MP3000 1024x768 DLP unit, threw a medium gray frame around all four sides of the image area. I masked that out by having it fall on flat-black heavy cardboard called "chipboard" from a local artist's supply store. When I saw how much larger the AE2000's image was, I had to take the chipboard down. Fortunately, there's no need for such measures with the AE2000.

-Phil

Philnick is offline  
post #193 of 1358 Old 09-11-2008, 11:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Uther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,295
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philnick View Post

As at least one commenter has pointed out, movies don't come only in 16:9 or 2.35:1. Many are in 2.20:1 (Stanley Kubrick's preferred aspect ratio) and if you canvass the aspect ratios of Paramount's Star Trek movies, you'll see that there's no standardization, with all kinds of aspect ratios being used.

If the AE3000 allows unlimited preset creation, then great.

With my one-month old AE2000, I got tired of zooming and shifting to maintain constant image height and decided to just use constant image width instead - horrors! heresy! - by zooming to maximum size, centering the image on my screenwall, and leaving it alone.

I've got a 9.5' wide image that's 5'4" tall for 16:9 and 4' tall for 2.35:1, with other image heights for other aspect ratios. I can imagine programming an AE3000 for six or seven aspect ratios (if it lets you), but I don't want to have to keep track of which one any particular film uses!

Be honest with yourself: isn't the only reason to enforce constant image height to handicap 16:9 to make sure 2.35:1 looks bigger, out of loyalty to CinemaScope? As a recovering CIH believer, I'm here to say that it's OK to let the image height vary, as long as CinemaScope is satisfyingly big.

I commit another heresy and sit 9' from the screen. With 16:9 films in particular, it feels like being in the picture. My mini-IMAX (as one of the posters in the AE2000U forum called it when he read my description) looks great. Since I can black-out my theater completely, I'm using as screen paint the "Cream & Sugar" recipe of 2 parts Sherwin Williams Luminous White to 1 part Michael's Craft Smart Metallic Silver that was developed over at HomeTheaterShack.com. This homebrew screen paint increases contrast by deepening black levels and kicking up the highlights. The paint mixers there subject all of their recipes to reflectometer tests to assure flat color response.

If you want to boost contrast further, they've designed another recipe called "Black Widow" -a darker screen to deepen black levels in rooms that can't be fully darkened, which uses auto body shop aluminum paint mixed in to kick up the highlights

Since the black bars above and below 2.35:1 images are as dark as the darkest parts of the image - and the AE2000 has great blacks, particularly with good screen paint - I don't worry about them.

My previous projector, a Dell MP3000 1024x768 DLP unit, threw a medium gray frame around all four sides of the image area. I masked that out by having it fall on flat-black heavy cardboard called "chipboard" from a local artist's supply store. When I saw how much larger the AE2000's image was, I had to take the chipboard down. Fortunately, there's no need for such measures with the AE2000.

-Phil

There is nothing wrong with CIW if that is what makes you happy, but for most of us, masking a CIW system to accommodate the different heights is a b*tch. That is what pushes people towards CIH and away from CIW more than anything else - it much easier to mask CIH.
Uther is offline  
post #194 of 1358 Old 09-11-2008, 11:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Philnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 1,011
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uther View Post

There is nothing wrong with CIW if that is what makes you happy, but for most of us, masking a CIW system to accommodate the different heights is a b*tch. That is what pushes people towards CIH and away from CIW more than anything else - it much easier to mask CIH.

That may be true, but my point is that the black level of the AE2000 is good enough that masking isn't necessary! (Notice that the video demo of the AE3000 doesn't use masking.)

In fact, unless your black levels are as dark as your masking surround, a black mask can have the unintended effect of making your black levels look grey by comparison.

-Phil

"I think that in the future, everyone will wear a mask." - said Wesley, tongue-in-cheek, posing as the Dread Pirate Roberts in The Princess Bride.

Philnick is offline  
post #195 of 1358 Old 09-11-2008, 12:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 20,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 134
"This homebrew screen paint increases contrast by deepening black levels and kicking up the highlights....If you want to boost contrast further, they've designed another recipe called "Black Widow" -a darker screen to deepen black levels in rooms that can't be fully darkened, which uses auto body shop aluminum paint mixed in to kick up the highlights"

The only way a screen can increase on-screen contrast (no screen can increase the contrast from the pj) is from higher directivity which minimizes ambient light reflection.

Noah
noah katz is offline  
post #196 of 1358 Old 09-11-2008, 12:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Philnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 1,011
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

"This homebrew screen paint increases contrast by deepening black levels and kicking up the highlights....If you want to boost contrast further, they've designed another recipe called "Black Widow" -a darker screen to deepen black levels in rooms that can't be fully darkened, which uses auto body shop aluminum paint mixed in to kick up the highlights"

The only way a screen can increase on-screen contrast (no screen can increase the contrast from the pj) is from higher directivity which minimizes ambient light reflection.

You're right - but some can avoid losing that contrast more than others.

