Panasonic PT-AE4000 MSRP $1999 - Page 22 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #631 of 8531 Old 10-29-2009, 03:37 PM
Member
 
SpecialBlend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 47
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
My first projector too. Just shipped from VA! Woot!
SpecialBlend is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #632 of 8531 Old 10-29-2009, 03:38 PM
Newbie
 
kejsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I got confirmation from PP today that mine has also shipped. I think I was somewhere in the 180 range.
kejsi is offline  
post #633 of 8531 Old 10-29-2009, 03:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Alex solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

Thanks, Darin. I don't know when mine will arrive from VA (probably pretty far down on the list), but I'm looking forward to it. I've been a DLP guy since I gave up on CRT (Sharp 9000, Optoma H79 and Sharp 20000 DLP projectors), but I just don't have nearly as much of an opportunity to see different projection technologies as I'd like. The idea is to put the Panasonic 4000 into a bedroom, but if I like it enough, it could earn a spot in my main home theater. To be fair, though, I'm going to have to put a new lamp in my Sharp 20k to compare them.

I am a huge fan of Sharp and Marantz projectors. Can't wait to hear your thoughts on LCD compared to DLP projector.

I want to hear opinions from people who don't have a dog in the fight.
Alex solomon is offline  
post #634 of 8531 Old 10-29-2009, 04:10 PM
Member
 
nickmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: san diego
Posts: 141
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fteixeira View Post

You have to look at the order sales order sheet, not the invoice. Here's my sales order:


Ahhh, thanks. I was number 32.

nickmo is offline  
post #635 of 8531 Old 10-29-2009, 04:33 PM
Member
 
bruce3404's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 84
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenanj View Post

ok got my trackign from pp also shoudl be here mid week.


what do you guys think about the screen and room?



http://www.flickr.com/photos/2201913...57502/sizes/l/

You're going to definitely need to paint it darker. Use a satin or flat paint. I just did mine in a deep, deep red and it looks killer. Was a bitch to paint, though.
bruce3404 is offline  
post #636 of 8531 Old 10-29-2009, 04:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ron Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Florida and West Virginia, USA
Posts: 5,887
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 155 Post(s)
Liked: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenanj View Post

ok got my trackign from pp also shoudl be here mid week.


what do you guys think about the screen and room?



http://www.flickr.com/photos/2201913...57502/sizes/l/

I agree with the previous suggestions that you really need to repaint the room. I would suggest a flat (or matte) black paint for the wall behind the screen and gray or black (or some other dark color) for the ceiling and walls. Light colored walls and ceiling will refect a lot of light back toward the screen (even with no light coming from windows and with minimal room lights) and this will raise the black levels seen on the projected images.

Ron Jones
Blog + Reviews + Articles: projectorreviews.com
Ron Jones is offline  
post #637 of 8531 Old 10-29-2009, 05:05 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,459
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Liked: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex solomon View Post

I am a huge fan of Sharp and Marantz projectors. Can't wait to hear your thoughts on LCD compared to DLP projector.

I, too, am anxious to find out how they compare. The Sharp should have a big advantage in ANSI contrast, but the Panasonic should (I think) have better on/off. That's the area where I'm still quite confused about the relative advantages. I want to see for myself, first hand, in my main home theater room.

I'd be interested in other people's thoughts on this ANSI vs. on/off contrast issue. I've read a lot about it, but until I get to A/B projectors with significant strength in each area, I won't really understand what the numbers mean. That's why I'd love to take Darin up on the offer to compare projectors and screens. But, a St. Louis to Seattle drive isn't in the cards.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is online now  
post #638 of 8531 Old 10-29-2009, 05:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
xenon2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 933
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by careybsn View Post

I appreciate the info. I think for me, I'm just going to stick with the biggest 16:9 I can get. I really enjoy watching movies (obviously), but I really enjoy watching sports and things like Austin City Limits, Soundstage, Palladia, and all types of concerts on the big screen too.

