Mitsubishi HC4000 - Page 16 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #451 of 1524 Old 02-22-2011, 08:26 PM
Senior Member
 
nirvy111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

Also, what's up with the drastic difference between the calculator on the Mits site and the one on ProjectorCentral? Mits says the throw range for a 143" diagonal is 209" to 286". ProjectorCentral's says 174" to 258".

Basically I'm trying to figure out if I use maximum wideangle for a 143" diagonal to fill my 2.35 screen, then zoom down to a 109" diagonal for 16:9 material, how badly will the offset screw me? Is there an image position setting so I can "slide" the 2.35 movies around to fit?

ProjectorCentral's calculator is wrong for the hc4000.
nirvy111 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #452 of 1524 Old 02-22-2011, 09:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ahamay17 View Post

There will be about 13" difference in offset when trying to do CIH by zooming at the sizes you've described... You would be able to slide the 2.35 image about 8" up (or down) so you get screwed by about 5" unless you can easily move your screen up and down 5" to compensate....

Well, that's certainly a bummer. I wonder if I could move the image from within my PC's media player somehow.

edit: Yes, MPC-HC lets you move the image. Score!
curttard is offline  
post #453 of 1524 Old 02-23-2011, 06:08 AM
Advanced Member
 
jarrod1937's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 960
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I just ordered the hc4000 from newegg.com, will be receiving it today! I'll let you guys know if i have any color and brightness uniformity issues like mentioned earlier in this thread. Anything as extreme as those photos shown would be unacceptable in my opinion, so I'm hoping that's not the case. Upgrading from a hc3000, so i'll also post how much of an upgrade i feel it is, for those in a similar situation.
jarrod1937 is offline  
post #454 of 1524 Old 02-23-2011, 07:54 AM
Member
 
drugstore_cowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

Well, that's certainly a bummer. I wonder if I could move the image from within my PC's media player somehow.

edit: Yes, MPC-HC lets you move the image. Score!

doubt that will help, you can move the image up and down from the projector's menu anyway.

don't know if you saw this but I have a CIH setup and I have to tilt the projector up slightly when fully zoomed.

http://www.avforums.com/forums/14097346-post25.html

I could always leave it fully zoomed in and have a scaled down 16:9 image but it's no hassle moving the projector.
drugstore_cowboy is offline  
post #455 of 1524 Old 02-23-2011, 09:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by drugstore_cowboy View Post

doubt that will help, you can move the image up and down from the projector's menu anyway.

don't know if you saw this but I have a CIH setup and I have to tilt the projector up slightly when fully zoomed.

http://www.avforums.com/forums/14097346-post25.html

I could always leave it fully zoomed in and have a scaled down 16:9 image but it's no hassle moving the projector.

I must be missing something. According to Mits' calculator on their site, the offset for the 109" diagonal is 3" and for the 143" diagonal, 3.9". With only 1" difference in offset, and with the 2.35 image taking up only 52" of the 70" image height, why can't I just digitally slide the image to the right spot? Why would I need to tilt the projector?

edit: whoops, yes, of course I'm missing something, I had the offsets reversed. The best I could do sliding the image all the way to the top of the 140" diagonal would still have it starting 1" below the top of the screen. This may not be the projector for me after all, which sucks.

By the way, I notice the Mits calculator defaults to "16:10 (full)" as the default aspect ratio, which has zero offset. What's up with that?

Ahamay, how did you reach the 13" offset difference figure between 143" and 109"?
curttard is offline  
post #456 of 1524 Old 02-23-2011, 10:52 AM
 
mjg100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

I must be missing something. According to Mits' calculator on their site, the offset for the 109" diagonal is 3" and for the 143" diagonal, 3.9". With only 1" difference in offset, and with the 2.35 image taking up only 52" of the 70" image height, why can't I just digitally slide the image to the right spot? Why would I need to tilt the projector?

edit: whoops, yes, of course I'm missing something, I had the offsets reversed. The best I could do sliding the image all the way to the top of the 140" diagonal would still have it starting 1" below the top of the screen. This may not be the projector for me after all, which sucks.

By the way, I notice the Mits calculator defaults to "16:10 (full)" as the default aspect ratio, which has zero offset. What's up with that?

Ahamay, how did you reach the 13" offset difference figure between 143" and 109"?