Since I repainted my screen wall from plain Tru-Value white latex to Cream and Sugar, colors have more "pop" and I find it easier to spot black-on-black differences (a microphone's wind shield against a black suit, for example). As for directionality, these paints are designed to widen the effective viewing area, not narrow it, and to avoid hot-spotting (seeing a brighter area opposite the lens). If ambient light is a problem, use the darker "Black Widow" recipe.

It only cost me $40 and driving around to pick up the ingredients at local paint stores (Sherwin Williams and Michael's arts and crafts shop) to try out the Cream&Sugar recipe. That covered the paints, a 1/4 " nap roller and paint tray, blue painters' masking tape, and a dropcloth. Application time, about half an hour. Wait for it to dry before you evaluate the result (it looks like a glass bead screen while it's wet, though shining the image on it while it's wet makes it easier to spot and fix problems from dripping).

You might be surprised.

-Phil

Philnick is offline  
post #197 of 1358 Old 09-11-2008, 01:10 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 20,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 134
"As for directionality, these paints are designed to widen the effective viewing area, not narrow it, and to avoid hot-spotting"

You can't have it both ways, except with a retroreflective screen (which only goes 1 1/2 ways - higher gain, smaller viewing area, but no hotspotting).

Sorry, but it sounds like you've fallen for MM's unsubstantiated hype in the DIY screen forum.

Noah
noah katz is offline  
post #198 of 1358 Old 09-11-2008, 01:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Philnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 1,011
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

"As for directionality, these paints are designed to widen the effective viewing area, not narrow it, and to avoid hot-spotting"

You can't have it both ways, except with a retroreflective screen (which only goes 1 1/2 ways - higher gain, smaller viewing area, but no hotspotting).

Sorry, but it sounds like you've fallen for MM's unsubstantiated hype in the DIY screen forum.

Maybe, since I'm not technically skilled enough to evaluate his claims.

By the way, I don't know what the gain of this screen paint is supposed to be. I do know that in projecting across the two kinds of paint, the Cream&Sugar area looks slightly (2-3%) less bright than the True Value flat white latex.

The improved blacks and color neutrality easily make up for that in my opinion, since our brains automatically recalibrate what our eyes see in much the same manner as an auto-exposure camera.

Since my AE2000 is only 13' from the screen and set to its widest angle - which passes the most light - the image is plenty bright, even set to Cinema 1 and Economy mode.

Philnick is offline  
post #199 of 1358 Old 09-11-2008, 05:17 PM
Senior Member
 
gsearles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Rothesay, New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 420
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadath View Post

Definitely sensing a pattern here. The AE900u club seems to have their eye on this guy for their first upgrade since buying in. I suspect many in this thread who own that PJ had it as their first projector (or at least first HD projector) and found that the incremental upgrades in 720p line were not compelling and that the first two generations of panny 1080p needed a bit of work... I also think that if push came to shove I could live with 720p for a while yet, but gearlust is getting the better of me more than a rational NEED to upgrade.

I was just hinking the same thing - I also plan on finally replacing my AE900 after 2 1/2 years of fantastic use, and seem to have lots of company in here planning to do the same. Seems like a great step up for the money!
gsearles is offline  
post #200 of 1358 Old 09-11-2008, 06:37 PM
Member
 
olinda cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: maui
Posts: 195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Ditto! Another AE-900 owner anxious to do the 1080p upgradeEpson?Panasonic?Mitsubishi?Sony?Beng?Planar? Let the reviews begin!
olinda cat is offline  
post #201 of 1358 Old 09-11-2008, 06:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
peteer01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 742
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadath View Post

The AE900u club seems to have their eye on this guy for their first upgrade since buying in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gsearles View Post

I also plan on finally replacing my AE900 after 2 1/2 years of fantastic use

It sounds like a lot of Panny owners are strongly leaning towards the AE3000. Is there a reason (some of) you are going with the new Panasonic without giving real consideration to the Epson and the other competitors?

(As I'm going to upgrade to a new projector from a Sanyo Z3, there's no new 1080p Sanyo model, otherwise I might be limiting my choices in the same way.)

Enjoying my second TW4000 and my new screen.
As my wife said, "Wow, it really does look a lot better...and if I think that way, imagine how you must think it looks!"
peteer01 is offline  
post #202 of 1358 Old 09-11-2008, 07:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Stew4msu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Wylie, Texas, USA
Posts: 7,076
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by peteer01 View Post

It sounds like a lot of Panny owners are strongly leaning towards the AE3000. Is there a reason (some of) you are going with the new Panasonic without giving real consideration to the Epson and the other competitors?

The big reason for me to upgrade my 700 to this model is that my 700 has worked flawlessly* the last 3+ years. It still puts out a great picture, but from my distance/screen size, I really want 1080p and after reading the CIH forum for the last year, I'm very interested in that.

So, even if other companies had the same feature set/price point (do they?), I'd give Panny the edge based on my personal experience with their projectors and customer service.


*At one point early on their was an issue with banding, but Panny CS was great and fixed the issue with a firmware update. Total turnaround time was less than 1 week.

"The dream never dies, just the dreamer."