I'm pretty happy with the black levels on the AE3000U so the bars don't bother me that much. Maybe I'll go with a masquerade system in the future, but I really like the benefit of having a bigger screen for football games and concerts. And March Madness should be great this year with the new setup too.

It's just a trade off I'm willing to make with these projectors in a smaller room. Thanks for your comments though. Everything is appreciated from this noob.

Actually, your 16:9 content would still be as big "as you can get".... With a CIH "Constant Image Height" system. Let's say you decided that 102" diag was the screen size you loved for your 16x9 content. That is a 50" height and about 7.5 feet wide, slightly more I think. So let's say you pick that as your screen size. Now when you watch broadcast sports in 16x9, you get the size you wanted. But now with that screen, you get a much smaller 2.35 ratio movie. Which most movies are 2.35 to 2.40:1 ratio. BUT, if you now keep that 16x9 size, and make the screen wider and at the same 50" height, you now still have same 16x9 size you wanted and started with, but now your movies are even bigger at 128" in ultra wide 2.35:1 ratio. So you never end up with top and bottom bars. The image only changes size horizontally from 2.35->16x9->4:3 with a big 50" constant height.

Of course if your goal is for a 128" diag 16x9 screen, then you start to get into some insanely big 2.35 screens and need much more room width.

So why not start with your 16:9 screen size goal? Seriously, pick a size... find the height of that screen, then see if your room and speaker setup would allow for more width... if so and you want movies that don't shrink with top and bottom bars... then the AE4000U has a big advantage by letting you have an easy CIH screen setup.
xenon2000 is offline  
post #639 of 8531 Old 10-29-2009, 05:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
edpowers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,327
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

I, too, am anxious to find out how they compare. The Sharp should have a big advantage in ANSI contrast, but the Panasonic should (I think) have better on/off. That's the area where I'm still quite confused about the relative advantages. I want to see for myself, first hand, in my main home theater room.

I'd be interested in other people's thoughts on this ANSI vs. on/off contrast issue. I've read a lot about it, but until I get to A/B projectors with significant strength in each area, I won't really understand what the numbers mean. That's why I'd love to take Darin up on the offer to compare projectors and screens. But, a St. Louis to Seattle drive isn't in the cards.

I am also interested in your comparison. Unfortunately I had to part with my Sharp 20k when I sold my house and I'm still looking for a replacement for my new multi-purpose room. I've been very happy with the Sharp line of DLPs through the years, but would love to give the Panny a shot with its low price tag. I want a projector with a long throw, so all of the cheaper DLPs will not work.

What screen do you use in your main theater? What screen are you planning to use in your bedroom with the 4000? My biggest concerns are sharpness and motion compared to the Sharp 20k. ANSI is less of a priority since I'll have my new projector in a room with a white ceiling and lighter colored carpet.
edpowers is offline  
post #640 of 8531 Old 10-29-2009, 05:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
xenon2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 933
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Jones View Post

I agree with the previous suggestions that you really need to repaint the room. I would suggest a flat (or matte) black paint for the wall behind the screen and gray or black (or some other dark color) for the ceiling and walls. Light colored walls and ceiling will refect a lot of light back toward the screen (even with no light coming from windows and with minimal room lights) and this will raise the black levels seen on the projected images.

I agree too, unless it's a rental or lease agreement stopping you from painting. I have an all white room to start with and thought the image looked ok. Then I painted the ceiling flat white and the walls a theater-hue matte dark/med navy blue and the image difference on the screen was HUGE. There was so much light reflection with the white walls. And my theater space looks better as well. So unless you just can't do it, a few bucks of paint will make a huge difference. I had everything setup and then I had to cover everything and paint. But it was worth it.
xenon2000 is offline  
post #641 of 8531 Old 10-29-2009, 05:31 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,459
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Liked: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by edpowers View Post

I am also interested in your comparison. Unfortunately I had to part with my Sharp 20k when I sold my house and I'm still looking for a replacement for my new multi-purpose room. I've been very happy with the Sharp line of DLPs through the years, but would love to give the Panny a shot with its low price tag. I want a projector with a long throw, so all of the cheaper DLPs will not work.

