AVS Forum banner

OWNERS Thread for the Panasonic PT-AE7000U 3D Projector

573K views 5K replies 534 participants last post by  tolikboev 
#1 ·
Was told to start an OWNERS thread, so here it is. I've only put a few hours on it so far, but I'll cut and paste my first impressions from another thread:


Have had it on for about an hour now and I'm impressed!


3D is the best I have ever seen! There is absolutely NO CROSSTALK or GHOSTING visible. Even one of the best 3D titles I own (Despicable Me) had some ghosting visible on my other Panny plasmas (especially the title), not here. Of course poorly produced 3D will still look like crap, but the good ones will REALLY look great on this projector.


In my almost completely dark "man cave", I'm using the 'cinema 1' setting, eco lamp mode, and 'light' for the 3D glasses setting. I don't think that most people will find the 'normal' or 'dark' mode to be very pleasing, at least I don't.


Set up was relatively easy, especially if you've already owned a few Panasonics like I have (the 900 and 2000). I HATE the joystick lens shift adjustment, but it should only have to be set once, and as long as you don't change the positioning of the projector, you shouldn't need to touch it again. So far, everything else that's setup related has been a joy.


Those worried about the built in 3D emitter's range will be happy to hear that (at least with my setup: approx. 17' throw to a 120" Wilsonart Designer White screen) the 3D effect is not lost even when sitting 15' back from the screen. I have the built in emitter set to 'strong' and the lens shift cover off.


Of course these are only my very first impressions, so I'll have to really give it a workout later tonight. Will check out a lot more 3D (both Blu Ray and cable) as well as 2D.


BTW, mine was delivered by FED EXP (overnight service). It came from Memphis, TN.
 
See less See more
#1,081 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joesyah /forum/post/21115902


Not sure of that ..possibly..going by the owners that have had several Infocus models, the SP8602 isn't any less sharp than the others, with a cleaner and more dynamic image to boot. The SP8602 is sharper than any LCOS or LCD I've seen..so it is sharp enough. Making sharpness a non issue when looking for a weakness.


Here's a pic of a single alternating one pixel pattern with a cheapo camera. It is more defined in person.


It looks more like this in person. This is planar pic.


Try that on most LCD or LCOS projectors.

There's no question that a single chip DLP, be it the .65" DMD or the .95" DMD, will be sharper than LCD or LCOS projectors. However, all things equal, the .95" DMD's will be sharper than the .65" DMD's. Check out Mark Peterson's blog for a comparison of the two. Basically, for a .65" DMD to approach the MTF and sharpness levels of a .95" DMD, you'll need a much better lens than you would for a .95" DMD. The Planar uses the .95" DMD. Mark's blog has some good comparisons of sharpness between the two chips.
 
#1,082 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlittlejeans /forum/post/21116329


There's no question that a single chip DLP, be it the .65" DMD or the .95" DMD, will be sharper than LCD or LCOS projectors. However, all things equal, the .95" DMD's will be sharper than the .65" DMD's. Check out Mark Peterson's blog for a comparison of the two. Basically, for a .65" DMD to approach the MTF and sharpness levels of a .95" DMD, you'll need a much better lens than you would for a .95" DMD. The Planar uses the .95" DMD. Mark's blog has some good comparisons of sharpness between the two chips.

I've looked over the MTF study. I remember reading some of what you state in the study. It is very interesting stuff! My point is, once you get the a certain sharpness, it isn't enough difference for most to even care.


Comparing LCOS or LCD to DLP makes more sense than comparing a decent DLP to another. Basically it would be tough to look at any modern DLP and think.."Man that picture looks soft!"


There's a point when other factors such as contrast and image noise become more important.
 
#1,083 ·
Need some help.. I have my PT-AE7000 hooked up to a Oppo-93 and my 3D image is not as good as everyone says.. 80% of my 3D view results in ghosting. Can it be the 3D glasses? I am still wating for my Panasonic Generation 3 3D glasses, in the mean while I am using X-Pand universal 3D glasses..


Also, if both the Oppo and the projector have a setting in the 3D menu for screen size, Should I put 100" on both the Oppo and Projector 3D menu, or just the projector?