For 109" 16:9 image the offset is 18" for 143" 16:9 image the offset is 23.6". A difference of 5.6". http://www.projectorcentral.com/Mits...ulator-pro.htm
mjg100 is offline  
post #457 of 1524 Old 02-23-2011, 10:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjg100 View Post

For 109" 16:9 image the offset is 18" for 143" 16:9 image the offset is 23.6". A difference of 5.6". http://www.projectorcentral.com/Mits...ulator-pro.htm

Yikes, my bad, when you click the calculator link on the HC4000 page on the Mitsubishi site, I didn't notice it defaults you to a different projector entirely.

Well, that sucks. Definitely not the projector for me, then. CIH is the main reason I want to upgrade and it doesn't sound like it will work with this one.
curttard is offline  
post #458 of 1524 Old 02-23-2011, 05:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
jarrod1937's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 960
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Ok, just got the projector, have it mounted, and am viewing this site through it right now (htpc). I can tell you that i definitely notice the increase in resolution from the hc3000 to this! I run a 150 inch screen, so the increase in resolution is quite noticeable. The projector is definitely noticeably brighter as well. However, the blacks don't seem that much better, but may just be the extra brightness from this projector. While my room is completely light controlled from outside light, it does have some issues with reflecting light. This may change, however, once i get around to proper calibration, right now its just at the cinema gamma mode, with default everything else.
I am excited to report that my projector exhibits none of the issues talked about earlier in this topic. The lens assembly produces a sharp image with rather good color and brightness uniformity (at least what's generally expected).
jarrod1937 is offline  
post #459 of 1524 Old 02-23-2011, 06:55 PM
Member
 
Ahamay17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post


Ahamay, how did you reach the 13" offset difference figure between 143" and 109"?

With a HC4000 and a tape measure... and the offset I'm am referring to is between a 2.35:1 (143" wide angle) and a 16:9 (109") image at the same centerline height, you are comparing 2 16:9 images with the centerline changing considerably...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjg100 View Post

For 109" 16:9 image the offset is 18" for 143" 16:9 image the offset is 23.6". A difference of 5.6". http://www.projectorcentral.com/Mits...ulator-pro.htm

Doing CIH by zooming with a projector that has a fixed offset is more difficult then just comparing calculator numbers...
Ahamay17 is offline  
post #460 of 1524 Old 02-23-2011, 08:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fleaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,577
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarrod1937 View Post

Ok, just got the projector, have it mounted, and am viewing this site through it right now (htpc). I can tell you that i definitely notice the increase in resolution from the hc3000 to this! I run a 150 inch screen, so the increase in resolution is quite noticeable. The projector is definitely noticeably brighter as well. However, the blacks don't seem that much better, but may just be the extra brightness from this projector.

Yeah, all things being equal, more lumens will mean worse blacks (i.e., HC3000 w/new lamp vs. HC3000 w/old lamp).

Your blacks shall get better after a couple hundred hrs.

That being said, there shouldn't be a drastic difference in blacks/contrast between either of those PJ's, assuming lumens are adjusted to be close (i.e., adjusting the manual iris in the HC3000 to match the HC4000 brightness).
fleaman is offline  
post #461 of 1524 Old 02-23-2011, 09:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleaman View Post

Yeah, all things being equal, more lumens will mean worse blacks (i.e., HC3000 w/new lamp vs. HC3000 w/old lamp).

Your blacks shall get better after a couple hundred hrs.

That being said, there shouldn't be a drastic difference in blacks/contrast between either of those PJ's, assuming lumens are adjusted to be close (i.e., adjusting the manual iris in the HC3000 to match the HC4000 brightness).