What screen do you use in your main theater? What screen are you planning to use in your bedroom with the 4000?

I have a 110" DaLite HP in the main home theater (it replaced a similar size Stewart Firehawk). Love that combo.

I don't have a screen for the bedroom yet. Still thinking about that.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is online now  
post #642 of 8531 Old 10-29-2009, 05:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
edpowers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,327
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

I have a 110" DaLite HP in the main home theater (it replaced a similar size Stewart Firehawk). Love that combo.

I don't have a screen for the bedroom yet. Still thinking about that.

I had a 106" HP with my Sharp 20k and loved the combo as well. I am anxious to hear what you think of the HP with the 4000. I would like to move to a fixed 120" HP 16:9. That would allow me to hide the projector in a closet behind the back wall. I would be at maximum zoom, so I'm curious if light output will be sufficient.
edpowers is offline  
post #643 of 8531 Old 10-29-2009, 06:16 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,459
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Liked: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by edpowers View Post

I had a 106" HP with my Sharp 20k and loved the combo as well. I am anxious to hear what you think of the HP with the 4000. I would like to move to a fixed 120" HP 16:9. That would allow me to hide the projector in a closet behind the back wall. I would be at maximum zoom, so I'm curious if light output will be sufficient.

I"ll report back after I have a chance to compare. My Sharp, at best settings, looks great with the HP. My older, 1.3 gain Firehawk was just too dim for the 20k. The HP I love. It's the only piece of home theater gear I own that I've never had the urge to upgrade.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is online now  
post #644 of 8531 Old 10-29-2009, 07:14 PM
Member
 
S.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Still showing the AE 3000 on the Panasonic USA site...
S.A.M. is offline  
post #645 of 8531 Old 10-29-2009, 08:17 PM
Member
 
Studio2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 161
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quick question


Does VA or PP charge sales tax?

Thanks

Dave
Studio2000 is offline  
post #646 of 8531 Old 10-29-2009, 08:41 PM
Advanced Member
 
Bob Whitefield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 671
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Studio2000 View Post

Quick question


Does VA or PP charge sales tax?

Thanks

Dave

Only if you're in Washington state (VA) or Florida (PP).
Bob Whitefield is offline  
post #647 of 8531 Old 10-29-2009, 08:47 PM
Member
 
vikashc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Hi Guys,

Can someone please tell me the boxed weight of the AE4000 and also the dimensions of the box.

I need it to calculate my shipping .

Thanks for the help..

Cheers
Vik
vikashc is offline  
post #648 of 8531 Old 10-29-2009, 08:58 PM
Member
 
Sunil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by vikashc View Post

Hi Guys,

Can someone please tell me the boxed weight of the AE4000 and also the dimensions of the box.

I need it to calculate my shipping .

Thanks for the help..

Cheers
Vik

26.0 lbs/11.8 kg according to fedex tracking page.

BTW another 'first pj' person here. Should get it from VA tomorrow. But my HT room is till in works and be probably a week before I have everything in place.
Sunil is offline  
post #649 of 8531 Old 10-29-2009, 09:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Alex solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

I"ll report back after I have a chance to compare. My Sharp, at best settings, looks great with the HP. My older, 1.3 gain Firehawk was just too dim for the 20k. The HP I love. It's the only piece of home theater gear I own that I've never had the urge to upgrade.

How is the black level with HP screen ?

I want to hear opinions from people who don't have a dog in the fight.
Alex solomon is offline  
post #650 of 8531 Old 10-29-2009, 10:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bronco70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

I"ll report back after I have a chance to compare. My Sharp, at best settings, looks great with the HP. My older, 1.3 gain Firehawk was just too dim for the 20k. The HP I love. It's the only piece of home theater gear I own that I've never had the urge to upgrade.