Stew4msu is offline  
post #203 of 1358 Old 09-11-2008, 07:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
Ximori's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Irvine, Ca
Posts: 542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by peteer01 View Post

It sounds like a lot of Panny owners are strongly leaning towards the AE3000. Is there a reason (some of) you are going with the new Panasonic without giving real consideration to the Epson and the other competitors?

(As I'm going to upgrade to a new projector from a Sanyo Z3, there's no new 1080p Sanyo model, otherwise I might be limiting my choices in the same way.)

I'll try to keep my choices open but the scope feature is the main reason I'm considering this unit, considering majority of my blu-rays are in this format. It really is no hassle dealing with this anymore. And perhaps next year, I will consider the JVC RS20 when prices come down.

Too early really to make sound decisions.
Ximori is offline  
post #204 of 1358 Old 09-11-2008, 11:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
nilsp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 1,225
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I've not been so lucky with my current PJ, an Epson 720p... Iris is so noisy, I have to keep it disabled. Thus for me it is the AE3000 or the HW10. Hoping for reviews and comparisons soon!

NilsP

Life is better in HD.
nilsp is offline  
post #205 of 1358 Old 09-12-2008, 12:18 AM
Advanced Member
 
Beta Tester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 604
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stew4msu View Post

The big reason for me to upgrade my 700 to this model is that my 700 has worked flawlessly* the last 3+ years. It still puts out a great picture, but from my distance/screen size, I really want 1080p and after reading the CIH forum for the last year, I'm very interested in that.

So, even if other companies had the same feature set/price point (do they?), I'd give Panny the edge based on my personal experience with their projectors and customer service.

The 700 and 900 were extremely reliable, but that was not the case with the 720p models that came after. As tempted as I am by the 3000, I am going to wait a bit.
Beta Tester is offline  
post #206 of 1358 Old 09-12-2008, 04:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Murilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Im still a little confused by this. From what I read this thing basically takes a 2:35 image and using zoom, it zooms into fill a 16:9 screen while maintaining 2:35 aspect ratio?


Im just curious how this can keep image quality. Zooming and spreading pixels across a larger area has typically looked awful.
Murilo is offline  
post #207 of 1358 Old 09-12-2008, 04:27 AM - Thread Starter
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murilo View Post

Im still a little confused by this. From what I read this thing basically takes a 2:35 image and using zoom, it zooms into fill a 16:9 screen while maintaining 2:35 aspect ratio?


Im just curious how this can keep image quality. Zooming and spreading pixels across a larger area has typically looked awful.

No, that's not what it does.
With this new mode you would have a 2.35:1 screen - set it up for that, then it would zoom down to show the 16:9 image within the screen (with unlit areas at the sides). Side masking would be preferable to enhance perceived contrast.
tryingtimes is offline  
post #208 of 1358 Old 09-12-2008, 12:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by peteer01 View Post

It sounds like a lot of Panny owners are strongly leaning towards the AE3000. Is there a reason (some of) you are going with the new Panasonic

I'm a serial AE1000/AE2000/AE3000 upgrader. I'm generally happy with my AE2000, but find that a tweaked Dynamic mode gives me the better contrast I'm after (but still with lousy colours ), the increase in CR on the AE3000 should give me that contrast in a better calibrated mode. With this level of contrast, I'd be happy and then just start enjoying the fillm and not looking at faults. While even better contrast would be good, I feel that the AE3000 will take me to 'good enough' level, like my sound system is now. I really like the zoom memory function which is the AE3000's USP in my view and saves me messing about with lenses and sleds,etc.

Finally: The AE3000 looks virtually identical to the AE2000, so my missus wn't notice my upgrade.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #209 of 1358 Old 09-12-2008, 12:58 PM
Advanced Member
 
Ximori's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Irvine, Ca
Posts: 542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S View Post

Finally: The AE3000 looks virtually identical to the AE2000, so my missus wn't notice my upgrade.

That's funny, and if she notices how you managed to make the top and bottom black bars disappear this time you can simply tell her that it was a firmware upgrade.
Ximori is offline  
post #210 of 1358 Old 09-12-2008, 01:46 PM
Member
 
Duden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by peteer01 View Post

It sounds like a lot of Panny owners are strongly leaning towards the AE3000. Is there a reason (some of) you are going with the new Panasonic without giving real consideration to the Epson and the other competitors?

(As I'm going to upgrade to a new projector from a Sanyo Z3, there's no new 1080p Sanyo model, otherwise I might be limiting my choices in the same way.)

My first PJ was the PT-AE300, my current is the PT-AE900. I'm seriously considering upgrading to the 3000, rather than changing the dimming bulb . No, I won't be considering any alternatives to Panasonic, reason being that I sit about 1 X screen width away from the screen, which would mean risking the dreaded screen door without Panny's smooth screen technology.

I've generally been very pleased with this brand of PJ, except perhaps for dust blobs, visible miscolouring with B/W material, and with the 900, curving edges of the image.
Duden is offline  
Reply Digital Projectors - Under $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