That's kind of disappointing. More than 5 years later and the only plus is 1080p and a bit of brightness? I was hoping for significant across the board improvements.
curttard is offline  
post #462 of 1524 Old 02-23-2011, 09:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
StevenC56's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Playing around with the vertical position tonight and wondering why more people don't use it when they have placement issues due to the fixed lens offset. I imagine that this is a digital function since the lens is fixed? I can't see that it has any noticeable negative effect on the picture quality. The owner's manual doesn't even mention the use of this adjustment. Trying to figure out if I want a 105" wide or 110" wide 2.35 screen. My wife thinks the 105" is crazy enough and got a bit crappy when I mentioned I was considering the 110" now. The front seating is at only 7.5', however it's not the primary area. The back (primary) row on a 14" riser is 12.5' back.
StevenC56 is offline  
post #463 of 1524 Old 02-23-2011, 10:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenC56 View Post
Playing around with the vertical position tonight and wondering why more people don't use it when they have placement issues due to the fixed lens offset. I imagine that this is a digital function since the lens is fixed? I can't see that it has any noticeable negative effect on the picture quality. The owner's manual doesn't even mention the use of this adjustment. Trying to figure out if I want a 105" wide or 110" wide 2.35 screen. My wife thinks the 105" is crazy enough and got a bit crappy when I mentioned I was considering the 110" now. The front seating is at only 7.5', however it's not the primary area. The back (primary) row on a 14" riser is 12.5' back.
I briefly had an HC4900 before returning it and buying the HC3000. With the 4900 and its powered zoom/focus, I did CIH and got a 12' wide 2.35 image. Seating at 9', looked awesome. Too bad that projector had awful blacks and contrast.
curttard is offline  
post #464 of 1524 Old 02-24-2011, 12:39 AM
 
HiFiFun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 2,209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarrod1937 View Post
Ok, just got the projector, have it mounted, and am viewing this site through it right now (htpc). I can tell you that i definitely notice the increase in resolution from the hc3000 to this! I run a 150 inch screen, so the increase in resolution is quite noticeable. The projector is definitely noticeably brighter as well. However, the blacks don't seem that much better, but may just be the extra brightness from this projector. While my room is completely light controlled from outside light, it does have some issues with reflecting light. This may change, however, once i get around to proper calibration, right now its just at the cinema gamma mode, with default everything else.
I am excited to report that my projector exhibits none of the issues talked about earlier in this topic. The lens assembly produces a sharp image with rather good color and brightness uniformity (at least what's generally expected).
150 inches?
The Viewsonic 8200 is a better match for a screen that big.
Reducing the screen size increases the contrast, which would help out the PQ.
Further Miscrosoft has released Service Pack 1 for Windows 7. It looks like they finally corrected the black level issues. I state that because you are using a htpc.

Lastly this whole thread has been highly questionable on several fronts, most lately the weird, wrong and unpractical ways to achieve CIH, especially with per-movie manual adjustments. Ridiculous!
AVS does have a CIH forum which, no doubt, would recommend superior projector solutions other than using the streamlined Mitsubishi 4000 as a baseline.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=117

All that being said, washing your sheets will give brighter whites too.
HiFiFun is offline  
post #465 of 1524 Old 02-24-2011, 01:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fleaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,577
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post
That's kind of disappointing. More than 5 years later and the only plus is 1080p and a bit of brightness? I was hoping for significant across the board improvements.
Well, for a non-dynamic iris DLP, not much has changed in the contrast dept.

If you look at the contrast specs, the HC3800/4000 isn't that much different than the HC3000.

I think the biggest difference between now and 5 years ago is the sum all the parts, meaning, 720p PJ's + DVD, vs. 1080p PJ's + blu ray. The Blu ray format has better colors, better and smoother blacks, and just an overall big improvement over DLP. Who want's to handicap that with a 720p PJ? I had a 480p PJ but held out for 1080p (bypassing 720p), and glad I did (I made do by just sitting further back).

LCD and LCOS have also taken big strides, DLP hasn't

That being said, LCD still needs DI to noticeably outperform DLP's w/o DI. And DLP still has the advantage with ansi contrast, though there is much debate on how much affect that has on real content.
And sharpness.
fleaman is offline  
post #466 of 1524 Old 02-24-2011, 01:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fleaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,577
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenC56 View Post
Playing around with the vertical position tonight and wondering why more people don't use it when they have placement issues due to the fixed lens offset. I imagine that this is a digital function since the lens is fixed? I can't see that it has any noticeable negative effect on the picture quality. .
Because most people are using a 16:9 screen, and you can't move a 16:9 image around (digitally in the PJ) w/o cropping the image.

But yes, you can move the 2.35 image up/down in the 16.9 screen area, effectively increasing or decreasing the fixed offset, for a 2.35 image (or any image shorter than 16.9)
fleaman is offline  
post #467 of 1524 Old 02-24-2011, 07:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
StevenC56's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleaman View Post

Because most people are using a 16:9 screen, and you can't move a 16:9 image around (digitally in the PJ) w/o cropping the image.