What should I do when I use the lens memory and fill in my 130" 2.35:1 screen. Do I have to change the screen size to about 200"??


I am sorry if these issues were already discussed, but I searched the thread and could not find anything..


Thanks
 
#1,084 ·
Just a general suggestion to those viewing 3D. Make sure you don't have detail clarity in the advanced menu set too high. It can make the 3D images look ghosted and pretty much terrible. The default "2" or "3" in normal mode is what looks best with 3D. For 2D viewing though I use Cinema1 and set my detail clarity to "4". Also for 3D make sure the noise filters are also both set to "0".


this is what has worked best for me and the 3D is stunning! No perceivable ghosting or flickering at all.
 
#1,085 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilysona /forum/post/21117431


Need some help.. I have my PT-AE7000 hooked up to a Oppo-93 and my 3D image is not as good as everyone says.. 80% of my 3D view results in ghosting. Can it be the 3D glasses? I am still wating for my Panasonic Generation 3 3D glasses, in the mean while I am using X-Pand universal 3D glasses..


Also, if both the Oppo and the projector have a setting in the 3D menu for screen size, Should I put 100" on both the Oppo and Projector 3D menu, or just the projector?


What should I do when I use the lens memory and fill in my 130" 2.35:1 screen. Do I have to change the screen size to about 200"??


I am sorry if these issues were already discussed, but I searched the thread and could not find anything..


Thanks

xpand's do not work, or at least are very problematic, with this projector...it's been discussed quite widely in this thread
 
#1,086 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by inefekt /forum/post/21117543


xpand's do not work, or at least are very problematic, with this projector...it's been discussed quite widely in this thread

Thanks Scoochie & Iinefekt for the quick response, now I am happy to know that my Panasonic is fine and that the problem is the Xpand glasses. I should be getting my Gen 3 glasses on Tuesday.


What about screen size, will that affect the image if both the Oppo and the projector are adjusting for size? What would be your recommendation on this issue.


Thanks
 
#1,087 ·
The images and 3-d images are purrrrrfect!
 
#1,089 ·
plasmaowner:


Thanks for your review of the Panny with a 159" HP screen. I also have a 159" 2.8 HP in a true batcave - currently paired with an Epson 8500UB.


After reading your review, I've decided that the Panny isn't for me. I was hoping that the Mits HC7800 would have lens shift for my HP. Sadly, thats not the case. Note that my first projector was a Panny PT-700.


It looks like the BenQ W7000 would be the best bet for me - for a super sharp, bright (lens shift for the HP), no ghosting 3D projector.


OT:


As a 'plasmaowner' with a 159" HP, and having seen the Panny, the Acer, and the X10 DLP in 3D on this screen, I'd like your opinion on the following:


Two weeks ago, I purchased a Panny TC-P42ST30 3D plasma for my granddaughter's birthday. Before giving it to her, I set it up to check-out the set's IQ. This was my first up close look at a plasma.


The IQ stunned me. I'm thinking about purchasing a Panny TC-P65VT30 instead of a 3D projector. For I can't afford a $30+K 3D DLP projector. My cash toy limit is $7K. Sadly, I'm a 99%er.


In your opinion, how would the 65"VT30 with a 6'-9' view, compare to a $3K-$7K DLP 3D projector with a 159" HP at 11' 4" for 3D???


While I love the huge image of my 159" HP, I'm thinking that I'd love the IQ of a 65" 3D plasma (at 6'-9') even more.


TIA
 
#1,090 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by N8DOGG /forum/post/21113483


I've been playing a lot of online NHL 12 on my 360 with the 7000. Man o Man, it's so much smoother than the 4000 and the 40 was, just fantastic! I still haven't had a chance to try out the 3D in my own home, as I'm still waiting for my panny 3'rd gen glasses to arrive and am getting a bit impatient lol.


Gaming though in general, has been a real treat! Forza 4 with my full fantec wheel setup, looks amazing to say the least! there really is a BIG jump in PQ vs the 4000.

Lets see some pix of forza 4 on the ae7000. That is what I want to do.
 
#1,091 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesN /forum/post/0


Panasonic PT-AE7000U


I'm using the same Chief RPA mount and interface bracket from from my 4000. I added Chief's Lateral Shift Bracket, which allows me to center the offset lens without having to change the mount location.