Seems a number of us around here love our HP screens. For the recent poster with the white walls and ceiling the HP would help. The nature of retro-reflective. But darker walls would be a good addition. I got away with a really dark burgundy for the walls in our theater. Did not want to push the WAF with the ceiling though.

It will be interesting to see what the gain potential really means with the HP.

For 4 years with a zero offset pj the gain has been whatever it is. No need to calculate what can't be altered.

With a 4000 centered at eye level it will go to the max. which is if I remember correctly a 2.8 Gain. Might even need a ND filter in low lamp mode on a 133" screen.

Look forward to reading all the first impressions from owners here.

Joe
Bronco70 is online now  
post #651 of 8531 Old 10-29-2009, 11:25 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,459
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Liked: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex solomon View Post

How is the black level with HP screen ?

Achieving a respectable black level is more of a problem for a projector than it is for a screen. It's easy to make any screen darker to achieve a lower black level - a neutral density filter, lower lamp setting, smaller iris. In this respect, the HP is no different than any other screen. With any projector/screen combination, if the black level is too high, it can be lowered.

All these black-level-lowering methods can be advantageous. If you use a neutral density filter, you can remove it after the bulb ages to get back some brightness. If you use a lower lamp setting (eco mode), the lamp typically lasts longer. If you use a smaller iris, you usually get better contrast and perhaps increased sharpness. If you just like brighter images and don't care as much about absolute black level, the HP can provide them.

Having an HP screen doesn't mean you have to have an unacceptably high black level. Achieving a bright enough image is a more common and much tougher problem. With that, the HP can help.

It's easy to get confused about projector/screen issues. God knows I've had my fair share of misunderstandings, and still do. To this day, I can't quite wrap my head around the differences between PC/Video-Full RGB/Studio signal levels. The one thing I feel pretty confident about, though, is that the HP is a really good screen. For people to complain that it raises black levels is pretty silly. That's what we're asking it to do. When we tell the HP that we want a brighter image, we're telling it that we want it to make the whole image brighter, which includes the black level. It doesn't raise the black level magically while leaving the rest of the image alone. It raises the brightness of the entire image. You could raise image brightness with a much more expensive projector, or a cheap HP screen. With the quality image the HP throws, that's an easy choice for me.

For people who ask the question, can I have a 150" screen with a Panasonic AE4000 projector, the answer may be yes with an HP but maybe not with a lot of other screens. That the HP makes that screen size possible while delivering a high quality image, at a very good price, makes it even more attractive. Are there other high gain screens that are capable of a 150" image as good as the HP's? I don't know. That's another reason I'd like to get more opportunities to do some direct comparisons.

There are others on the forum who are much more knowledgeable about these issues than I am. I defer to them for more technical (and no doubt more accurate) explanations. For me, though, the HP screen is a great answer to a lot of questions about building a home theater. As I said, it's the only piece of home theater gear I've had no inclination to upgrade. I can't imagine that will change with the Panasonic when I get it. I know for a fact that black level won't be an unsolvable problem for my HP, no matter how bright the 4000 is.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is online now  
post #652 of 8531 Old 10-30-2009, 12:46 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
To those of you that want to use the Panasonic CIH feature, make sure that you have the necessary distance between the projector and screen. To get a large 2.35 image in CIH mode requires lots of distance. One of the advantages of using an anamorphic lens is you can shorten this significantly.
Beta Tester is offline  
post #653 of 8531 Old 10-30-2009, 05:03 AM
Newbie
 
keenanj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hmm lets see how it looks first in this room is in the basement with no windows, I have some sconces shooting away from the screen for a little light. The projector will be about 12" away from the 106" screen.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22019133@N02/4050157502/

I like the keep the same nutral paint scheme in the whole house.
keenanj is offline  
post #654 of 8531 Old 10-30-2009, 05:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Alex solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

Achieving a respectable black level is more of a problem for a projector than it is for a screen. It's easy to make any screen darker to achieve a lower black level - a neutral density filter, lower lamp setting, smaller iris. In this respect, the HP is no different than any other screen. With any projector/screen combination, if the black level is too high, it can be lowered.