But yes, you can move the 2.35 image up/down in the 16.9 screen area, effectively increasing or decreasing the fixed offset, for a 2.35 image (or any image shorter than 16.9)

Your answer make perfect sense. I'm going with a scope screen, (even though some people may consider this projector wrong and impractical for CIH) and the percentage of people using the HC4000 for that is probably less than 10%.
StevenC56 is offline  
post #468 of 1524 Old 02-24-2011, 05:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiFun View Post

150 inches?

Lastly this whole thread has been highly questionable on several fronts, most lately the weird, wrong and unpractical ways to achieve CIH, especially with per-movie manual adjustments. Ridiculous!

Not sure how a way that achieves CIH could be a "wrong" way to achieve CIH.

Quote:
AVS does have a CIH forum which, no doubt, would recommend superior projector solutions other than using the streamlined Mitsubishi 4000 as a baseline.

Strange but true fact: There are people whose budgets only allow something like the $1200 HC4000, who still want 2.35 screens.
curttard is offline  
post #469 of 1524 Old 02-24-2011, 06:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fleaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,577
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

Strange but true fact: There are people whose budgets only allow something like the $1200 HC4000, who still want 2.35 screens.

Another option to consider is a blu ray player that zooms in/out. I have an Oppo 83SE that digitally zooms in/out (in large steps, not fine steps). I don't have a 2.35 screen, but the next time I fire it up, I'll throw in a 2.35, then 16.9 movie and pretend I have a 2.35 screen and see how the Oppo's zooming handles it....
fleaman is offline  
post #470 of 1524 Old 02-24-2011, 08:09 PM
 
HiFiFun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 2,209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

Not sure how a way that achieves CIH could be a "wrong" way to achieve CIH.
Strange but true fact: There are people whose budgets only allow something like the $1200 HC4000, who still want 2.35 screens.

You can't please everybody.
The technology in the Mitsubishi used to cost 5-10x. Glass lens were commonly found in "high-end" $17k Marantz DLP projectors that Home Theater Magazine loved to review. Now with all the profit squeezed out, they are ignored (no budget for advertising).

If it were up to me I'd create a second variant of the 4000 designed for a 1920*800 DLP chip, light path and lens. The projector would take a standard Blu-ray 24p signal and display 400 lines each side of center. The two small projectors could be vertically stacked and would cost under $2500 with no technical compromises.
So why isn't a 2:35 projector offered?
HiFiFun is offline  
post #471 of 1524 Old 02-24-2011, 08:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleaman View Post

Another option to consider is a blu ray player that zooms in/out. I have an Oppo 83SE that digitally zooms in/out (in large steps, not fine steps). I don't have a 2.35 screen, but the next time I fire it up, I'll throw in a 2.35, then 16.9 movie and pretend I have a 2.35 screen and see how the Oppo's zooming handles it....

How would that be better than using the built in AR feature to scale down 16:9 movies to fit your 2.35 screen? I suppose the scaling could be a bit better quality, but really my complaint isn't so much with the scaling per se, as the loss of light and resolution.

I have the feeling I'll end up biting on this PJ regardless. I'm itching for 1080p, I love my HC3000, and I want to do a 2.35 screen and will do what it takes to make that work.
curttard is offline  
post #472 of 1524 Old 02-24-2011, 08:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fleaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,577
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

How would that be better than using the built in AR feature to scale down 16:9 movies to fit your 2.35 screen? I suppose the scaling could be a bit better quality, but really my complaint isn't so much with the scaling per se, as the loss of light and resolution.

Your gonna lose resolution regardless, on any PJ that you don't use an anamorphic lens on. And even in that case (with a lens), you'll use the full resolution of the PJ only, the 2.35 image on the blu ray disc isn't 1080 lines

But I thought the talk here was that the HC4000's AR feature shifted the image up/down when switching between 2.35 and 16.9 on a 2.35 screen?
fleaman is offline  
post #473 of 1524 Old 02-25-2011, 03:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CT_Wiebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 6,437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
curttard -- If you go back to post #341 in this thread, you will find out how to use the HC4000 built-in (but undocumented) CIH capability: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=341.

