Optoma H72 - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 2915 Old 01-15-2006, 02:06 PM
Senior Member
 
MikeSer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Clark View Post

I am holding the brochure in my hand. Unless they are going to make changes before shipping, there is no lens shift on the Optoma HD72...

I just looked at PDF of the H31 brochure and sure enough the digital image shift is mentioned. If the H72 doesn't have it, this is a really BAD decision; especially with the extra 48 rows of pixels. Or maybe the feature is just missing from the brochure?
MikeSer is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 2915 Old 01-15-2006, 02:11 PM
Advanced Member
 
Dragon Reborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 649
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Clark View Post

I am holding the brochure in my hand. Unless they are going to make changes before shipping, there is no lens shift on the Optoma HD72...

Can you verify the offset amount for me?

or for that matter, does anybody know of an online brochure yet?


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

 


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

Dragon Reborn is offline  
post #183 of 2915 Old 01-15-2006, 02:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fleaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,586
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeSer View Post

I just looked at PDF of the H31 brochure and sure enough the digital image shift is mentioned. If the H72 doesn't have it, this is a really BAD decision; especially with the extra 48 rows of pixels. Or maybe the feature is just missing from the brochure?

The H31 doesn't have real full image shift, it can only shift a image Within the 16:9 box.

Useful for shifting a 2:35 movie to the top or bottom of the 16:9 box. But yes, it is a form of digital image shift. But you can not at all shift the full 16:9 box around.

But, yeah, the H31 image shift feature (within the 16:9 frame) is really useful (but not for mounting flexibilities), and I would hope the H72 would have at least that feature.

Fleaman
fleaman is offline  
post #184 of 2915 Old 01-15-2006, 04:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Robert Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The OC
Posts: 4,203
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon Reborn View Post

Can you verify the offset amount for me?

or for that matter, does anybody know of an online brochure yet?


Here are scans of the front and back.

If I'm violating any copyright, I will pull these...

Front
[IMG][/IMG]

Back

Robert Clark
Robert Clark is offline  
post #185 of 2915 Old 01-15-2006, 06:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fleaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,586
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Ok, how do you guys think the H72 compares to the H78DC3?

Yeah, I know this is a specs game now (and sorry if I maybe missed the H78DC3 already mentioned in this thread, but didn't see it).

It looks like the H72 is suppose to street for quite a bit less than the H78DC3, at least a $1,000 less or more?

The H78DC3 has the Dark Chip3 as opposed to the DC2 for the H72....noticeable contrast improvement on the H78DC3?

How about the 8-segment wheel of the H78DC3...less dithering in the shadows over the H72?

Faster DC3 chip should give smoother blacks/shadows, no?

Opinions?

Fleaman
fleaman is offline  
post #186 of 2915 Old 01-16-2006, 08:17 AM
Senior Member
 
MikeSer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleaman View Post

The H31 doesn't have real full image shift, it can only shift a image Within the 16:9 box.

I know, I know... That's how I use it for widescreen movies to fight the dreadful image shift when zooming in.
OTOH, your explanation may help others not familiar with this feature.
MikeSer is offline  
post #187 of 2915 Old 01-16-2006, 08:41 AM
Senior Member
 
MikeSer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleaman View Post

It looks like the H72 is suppose to street for quite a bit less than the H78DC3, at least a $1,000 less or more?

TI is responding to market demand for cheaper DMDs. They accomplished that but making them smaller, which should increase the production yield. Also, smaller chips require smaller optics (just like nearly all digital cameras), which reduces the projector's cost.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fleaman View Post

The H78DC3 has the Dark Chip3 as opposed to the DC2 for the H72....noticeable contrast improvement on the H78DC3?

Any contrast improvement is welcome, but the DMD's contrast is NOT great. The eyesight responds logarithmically so at least 100% improvement is needed not 20-40%. The projector manufacturers should use an iris control. I predict, this will be the next desired feature on premium projectors to compete with the ever improving LCD projectors.
The new Hitachi PJ-TX200 has slit shutters (in front of the lamp) PLUS an iris inside of the lens (see the appropriate link on the "www.cine4home.de" web site).
The Germans (see "Update: Test Sony VPL-VW100 (Ruby)" page on their web site) calibrated Sony's Ruby projector to a near perfection and achieved a contrast ratio of 14,000:1. Unfortunately, the price is still way to high...