The device with the reddish eye sitting to the left of the lens in the IndustroLogic IR232 IR-to-RS232 converter. AS you can see it has a very small footprint.


Planet Earth


How The West Was Won


Blade Runner


All screencaps were taken in Cinema1 Picture Mode, Eco Lamp. Screen is 1.4 gain Carada 125" 2.35:1. Throw is approximately 13.5 ft.

Looks fantastic,very bright. Are you using min throw to gets such a strong picture?
 
#1,092 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilysona /forum/post/0


Need some help.. I have my PT-AE7000 hooked up to a Oppo-93 and my 3D image is not as good as everyone says.. 80% of my 3D view results in ghosting. Can it be the 3D glasses? I am still wating for my Panasonic Generation 3 3D glasses, in the mean while I am using X-Pand universal 3D glasses..


Also, if both the Oppo and the projector have a setting in the 3D menu for screen size, Should I put 100" on both the Oppo and Projector 3D menu, or just the projector?


What should I do when I use the lens memory and fill in my 130" 2.35:1 screen. Do I have to change the screen size to about 200"??


I am sorry if these issues were already discussed, but I searched the thread and could not find anything..


Thanks

May need more info eg throw distance, mode?
 
#1,093 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by xamphear /forum/post/21042708


I took these measurements over HDMI while bypassing my receiver, so this lag is the just the lag inside the AE7000. 2D, Cinema 1, Frame Creation OFF.


Frame Response set to Normal: 91ms

Frame Response set to Fast: 81ms


This is actually a fair bit laggier than my AE4000, but still acceptable. Also, the difference between Normal and Fast is pretty pointless. 10ms? That's well below the threshold of what a human can notice. Maybe there's some advanced setting that really turns up the lag and setting it to Fast counters it, but for now it's a mystery why they bother adding in an option with an unnoticeable effect.


For giggles, I turned 2D->3D conversion on and measured the video lag. I was expecting seriously bad results, but here's what I got:


Frame Response set to Normal: 120ms

Frame Response set to Fast: 113ms


Same ~10ms difference between Fast and Normal. Again, rather pointless. Either way, 2D-3D conversion doesn't add as much lag as I suspected it might. There also is no difference in the lag between the various modes of 3D upconversion. They all registered the same.


Now, what about frame creation?


Frame Creation Mode 1: 89ms

Frame Creation Mode 2: 89ms

Frame Creation Mode 3: 89ms


Interestingly it appears frame creation is always on, even when set to off. I don't think this was the case with the AE4000. Probably has something to do with having to run the panels at 240hz or 480hz constantly. So some level of frame creation is always there, even if it's just repeating frames as-is and not doing any sort of tweening or interpolation. The shock is that the modes don't add any lag. With the AE4000, mode 1 added about 75ms of lag and modes 2 and 3 got worse, with mode 3 adding something like 250ms of lag. Whatever image processor chip they're using in the AE7000 is orders of magnitude faster.


One thing to remember about this is that there's additional lag being added by the round-trip wireless signal to the controller that's doing the measurement. However, because that stays the same during all the tests, the numbers are a good reference against each other. The actual raw latency numbers are probably 15ms to 20ms lower than these here, though, because of this effect.


I hope these numbers will be of use to someone.

xamphear,


You're estimating 15-20ms latency added on by the measurement process, this could bring an 81ms lag down to an actual 61ms. That's the difference between 2 frames of latency and 2.6 frames. Whether discretely noticable or not in part, I have to think when you look at it in context it can have a meaningful impact. This makes me curious enough to know what the actual latency is. Can you share some details about your measurement technique? Why is wireless a factor?


In a later post you observe that Game mode reduces lag by 20ms. Does that mean that with Fast Frame mode and Frame Creation off, you would see a measurement of 61ms? Considering measurement error, that could mean actual latency is well below 2 frames.


Thanks,

John
 
#1,094 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elkhunter /forum/post/21117893


plasmaowner:


Thanks for your review of the Panny with a 159" HP screen. I also have a 159" 2.8 HP in a true batcave - currently paired with an Epson 8500UB.