All these black-level-lowering methods can be advantageous. If you use a neutral density filter, you can remove it after the bulb ages to get back some brightness. If you use a lower lamp setting (eco mode), the lamp typically lasts longer. If you use a smaller iris, you usually get better contrast and perhaps increased sharpness. If you just like brighter images and don't care as much about absolute black level, the HP can provide them.

Having an HP screen doesn't mean you have to have an unacceptably high black level. Achieving a bright enough image is a more common and much tougher problem. With that, the HP can help.

It's easy to get confused about projector/screen issues. God knows I've had my fair share of misunderstandings, and still do. To this day, I can't quite wrap my head around the differences between PC/Video-Full RGB/Studio signal levels. The one thing I feel pretty confident about, though, is that the HP is a really good screen. For people to complain that it raises black levels is pretty silly. That's what we're asking it to do. When we tell the HP that we want a brighter image, we're telling it that we want it to make the whole image brighter, which includes the black level. It doesn't raise the black level magically while leaving the rest of the image alone. It raises the brightness of the entire image. You could raise image brightness with a much more expensive projector, or a cheap HP screen. With the quality image the HP throws, that's an easy choice for me.

For people who ask the question, can I have a 150" screen with a Panasonic AE4000 projector, the answer may be yes with an HP but maybe not with a lot of other screens. That the HP makes that screen size possible while delivering a high quality image, at a very good price, makes it even more attractive. Are there other high gain screens that are capable of a 150" image as good as the HP's? I don't know. That's another reason I'd like to get more opportunities to do some direct comparisons.

There are others on the forum who are much more knowledgeable about these issues than I am. I defer to them for more technical (and no doubt more accurate) explanations. For me, though, the HP screen is a great answer to a lot of questions about building a home theater. As I said, it's the only piece of home theater gear I've had no inclination to upgrade. I can't imagine that will change with the Panasonic when I get it. I know for a fact that black level won't be an unsolvable problem for my HP, no matter how bright the 4000 is.

Thanks for the detailed reply. It was very helpful.

I want to hear opinions from people who don't have a dog in the fight.
Alex solomon is offline  
post #655 of 8531 Old 10-30-2009, 06:10 AM
Member
 
jdoughertyiv's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 42
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beta Tester View Post

To those of you that want to use the Panasonic CIH feature, make sure that you have the necessary distance between the projector and screen. To get a large 2.35 image in CIH mode requires lots of distance. One of the advantages of using an anamorphic lens is you can shorten this significantly.

While I guess it depends on what your definition of a large 2.35 image is, I think most would consider 120" wide to be large. The AE-4000 can be as close as 13' 7" to the screen using the widest zoom, I wouldn't say that's lot's of distance. While longer throws could get you better contrast, simply saying you need lots of distance for a large screen doesn't seem to be true. You also need to be careful with throw distance when using an anamorphic lens to minimize pincushion and the like.
jdoughertyiv is offline  
post #656 of 8531 Old 10-30-2009, 06:11 AM
Member
 
Cashstore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
My projector is shipping out now, so this may be jumping the gun, as I'll be able to point it at a wall and test, but:

I need to do a [modified] CIW setup, as I am width challenged. I am setting up a batcave, but still concerned about FL (foot-lamberts) for my screen. I want to setup a 60x107 screen, big enough for 120" at 16:9 (and 5" of black masking felt on the left side of the screen) The Projection Calculator Pro says that'll be 14FL. I will do a 47X110" 2.35 setup, which is at 13 FL, with a 13" masking at the bottom. My concern is that as my bulb wears down over the months and years this will start to become unacceptably dim. Do I have a valid concern here?