Would it be better to wait another year and buy a 1080p projector (H82?) with the new "cheap" 0.65" DMD?

Mike
MikeSer is offline  
post #188 of 2915 Old 01-16-2006, 10:59 AM
Senior Member
 
mooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Austin TX, Pagosa Springs,CO
Posts: 254
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Mike,

a few observations... not to criticize:

The Ruby costs five times the H72 or Mits 3000.
It has a $1000 replacement lamp that puts out 400 watts (think heater) and weighs a mere 42lbs.

Even with the iris the LCD units ie Z4 and 900 do not have the deep blacks of the above mentioned DLP units when actually watching a movie. Closer to DLP yes. Same or better No.

I agree that a variable iris properly executed should help any projector.

Bob
mooney is offline  
post #189 of 2915 Old 01-16-2006, 04:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sethk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,285
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This has been discussed many times before, but for technical reasons (transmissive vs. reflective designs), lens shift is more expensive to implement on DLPs. At this point in time, the cost for panels + light path is cheaper for LCDs which is why they are able to add the lens shift and variable iris for the same cost or less than DLPs.
Doesn't change the fact that LCDs are starting with a 1000:1 contrast engine while DLPs are now starting with a 3000:1 engine without tweaks.
What you do need to look at is whether your room will even allow a proper setup with the DLPs in this price range, if it doesn't then that might just make the decision for you as to which technology you should go with.
sethk is offline  
post #190 of 2915 Old 01-17-2006, 09:08 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 bubbawilly View Post

It is reported to have Optoma's infamous 32% offset, which means that it must be mounted 32% of the screen height above or below the screen. A 106" diagonal screen is 52" tall, so the center of the lens will need to be 16.64" above the viewing surface for a ceiling mount. If you could mount the PJ tight to the ceiling, that would put the lens at approximately 5". Add the 16.64 to get 21.64" below the ceiling, and that's where you would mount your screen. You have 86" to work with. 86"-22"(21.64)=64". Now your screen is 52" high (excluding the border), so the bottom of your screen would be 64"-52" or 12" off the floor. Thats much too low.

In YOUR opinion that is much too low. My current configuration has the screen about 18" from the floor and it is just fine. It all depends on the setup in your room. Chances are with a 7'2" ceiling, he is not going to have a second row and risers, so if everything is a front row seat, there is not problem having the screen 12" off the floor.
Uther is offline  
post #191 of 2915 Old 01-17-2006, 12:18 PM
Member
 
Bigsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 179
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uther View Post

In YOUR opinion that is much too low. My current configuration has the screen about 18" from the floor and it is just fine. It all depends on the setup in your room. Chances are with a 7'2" ceiling, he is not going to have a second row and risers, so if everything is a front row seat, there is not problem having the screen 12" off the floor.


It's a problem if you want to follow the generally accepted guideline that a screen should be positioned so that eyelevel for a seated viewer is 1/3 of the screen height from the bottom of the screen. A 52" high screen that starts 12" from the floor is considerably lower than the guideline, unless the seating is beanbags. Maybe not a huge problem, but not ideal either.

I have yet to see anybody explain the reasoning behind Optoma's huge offsets on PJ's that do not have vertical lens shift. If you are table mounting you can make almost any offset work by adjusting table height. If you have a high ceiling you can nearly always drop the PJ lower to accomodate a smallish offset. But low ceilings can't be made any higher, so large offsets do restrict installation options. What installation situations cannot be accomodated by a lesser offset, say 15% like Infocus tends to use?
Bigsmith is offline  
post #192 of 2915 Old 01-17-2006, 12:54 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
nigel_ht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigsmith View Post

I have yet to see anybody explain the reasoning behind Optoma's huge offsets. If you are table mounting you can make almost any offset work by adjusting the table height.

Unless the table is the coffee table in front of you. That said, I prefer Infocus' offset although perhaps Optoma's will work better for me if I use a flush mount. Perhaps they'll go with the H56 offset...