Unless the Benq uses similar 3D technology (it might), the Mits is likely to be brighter in 3D.


I'm not sure what the basis is, but you do know that you lose much much fewer lumens with the Mits glasses on the Mits than you do with other projectors.


The Mits starts out even brighter than the Epson 5010 (which is a 2000 max lumen PJ at 1500 dynamic mode). So if you can even get 1.5 gain out of the HP with the Mits, you will already be brighter than every other projector there is for 3D even at center point, except for a couple of exceptions.


The Mits is 2-2.5 times brighter in 3D mode because of a different method they use in the way the glasses work, so that is much brighter than MOST other projectors tested so far. An additional 100% gain won't even make up that full difference.
 
#1,095 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilysona /forum/post/21117431


Need some help.. I have my PT-AE7000 hooked up to a Oppo-93 and my 3D image is not as good as everyone says.. 80% of my 3D view results in ghosting. Can it be the 3D glasses? I am still wating for my Panasonic Generation 3 3D glasses, in the mean while I am using X-Pand universal 3D glasses..


Also, if both the Oppo and the projector have a setting in the 3D menu for screen size, Should I put 100" on both the Oppo and Projector 3D menu, or just the projector?


What should I do when I use the lens memory and fill in my 130" 2.35:1 screen. Do I have to change the screen size to about 200"??


I am sorry if these issues were already discussed, but I searched the thread and could not find anything..


Thanks

it's your glasses. no ifs ands or buts...
 
#1,097 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elkhunter /forum/post/21117893


plasmaowner:


Thanks for your review of the Panny with a 159" HP screen. I also have a 159" 2.8 HP in a true batcave - currently paired with an Epson 8500UB.


After reading your review, I've decided that the Panny isn't for me. I was hoping that the Mits HC7800 would have lens shift for my HP. Sadly, thats not the case. Note that my first projector was a Panny PT-700.


It looks like the BenQ W7000 would be the best bet for me - for a super sharp, bright (lens shift for the HP), no ghosting 3D projector.


OT:


As a 'plasmaowner' with a 159" HP, and having seen the Panny, the Acer, and the X10 DLP in 3D on this screen, I'd like your opinion on the following:


Two weeks ago, I purchased a Panny TC-P42ST30 3D plasma for my granddaughter's birthday. Before giving it to her, I set it up to check-out the set's IQ. This was my first up close look at a plasma.


The IQ stunned me. I'm thinking about purchasing a Panny TC-P65VT30 instead of a 3D projector. For I can't afford a $30+K 3D DLP projector. My cash toy limit is $7K. Sadly, I'm a 99%er.


In your opinion, how would the 65"VT30 with a 6'-9' view, compare to a $3K-$7K DLP 3D projector with a 159" HP at 11' 4" for 3D???


While I love the huge image of my 159" HP, I'm thinking that I'd love the IQ of a 65" 3D plasma (at 6'-9') even more.


TIA

Based on my questions to plasmaowner and his answers I'm not sure he properly adjusted his projector so his picture may have suffered. I suggested he reset the menu positions all to zero and adjust optically but he never replied.


I'm not suggesting you wouldn't be more happy with a plasma, but I think forum readers are getting wrong impressions about the projector if he in fact adjusted it incorrectly.
 
#1,098 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy /forum/post/21118394


The Mits is 2-2.5 times brighter in 3D mode because of a different method they use in the way the glasses work, so that is much brighter than MOST other projectors tested so far. An additional 100% gain won't even make up that full difference.

Do you have a link to a trustworthy article that explains how the Mits glasses are 2-2.5 times brighter in 3D? Perhaps something directly from Mits? I'd be most interested in reading how they work.
 
#1,100 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlittlejeans /forum/post/21119111


Here you go:

http://translate.google.com/translat...ew.htm&act=url


For 3D, the Mits looks like the projector to beat. The only negatives it has against the Panny are lens memory and placement. It should beat it on most everything else, ridiculous contrast claims aside.

How about you wait until a test unit is reviewed. I dont really care about the tech babble, the final picture result is what matters to me.


Also, why are you guys posting this crap in the Panasonic AE7000 owners thread? Start a new thread and talk away.
 