More specifically, the Projection Calculator Pro is using a default of 1.51x zoom, which of course is right in the middle of the range. I know I'll need to zoom to get the 2.35:1 picture, when applicable, but I'm wondering if I couldn't mount this thing a bit closer than 16'6" it is recommending. Specifically, around 0 zoom at a 16:9 setup, and whatever zoom is nescessary at 2.35:1. In this way my picture would be slightly brighter. I'd love to be able to run on 'efficent' for the first few months, and then jump up to a higher light output after the bulb dims.

Or do I just need to make my screen a bit smaller, such as a "true" CIW 59x105 (45:105 @ 2.35)?

4000 owners, what's your plan? Thanks for any insights.
Cashstore is offline  
post #657 of 8531 Old 10-30-2009, 06:31 AM
Newbie
 
careybsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by xenon2000 View Post

Actually, your 16:9 content would still be as big "as you can get".... With a CIH "Constant Image Height" system. Let's say you decided that 102" diag was the screen size you loved for your 16x9 content. That is a 50" height and about 7.5 feet wide, slightly more I think. So let's say you pick that as your screen size. Now when you watch broadcast sports in 16x9, you get the size you wanted. But now with that screen, you get a much smaller 2.35 ratio movie. Which most movies are 2.35 to 2.40:1 ratio. BUT, if you now keep that 16x9 size, and make the screen wider and at the same 50" height, you now still have same 16x9 size you wanted and started with, but now your movies are even bigger at 128" in ultra wide 2.35:1 ratio. So you never end up with top and bottom bars. The image only changes size horizontally from 2.35->16x9->4:3 with a big 50" constant height.

Of course if your goal is for a 128" diag 16x9 screen, then you start to get into some insanely big 2.35 screens and need much more room width.

So why not start with your 16:9 screen size goal? Seriously, pick a size... find the height of that screen, then see if your room and speaker setup would allow for more width... if so and you want movies that don't shrink with top and bottom bars... then the AE4000U has a big advantage by letting you have an easy CIH screen setup.

I hear what you are saying and I appreciate you taking the time to give me advice. I'm pretty much maxed out on width in my room. I've just got enough on each side of the wall for my speakers to sit as it is now. It's just not a big room at all. The good thing is that with a 106" screen in a 12x13 room, I feel just as immersed in a 2.35 movie as possible. I'm still going to give it a week before ordering my screen and test some smaller sizes to see what I think.

I will sit and compare the height of the 2.35 screen that is showing now versus a 16:9 in that same height and see if I think it is big enough to keep me feeling good about the size of it all.

I may watch Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers in that size to see how I feel about it.

A 106" 16:9 in that room is right on the edge of being monstrous. I've been thinking about going 100" just to tone it down a tad. I'll have to start blue taping this weekend to get a better idea of where I'm at.

The good thing is I got the pj mounted last night on the ceiling and got my theater seats in yesterday and they are in the room now. So I am in the final stages of deciding. I'm much further along than sitting in there with my dining room chair and the pj on a desk.
careybsn is offline  
post #658 of 8531 Old 10-30-2009, 06:42 AM
Advanced Member
 
Bob Whitefield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 671
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cashstore View Post

My projector is shipping out now, so this may be jumping the gun, as I'll be able to point it at a wall and test, but:

I need to do a [modified] CIW setup, as I am width challenged. I am setting up a batcave, but still concerned about FL (foot-lamberts) for my screen. I want to setup a 60x107 screen, big enough for 120" at 16:9 (and 5" of black masking felt on the left side of the screen) The Projection Calculator Pro says that'll be 14FL. I will do a 47X110" 2.35 setup, which is at 13 FL, with a 13" masking at the bottom. My concern is that as my bulb wears down over the months and years this will start to become unacceptably dim. Do I have a valid concern here?