Nigel
nigel_ht is offline  
post #193 of 2915 Old 01-17-2006, 01:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
smithfarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Palm Beach, Fl
Posts: 2,246
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigsmith View Post

It's a problem if you want to follow the generally accepted guideline that a screen should be positioned so that eyelevel for a seated viewer is 1/3 of the screen height from the bottom of the screen.

I think this "generally accepted rule" is something that is greatly exaggerated to large degree upon how it affects your viewing pleasure and fails to take into account the use of reclining seats.

The bottom of my 120" diagonal screen is 31" from the floor. The distance of my eyes to the floor is 39" in the upright position and when fully reclined is 30". We generally sit in the chairs at 3/4's of the fully reclined position and it has never ever been a problem for me or my family or friends. Nobody has ever complained about it being uncomfortable in the least.
smithfarmer is offline  
post #194 of 2915 Old 01-17-2006, 01:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fleaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,586
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Well....

My H31 is only about 6'5" above my floor.

The bottom of my screen starts 3 feet from the floor.

The H31 has a mild offset.

I don't know any pro basketball players and I placed a couch under the PJ so no one hits it, but I would prefer a PJ with larger offsets. I had an H30 before which had a higher offset (I think it was in the 30% range) and that PJ was about 5" from my ceiling, about 8' from the floor.

I much preferred that.

And, with that more extreme offset, one could walk between the PJ and Screen w/o really hitting the PJ beam....that was really cool.

Now everyone has to crouch down when passing through the path.

I can't use one of those many HT PJ's that graduated to zero offsets....people would hit the PJ when standing up in my place.

I prefer the old school way, longer throws (PJ mounted behind you and out of the way), and if not longer throws, at least more of an offset so it doesn't hang down in the middle of the room like a low flying UFO.

But the trends are opposite of my wishes, as usual.

.....where's that 8-track tape I just bought from the goodwill....

Fleaman
fleaman is offline  
post #195 of 2915 Old 01-17-2006, 02:37 PM
Member
 
Bigsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 179
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Different strokes I guess. I get the point about a small offset PJ hanging too low from the ceiling -- but at least you have the option to ceiling mount it at all.

Eventually the DLP vendors will figure out how to provide vertical lens shift at a reasonable price and this will all be moot.
Bigsmith is offline  
post #196 of 2915 Old 01-17-2006, 03:55 PM
Senior Member
 
sunol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Here is an offset question for someone who can think more clearly than me.

My projector currently sits directly behind the seats about 4.5 feet above the ground (projects right over my head when seated).
The wacky part is that I project onto a wall 19' away slanted towards the viewer like this \\

So, will a large offset like the Optoma lessen the keystoning or magnify it? Seems like it would lessen it...? My current 4805 has 'bearable' keystoning right now.

Mike
sunol is offline  
post #197 of 2915 Old 01-17-2006, 04:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
smithfarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Palm Beach, Fl
Posts: 2,246
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 45
You should tilt the front end of the 4805 up so it matches the same degree of tilt as your wall.
smithfarmer is offline  
post #198 of 2915 Old 01-18-2006, 05:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kevin_Wadsworth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 1,189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I thought a 32% offset meant that the center of the PJ lens was 32% of the screen height above the center of the projected image.

If I'm reading correctly here, you guys are saying that the center of the lens will be 32% above the top (instead of the center) of the projected image. Is this correct?
Kevin_Wadsworth is offline  
post #199 of 2915 Old 01-18-2006, 06:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bubbawilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Yes, the 32% offset means that the center of the lens needs to be 32% of the screen height above the top of the screen. With DLP's the reference point is the top of the image.

You may be thinking of the LCD products with lens shift where the reference point, or neutral position is the center of the screen.
bubbawilly is offline  
post #200 of 2915 Old 01-18-2006, 06:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bubbawilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by braindew View Post

I am getting one from Projector People. Yes, at the street price of press releases

They will be drop shipping directly from Optoma to me by end of January...I am giddy with excitement. The three year warranty, "Zero Dead Pixel" policy, and 5000:1 non-AI contrast make this a FP king of the HD panel world. Time to start saving for Xbox 360, PS3, HD-DVD, Blu-Ray...I take that back, I would need a home equity loan for Blu-Ray

Do us a favor and post a scan of the mounting pattern when you get the projector (assuming it is printed in the manual).
bubbawilly is offline  
post #201 of 2915 Old 01-18-2006, 07:43 AM
Member
 
cheakster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbawilly View Post

You've got the distance, since the H72 has a moderately long throw, but this projector won't be a good match for lower ceilings.