#1,103 ·
Just wanted to update everyone. I connected the Panny back up to give it one last try. I reset everything and started from scratch. I had it set up in no time (the lens shift gave me no trouble for some reason). The ONLY mistake I made was not setting the projector up for RGB. It was set to auto and that small change made a HUGE difference in overall picture quality. In fact, that simple adjustment alone made it a MUCH closer match against my X10. Colors are deeper, richer, and have more pop. Black level, sharpness, depth, shadow detail, and overall picture detail dramatically improved. Now this is what I was expecting the first time! Checked out all the previous titles mentioned in my earlier review and man what a difference! With all things considered, I would be happy extremely happy with the Panny as an upgrade over my X10 now. Disclaimer to current DLP owners! Even with these improvements, the X10 is still MUCH sharper and has more detail and pop. Other then that, the Panny wipes the floor in every other aspect! So if you're coming from an N82, Benq 6000, Mits 4000, or SP8602, you may not see the dramatic improvements I'm seeing.


The same improvements I saw in 2D faithfully translated over to 3D. Its beautiful in 3D and just annihilates the Acer in this regard! Its just TOO dark dammit! After playing with the modes some more I actually like cinema 1 the best but again its just too dark even on my HP screen. With the Acer, I'm using the nvidia 3d glasses and its MUCH brighter then the Panny in all modes except for dynamic. Also the colors are MUCH more natural on the Acer then the Panny. Because of it being so much brighter and having much better colors I just could never be satisfied with the 3D on the Panny.


Crosstalk:

I'm now seeing crosstalk that I didn't see before. I see it in all the titles that I mentioned before, and I'm using cinama 1, light, FI set to 1, lamp on normal. Please don't flame me, I'm not sure why it wasn't there the first time but is now. It's not distracting (most of the time) but it doesn't affect the overall picture quality. I see it most in the background images when the lens is focused on something close. I'm see it on images that come out of the screen also. Its very minimal but when I do see, sorry to say, it is distracting. I connected the panny and acer back and forth to make comparisons and I can HONESTLY say that I prefer the Acer due to the fact that there is simply NO GHOSTING PERIOD and its SO MUCH BRIGHTER! Also, I forgot to mention this before but I feel a little discomfort when watching anything on the Panny that I just don't feel on the Acer. Even tho I have a 159" screen, setting the Panny to 60" feels best to my eyes. But even then there is minimum discomfort. Again I feel no discomfort with the Acer.


All said and done I'm afraid the Panny is still going back. As much as I like the 2D it produces I just can't live with a dark 3d image with minor ghosting. Again please be nice as I'm just giving my honest opinion after this second and final observation in comparing of the Panny, X10 and Acer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by inefekt /forum/post/21114403


Thanks for the informative review, nice work. You are obviously someone who does not see rainbows when viewing DLP projectors. Unfortunately for others, they're just too distracting.

The X10 was reviewed back in 2008 as having close to the best sharpness levels and colour accuracy at the time so obviously it still stacks up very well!

I don't see any rainbows on my X10 but do notice them time to time on the Acer in 2D only.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wgf_bean /forum/post/21115504


That's what I thought.


I would suggest you go back to the position menu and reset them all to 0. When you touch these settings the projector doesn't use the optics to change the position. Instead it changes what to display on each pixel so you are no longer projecting the picture 1:1 on the LCD matrix. This results in a less than optimal picture. The display will not be as sharp. This is not unique to LCD.


Use the lens shift, focus and zoom to adjust picture position. If the picture is not projecting level then physically move the projector until it is level. If you need keystone correction don't use the projectors keystone menu to fix it. This generally means your projector isn't level and projecting perpendicular to the screen. For example if your projector is mounted way to the left or right side, don't aim the projector at the center of the screen. Doing so will result in keystone issues. Instead use the lens shift to correct. If the lens shift isn't enough then you need to move the center line of the projector closer to the center line of the screen. The imaginary plane at the face of the lens should be parallel to your screen.


Another issue you may be seeing is convergence. All projectors with 3 panels tend to have some convergence issues. Getting the pixels from 3 different panels to line up exactly with each other is nearly impossible. If you have a single panel system like a DLP with a color wheel or a DLP with LED lamp, then the convergence is always perfect since all 3 colors hit the screen from the same panel. Convergence issues are particularly noticeable when you connect the projector to a PC and observe text with small fonts.