There is no need to buy an external anamorphic lens. It does work, regardless of the plethora of commentary to the contrary. It is based on the fact that the full 1920 pixel width is used in both 16:9 (1.78:1) video and 2.35:1 video, and the Anamorphic lens capability that Mistubishi included in their recent PJ models, which includes the necessary scaling needed.

A General Comment --
To use this feature, there is no need to re-zoom or shift the image in any way to use this feature (which isn't need for use with an external Anamorpnic lens either). I have no idea why people have to argue that it can't be done, rather than just trying it and see for themselves, that it does work. It almost seems to be a phobia, that if a feature is not in the manual, then it does not exist.

This is the same feature that is included in the Panasonic AE4000, but they require some more "fancy footwork" to implement it.
-- End of Comment

- Claus {non-Santa model}
CT_Wiebe is offline  
post #474 of 1524 Old 02-25-2011, 03:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Steve Dodds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: San Francisco, now Australia
Posts: 2,883
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiFun View Post

You can't please everybody.
The technology in the Mitsubishi used to cost 5-10x. Glass lens were commonly found in "high-end" $17k Marantz DLP projectors that Home Theater Magazine loved to review. Now with all the profit squeezed out, they are ignored (no budget for advertising).

If it were up to me I'd create a second variant of the 4000 designed for a 1920*800 DLP chip, light path and lens. The projector would take a standard Blu-ray 24p signal and display 400 lines each side of center. The two small projectors could be vertically stacked and would cost under $2500 with no technical compromises.
So why isn't a 2:35 projector offered?

Because there is no demand for a 2.35 projector and no native 2.35 media.

The whole CIH scene is, quite rightly, seen as a lunatic fringe by everyone who is not in it, or selling things to it.

I recall that back in the days when 480p was the cats whiskers, CIH folk were extolling the virtues of anamorphic lenses. That made sense. Then 720p came along and I guess it still made sense when the figures about pixels used and brightness were trotted out.

But now we have 1080p and more brightness (for most of us) than we know what to do with. Yet the lenses haven't kept pace. To buy an anamorphic lens that will not otherwise distort your image via chromic aberrations, pincushioning, softness and various other distortions will cost more than a better projector.

Then you have the other issues of moving the lens for different AR etc.
Steve Dodds is offline  
post #475 of 1524 Old 02-25-2011, 08:07 AM
Newbie
 
Jason C, M's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Can anyone with the Mits HC3800 or 4000 get me a measurement on the diameter of the lens?
Jason C, M is offline  
post #476 of 1524 Old 02-25-2011, 10:34 AM
Advanced Member
 
bishopt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Lake St. Louis
Posts: 678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by CT_Wiebe View Post

curttard -- If you go back to post #341 in this thread, you will find out how to use the HC4000 built-in (but undocumented) CIH capability: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=341.

There is no need to buy an external anamorphic lens. It does work, regardless of the plethora of commentary to the contrary. It is based on the fact that the full 1920 pixel width is used in both 16:9 (1.78:1) video and 2.35:1 video, and the Anamorphic lens capability that Mistubishi included in their recent PJ models, which includes the necessary scaling needed.

A General Comment --
To use this feature, there is no need to re-zoom or shift the image in any way to use this feature (which isn't need for use with an external Anamorpnic lens either). I have no idea why people have to argue that it can't be done, rather than just trying it and see for themselves, that it does work. It almost seems to be a phobia, that if a feature is not in the manual, then it does not exist.

This is the same feature that is included in the Panasonic AE4000, but they require some more "fancy footwork" to implement it.
-- End of Comment

Do you know if that feature works in the 3800? Thinking of getting one of them instead of the 4000 and was wondering if it did...


Another thing that Im hoping to get some feedback, for a 106" screen elite cinegrey, i will have some ambient light during watching TV and was wondering if it would indeed be bright enough, was leaning towards the 8350 but now either the 3800 or the 4000, any thoughts?

War Eagle!!!
bishopt is offline  
post #477 of 1524 Old 02-25-2011, 11:07 AM
 
mjg100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by curttard View Post

How would that be better than using the built in AR feature to scale down 16:9 movies to fit your 2.35 screen? I suppose the scaling could be a bit better quality, but really my complaint isn't so much with the scaling per se, as the loss of light and resolution.

I have the feeling I'll end up biting on this PJ regardless. I'm itching for 1080p, I love my HC3000, and I want to do a 2.35 screen and will do what it takes to make that work.