It is reported to have Optoma's infamous 32% offset, which means that it must be mounted 32% of the screen height above or below the screen. A 106" diagonal screen is 52" tall, so the center of the lens will need to be 16.64" above the viewing surface for a ceiling mount. If you could mount the PJ tight to the ceiling, that would put the lens at approximately 5". Add the 16.64 to get 21.64" below the ceiling, and that's where you would mount your screen. You have 86" to work with. 86"-22"(21.64)=64". Now your screen is 52" high (excluding the border), so the bottom of your screen would be 64"-52" or 12" off the floor. Thats much too low.

I'm struggling with this offset configuratrion, so I cheated and plugged my measurements into your "formula". Thanks for the help I've been awaiting the HD72 but have fitment concerns. I have a 14'x20' dedicated theater with 8'6" ceilings. There is seating at 11' and raised seating at 17'. My fixed 4:3 screen is 2'6" from the floor with the 16:9 image starting at ~ 37.5" from the floor. If I followed your calculations correctly, the image would fall...~37.6" from the floor The problem is that my current projector is ceiling mounted at 18' with a 12"extension to avoid a 12" beam across the room at 10' back and the shorter throw of the HD72 probably won't let me mount it back far enough to avoid the beam. Maybe the slight tilting will work, but the tolerances are close!
I had new hopes with the LG AN110 but don't understand the lack of a zoom similar to AE900/Z4 to GET TO the backwall I prefer DLP but may have to get the Panny. .....just venting

HT SYNDROME:
" I used to WANT what I NEED....Now I NEED what I WANT"

Dan
cheakster is offline  
post #202 of 2915 Old 01-18-2006, 08:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bubbawilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Sorry! I have a similar problem with a soffit starting at about the 10' point in my room. Mounting below the soffit isn't an option, because in MY opinion (are you happy Uther ), having the screen 12" off the floor isn't an acceptable solution. And without significantly downsizing my screen, mounting in front of the soffit isn't an option either.

In many situations like mine and yours, the relatively restrictive 1.2x zoom range becomes more restrictive than the offset. Too bad you can't put the Panasonic's lens on the HD72.

Depending on what you have been using, the 900 may be a surprise. It is a match for the HD2 DLP's, but it is a notch under the better HD2+ units.
bubbawilly is offline  
post #203 of 2915 Old 01-18-2006, 08:51 AM
Member
 
cheakster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbawilly View Post

Sorry! I have a similar problem with a soffit starting at about the 10' point in my room. Mounting below the soffit isn't an option, because in MY opinion (are you happy Uther ), having the screen 12" off the floor isn't an acceptable solution. And without significantly downsizing my screen, mounting in front of the soffit isn't an option either.

In many situations like mine and yours, the relatively restrictive 1.2x zoom range becomes more restrictive than the offset. Too bad you can't put the Panasonic's lens on the HD72.

Depending on what you have been using, the 900 may be a surprise. It is a match for the HD2 DLP's, but it is a notch under the better HD2+ units.

Bubbawilly,
You're right! It seems that it's impossible to find the PJ with EVERYTHING you want/need! It forces you to prioritize your 'features list"..which isn't a bad thing. I, too, looked at mounting in front of the beam (AN110 would be perfect!), but I also won't accept a smaller picture. All of my components are located in the back wall, so a long throw projector will keep my cables short. These two DLP's have so much that I want, but it's foolish to dwell on them if they don't fit my environment. The bottom line is today's choices are incredible! Anything I choose will upgrade my current older Infocus LP340. What a "problem" to have,huh?
Good Luck!