So reset the position settings to 0, adjust using the lens shift, focus, zoom, and physical position of the projector if necessary then let us know if it improved sharpness any.

Please see my post above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joesyah /forum/post/21115817


Thanks for the honest review! Now you have me worried even more about my decision to try a LCOS over my Infocus SP8602. I also use an HTPC and like it SHARP and well defined.You've confirmed what has been lounged in the back of my mind since demoing the newer LCOS projectors. I may have made a Boo Boo! lol


I've considered suggesting/installing the AE7000 in a friend's new entertainment room. Being they're not familiar with the other techs, they'll probably love it!

I would think your SP8602 is a much better projector then my X10 so you make not see the improvements I'm seeing now after adjusting the Panny to RGB.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elkhunter /forum/post/21117893


plasmaowner:


Thanks for your review of the Panny with a 159" HP screen. I also have a 159" 2.8 HP in a true batcave - currently paired with an Epson 8500UB.


After reading your review, I've decided that the Panny isn't for me. I was hoping that the Mits HC7800 would have lens shift for my HP. Sadly, thats not the case. Note that my first projector was a Panny PT-700.


It looks like the BenQ W7000 would be the best bet for me - for a super sharp, bright (lens shift for the HP), no ghosting 3D projector.


OT:


As a 'plasmaowner' with a 159" HP, and having seen the Panny, the Acer, and the X10 DLP in 3D on this screen, I'd like your opinion on the following:


Two weeks ago, I purchased a Panny TC-P42ST30 3D plasma for my granddaughter's birthday. Before giving it to her, I set it up to check-out the set's IQ. This was my first up close look at a plasma.


The IQ stunned me. I'm thinking about purchasing a Panny TC-P65VT30 instead of a 3D projector. For I can't afford a $30+K 3D DLP projector. My cash toy limit is $7K. Sadly, I'm a 99%er.


In your opinion, how would the 65"VT30 with a 6'-9' view, compare to a $3K-$7K DLP 3D projector with a 159" HP at 11' 4" for 3D???


While I love the huge image of my 159" HP, I'm thinking that I'd love the IQ of a 65" 3D plasma (at 6'-9') even more.


TIA

I'm very exciting about the mits7800 and benq8000. My good friend as a 65"VT30 and while the PQ is indeed phenomenal, there just is no comparing 3D on a 159" HP screen to a 65"!
 
#1,104 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilysona /forum/post/21117431


Also, if both the Oppo and the projector have a setting in the 3D menu for screen size, Should I put 100" on both the Oppo and Projector 3D menu, or just the projector?


What should I do when I use the lens memory and fill in my 130" 2.35:1 screen. Do I have to change the screen size to about 200"??


I am sorry if these issues were already discussed, but I searched the thread and could not find anything..


Thanks

I would like to echo these questions as I have a similar setup. Anyone know what the optimal setup would be for screen size for 3D with the Oppo and projector? Should it be changed depending on aspect ratio of content? Currently I have a 2.35:1 screen that is 96" diag. I have the Oppo set to smallest possible 46" and projector set to 100". Seems to be working well, but I admittedly haven't played with it a whole lot.
 
#1,105 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by natedogg661 /forum/post/21119557


I would like to echo these questions as I have a similar setup. Anyone know what the optimal setup would be for screen size for 3D with the Oppo and projector? Should it be changed depending on aspect ratio of content? Currently I have a 2.35:1 screen that is 96" diag. I have the Oppo set to smallest possible 46" and projector set to 100". Seems to be working well, but I admittedly haven't played with it a whole lot.

I have the OPPO 93 and I wasn't even aware that there were screen-size settings related to 3-D that could be tweaked.
I will have to experiment with those.


I did experiment with the screen-size settings in the 7000's 3-D menu and I could honestly not see any difference. I expected the different settings to alter the horizontal parallax, but I'm just not seeing that. If it is happening, it's very subtle...certainly much more subtle than changing parallax via the 3D VIEWING MONITOR function.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top