More specifically, the Projection Calculator Pro is using a default of 1.51x zoom, which of course is right in the middle of the range. I know I'll need to zoom to get the 2.35:1 picture, when applicable, but I'm wondering if I couldn't mount this thing a bit closer than 16'6" it is recommending. Specifically, around 0 zoom at a 16:9 setup, and whatever zoom is nescessary at 2.35:1. In this way my picture would be slightly brighter. I'd love to be able to run on 'efficent' for the first few months, and then jump up to a higher light output after the bulb dims.

Or do I just need to make my screen a bit smaller, such as a "true" CIW 59x105 (45:105 @ 2.35)?

4000 owners, what's your plan? Thanks for any insights.

Definitely test on the wall before buying a screen. Try watching both 2.35 and 16:9 content (preferably Blu-ray/HD) zoomed as large as your wall will allow. Mark the corners on the wall with tape. Then try watching the same content the way it would appear in a CIH/CIW setup, e.g. 2.35 letterboxed in a 16:9 screen, and 16:9 with pillars on a 2.35 screen.

Then you can make an informed decision about which screen aspect to go with. I'm a firm believer in CIH, but if you don't have the wall width, and don't mind 2.35 movies being smaller, then CIW may make more sense.

I don't think you need to worry much about screen brightness with the 4000 and the screen sizes you're talking about. I use low bulb mode for most viewing, switching to high for important movies (especially if 2.35), or if we have guests. As the bulb gets dimmer, as you mentioned, you can use high more often to compensate.
Bob Whitefield is offline  
post #659 of 8531 Old 10-30-2009, 07:08 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,459
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Liked: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by careybsn View Post

I hear what you are saying and I appreciate you taking the time to give me advice. I'm pretty much maxed out on width in my room. I've just got enough on each side of the wall for my speakers to sit as it is now. It's just not a big room at all. The good thing is that with a 106" screen in a 12x13 room, I feel just as immersed in a 2.35 movie as possible. I'm still going to give it a week before ordering my screen and test some smaller sizes to see what I think.

I will sit and compare the height of the 2.35 screen that is showing now versus a 16:9 in that same height and see if I think it is big enough to keep me feeling good about the size of it all.

I may watch Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers in that size to see how I feel about it.

A 106" 16:9 in that room is right on the edge of being monstrous. I've been thinking about going 100" just to tone it down a tad. I'll have to start blue taping this weekend to get a better idea of where I'm at.

The good thing is I got the pj mounted last night on the ceiling and got my theater seats in yesterday and they are in the room now. So I am in the final stages of deciding. I'm much further along than sitting in there with my dining room chair and the pj on a desk.

I'm maxed out in width, too, with a 110" screen. I still find 2.35:1 movies very immersive. If I could, I'd go larger. There's no way I'd go smaller. I have a very dark room, with navy blue walls and ceiling, and a dark blue carpet. Together, they make the room dark enough that the letterbox bars don't bother me much with scope films. Before I did the room treatments (the walls used to be eggshell), the viewing experience was a lot less satisfying. The High Power screen can help, because it does a great job of rejecting ambient light. Having a dark wall behind the projector helps, too, with an HP. If there's no way to make the walls dark, good screen masking can help.

Some of my first films for the Panasonic will be the Star Trek Blu-ray discs, especially Insurrection and First Contact. The skin tones, space shots and CGI make it easy for me to check black level, contrast and color. I've also used First Contact since my early DLP projector days, to check for rainbows. Rainbows don't bother me, but I can see them if I work at it, and the Sharp 20k is a little worse at showing them than my other DLPs were. I'll be very interested in comparing the Sharp and Panasonic with rainbows in mind.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is online now  
post #660 of 8531 Old 10-30-2009, 07:12 AM
Member
 
bruce3404's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 84
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Here it is, 7AM. I've been up for a couple hours with the excitement of the new projector being delivered today. It's actually in town and on the truck for delivery. Just pulled the AE-900 off the mount and packaged it up. I felt kind of sad taking the 900 down since it's been such a great performer and as much a part of my life as an inanimate object can be.
bruce3404 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