HT SYNDROME:
" I used to WANT what I NEED....Now I NEED what I WANT"

Dan
cheakster is offline  
post #204 of 2915 Old 01-18-2006, 08:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fleaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,586
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheakster View Post

I'm struggling with this offset configuratrion, so I cheated and plugged my measurements into your "formula". Thanks for the help I've been awaiting the HD72 but have fitment concerns. I have a 14'x20' dedicated theater with 8'6" ceilings. There is seating at 11' and raised seating at 17'. My fixed 4:3 screen is 2'6" from the floor with the 16:9 image starting at ~ 37.5" from the floor. If I followed your calculations correctly, the image would fall...~37.6" from the floor ...


So your current 16:9 image is 37.5" off the floor....

...and you calculated that the H72 image (basically 16:9) would be the same, 37.6".

And you don't like this?

Since this is a 16:9 (essentially) projector, your 4:3 material is not going to be taller than your 16:9 material, it's going to be the same height.

Sounds like you have a 4:3 projector now, since your 16:9 image is shorter.

If you're calculations are correct, it looks like the H72 offset is perfect for you! Unless you never liked your current 16:9 image location.

Fleaman
fleaman is offline  
post #205 of 2915 Old 01-18-2006, 09:12 AM
Member
 
cheakster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleaman View Post

So your current 16:9 image is 37.5" off the floor....

...and you calculated that the H72 image (basically 16:9) would be the same, 37.6".

And you don't like this?

Since this is a 16:9 (essentially) projector, your 4:3 material is not going to be taller than your 16:9 material, it's going to be the same height.

Sounds like you have a 4:3 projector now, since your 16:9 image is shorter.

If you're calculations are correct, it looks like the H72 offset is perfect for you! Unless you never liked your current 16:9 image location.

Fleaman

Fleaman,
That location IS perfect! With the lack of 4:3 native HT projectors, I was hoping to zoom out to fill the 4:3 screen on the few occasions we view 4:3. And, I thought the new chip (1280x 768) might handle 4:3 material a little better (not sure of this).
The HD72 WILL be perfect IF it will miss the beam! Those calculations are based on the PJ being FLUSH MOUNTED to the ceiling. With the shorter throw (than my LP340), the image might hit the beam since it would be closer to it. That doesn't rule out attaching it to the extended ceiling mount with a slight tilt as some are suggesting. Thanks for the input!!!

HT SYNDROME:
" I used to WANT what I NEED....Now I NEED what I WANT"

Dan
cheakster is offline  
post #206 of 2915 Old 01-18-2006, 03:54 PM
Member
 
Bigsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 179
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Sounds like that beam has to go.....you're not going to let trivial details like the structural integrity of your house get in the way of the perfect HT setup, are you??
Bigsmith is offline  
post #207 of 2915 Old 01-19-2006, 04:08 PM
Senior Member
 
dum_71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: CT
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Called P.P. today and the rep stated they would be receiving their stock the first week of Feb.

"So, eleven hundred men went into the water. 316 men come out, the sharks took the rest, June the 29th, 1945. Anyway, we delivered the bomb." Quint.
dum_71 is offline  
post #208 of 2915 Old 01-20-2006, 04:23 AM
Member
 
juhis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I just noticed this post, interesting 2k for a hd2.. makes you wonder when we see the first Three-Chipper under 5k?
juhis is offline  
post #209 of 2915 Old 01-20-2006, 05:40 AM
Member
 
braindew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
As reported, the main reason for lower cost in this HD2 TI chip is the fact that it multipurposes as a computer resolution as well (1024x768). Therefore, they can get increased volume. I would not be opposed to a 1280x768 three chipper...but I say bring on a 1920X1440 one chipper. That would cover 1080i and likely the next big computer resolution step.

Bring on 4K resolution, let's call it Super Duper Highest Definition (SDHD) the first media will be Violet Ray Disc (VRD). I am starting a VRD Forum in my garage(Toshiba and Sony need not apply)
braindew is offline  
post #210 of 2915 Old 01-20-2006, 09:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fleaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,586
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by braindew View Post

As reported, the main reason for lower cost in this HD2 TI chip is the fact that it multipurposes as a computer resolution as well (1024x768). Therefore, they can get increased volume. .

And maybe also because its a Darkchip2, not a DC3.

Fleaman
fleaman 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