Well another option is CIW. I use a horizontal masking system on my 16:9 AT screen. The masking panels are linked together so when one is manually lowered into position, the other panel raises into position. I can adjust for any of the wide screen formats. Materials for my masking system would cost some one around $200. Only time I have gray bars is if I am watching 4:3 content which I do not care about.
mjg100 is offline  
post #478 of 1524 Old 02-25-2011, 01:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CT_Wiebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 6,437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
bishopt -- The same menu parameters (page 25 of the manual) exist for the HC3800 as for the HC4000 (and the HC5500, HC6500, HC6800, and HC7000). Therefore, the HC3800 should be able to do the same "undocumented" CIH operation.

PS -- You should use the full name (HC3800), since there are many PJs on the market with the same, or very similar names. I presume you were referring to the Epson 8350? If you are thinking about the Epson 8350, the HC4000 is about the same price. The advantage of the Epson 8350 is its placement options, otherwise it is not as good a PJ, IMHO.

- Claus {non-Santa model}
CT_Wiebe is offline  
post #479 of 1524 Old 02-25-2011, 01:52 PM
Advanced Member
 
bishopt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Lake St. Louis
Posts: 678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by CT_Wiebe View Post

bishopt -- The same menu parameters (page 25 of the manual) exist for the HC3800 as for the HC4000 (and the HC5500, HC6500, HC6800, and HC7000). Therefore, the HC3800 should be able to do the same "undocumented" CIH operation.

PS -- You should use the full name (HC3800), since there are many PJs on the market with the same, or very similar names. I presume you were referring to the Epson 8350? If you are thinking about the Epson 8350, the HC4000 is about the same price. The advantage of the Epson 8350 is its placement options, otherwise it is not as good a PJ, IMHO.

Yes sorry about that, thanks for the information, I am talking about the epson8350..how much brighter is the 8350 in dynamic mode than the mits HC3800/HC4000 in it's brightest mode, for watching movies its a non issue, but this will be in a family room and when watching HDTV their will be ambient light, so I know the epson throws out a lot of light but the whole dust/bulb issue really complicates things...since I'm only doing 106" screen or maybe even 100", I was thinking that the mits would be bright enough on that screen size, I'm looking at the elite cinegrey screen which is rated at 1.0 gain but I have been using .9 in the calculators...what do you think?

War Eagle!!!
bishopt is offline  
post #480 of 1524 Old 02-25-2011, 10:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
curttard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by CT_Wiebe View Post

curttard -- If you go back to post #341 in this thread, you will find out how to use the HC4000 built-in (but undocumented) CIH capability: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=341.

There is no need to buy an external anamorphic lens. It does work, regardless of the plethora of commentary to the contrary. It is based on the fact that the full 1920 pixel width is used in both 16:9 (1.78:1) video and 2.35:1 video, and the Anamorphic lens capability that Mistubishi included in their recent PJ models, which includes the necessary scaling needed.

A General Comment --
To use this feature, there is no need to re-zoom or shift the image in any way to use this feature (which isn't need for use with an external Anamorpnic lens either). I have no idea why people have to argue that it can't be done, rather than just trying it and see for themselves, that it does work. It almost seems to be a phobia, that if a feature is not in the manual, then it does not exist.

This is the same feature that is included in the Panasonic AE4000, but they require some more "fancy footwork" to implement it.
-- End of Comment

Hi CT -- my understanding is that the AE4000 remembers the zoom and shift settings required to zoom in and out for 2.35 and 16:9 content -- thus zooming out and using 1920 x 817 for 2.35 movies, and zooming in and using 1920 x 1080 for 16:9 movies, whereas the HC4000's scaling would have you leave it zoomed out and do 1920 x 817 for 2.35 movies and scale it down to the central 1450 x 817 or so of the panel for 16:9 movies. The drawbacks of this method are that for 16:9 movies 1) you are degrading the image by scaling it; 2) you are losing the brightness you would get if you were using the whole panel; 3) you are not getting 1080p resolution, and 4) you will have lighter "black" bars bordering your image on all three sides. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Personally I will probably be willing to zoom and adjust the height of my projector for each AR switch. Worst case scenario is that every single thing I watch will have a different AR from the one before, and I'd have to spend a minute or two adjusting it between every movie. Tedious, but not the end of the world.
curttard 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