or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › Sim2 Lumis Owners Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sim2 Lumis Owners Thread - Page 5

post #121 of 1953
My bad, it was on the low lamp mode. Sorry for the cornfusion. On/Off used high and low lamp modes.
post #122 of 1953
Nice numbers, but if I understand correctly, the CR is dynamic and when there's not enough black on screen, the CR will be at, or close to, the native CR.
post #123 of 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Erskine View Post

My bad, it was on the low lamp mode. Sorry for the cornfusion.

Ive just had to delete my follow on post to your, now deleted, one.

Are you saying Ash has 1900 lumen @ low lamp, iris open?

Alan had 1739 in that condition, I had 1580.

Do you know his lumen output at max lamp...I believe that is what Bland was referring to, when asking me to extrapolate. I believe he would have to be close to 2500. Alan was 2242 and I was 2050 at max.
post #124 of 1953
Ash/Dennis - did you get any numbers with the iris closed?
post #125 of 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by cal87 View Post

Ash/Dennis - did you get any numbers with the iris closed?

The Iris has roughly 10% authority, very limited. Its more of a trim that a fully fledged control.

Its the same as the 1080. Basically, subtract 10% from the open figure and you will be close enough.
post #126 of 1953
Cal,
I like the iris open. . . . . for some reason colors look better. the SIM manual says the same. with CR above 19000, I do not see much help in CR with Iris closed.
CM
Please note that I am at the cusp of T3 lens due to my throw distance and screen size, I am at the brightest point, this may be the reason for the Lumens being so high..
Ash
post #127 of 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldmachine View Post

Ive just had to delete my follow on post to your, now deleted, one.

Are you saying Ash has 1900 lumen @ low lamp, iris open?

Alan had 1739 in that condition, I had 1580.

Do you know his lumen output at max lamp...I believe that is what Bland was referring to, when asking me to extrapolate. I believe he would have to be close to 2500. Alan was 2242 and I was 2050 at max.

So, if HIGH LAMP yields 2500 lumens, where am I at in ft Lamberts of brightness? At 14' wide, that is (84 sq ft of viewing area)..

Dennis mentioned ~23 ft Lamberts... Am I correctly interpretting this for my 14' wide scope with the Lumis on calibrated on HIGH LAMP??

Thanks, guys!!!
post #128 of 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

So, if HIGH LAMP yields 2500 lumens, where am I at in ft Lamberts of brightness? At 14' wide, that is (84 sq ft of viewing area)..

Dennis mentioned ~23 ft Lamberts... Am I correctly interpretting this for my 14' wide scope with the Lumis on calibrated on HIGH LAMP??

Thanks, guys!!!

Here we go

It will depend on what lens and where on the zoom range you are, as well as your screen gain.

Due to Ash's configuration, its unlikely that anyone's will be as bright as his, unless they are in the same position.
post #129 of 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldmachine View Post

It will depend on what lens and where on the zoom range you are.

Due to Ash's configuration, its unlikely that anyone's will be as bright as his, unless they are in the same position.

Actually, my set up will mirror Ash's almost exactly (T-3 wide open with no zoom). My throw is almost exactly Ash's. Only my screen size differs (14' wide vs Ash's 12' wide)... So with that, is it 23 ft lamberts in HIGH LAMP?? More? Less?

Thanks CM,

Jeff
post #130 of 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

Actually, my set up will mirror Ash's almost exactly (T-3 wide open with no zoom). My throw is almost exactly Ash's. Only my screen size differs (14' wide vs Ash's 12' wide)... So with that, is it 23 ft lamberts in HIGH LAMP?? More? Less?

Thanks CM,

Jeff

Jeff, whats your screen gain?

As an example..... 1.15 gain screen (1.3 cloth with X2perf) of 168" width with a 2.35 AR with will yield 33fL from 2400 lumen.

Unity gain=29fL. 1.3 gain=37fL
post #131 of 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldmachine View Post

Jeff, whats your screen gain?

As an example..... 1.15 gain screen (1.3 cloth with X2perf) of 168" width with a 2.35 AR with will yield 33fL from 2400 lumen.

Unity gain=29fL. 1.3 gain=37fL

That is exactly it. 1.3 gain Ultramatte X2 perf.

That is a helluva bright picture you've calculated... This looks like this piece is the one..

Thanks for your work... I appreciate it!
post #132 of 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

Actually, my set up will mirror Ash's almost exactly (T-3 wide open with no zoom). My throw is almost exactly Ash's. Only my screen size differs (14' wide vs Ash's 12' wide)... So with that, is it 23 ft lamberts in HIGH LAMP?? More? Less?

Thanks CM,

Jeff

At Ash's stated D65 lumens of 1833.8, you would have 25.29 fL with your screen (1.15 gain), minus any loss through the anamorphic although I am not sure if Dennis measured this through an ISCO III.
post #133 of 1953
Incredible performance !

Art
post #134 of 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by brain sturgeon View Post

At Ash's stated D65 lumens of 1833.8, you would have 25.29 fL with your screen (1.15 gain), minus any loss through the anamorphic although I am not sure if Dennis measured this through an ISCO III.

Loss through an ISCOIII is around 2%.
post #135 of 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldmachine View Post

Loss through an ISCOIII is around 2%.

I concur. ~2% loss or a little less is typical. Very good glass.
post #136 of 1953
Quote:


I believe he would have to be close to 2500.

2381 pre cal. (6790K) I think it would certainly do 2500; but, you'd have to crank the primaries up into "measurement for marketing" territory.

We ran a luminance tracking test from 10 IRE to 100 IRE, from the curve it appears their "black magic" kicks in around 30 IRE and below.
post #137 of 1953
Not to mention, the Cinecurve screen if works as advertised by Stewart might be improving foot lamberts.
Dunno what ANSI contrast loss is due to port glass.
Spiderman 3 on Lumis.... Incredible Picture.
Ash
post #138 of 1953
With that glass, it would take a Minolta to measure it.
What are you doing posting anyway? You have a new projector. I need 100 hours on that lamp...get busy!
post #139 of 1953
Drinking 2003 Amarone Della Valpolicella classico Tommasi (Italian for the occasion) and watching Spiderman 3.
Got to check mails, that's how I pay for this stuff.
Ash.
post #140 of 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Erskine View Post

ANSI CR by ANSI checkerboard test pattern on screen. We did not subtract out room ambient light (that would have been cheating).

Ash makes it sound like the ISCO was in place for the ANSI reading. Is that true? Dennis -- Rob Hahn (my brother) said to say hi.
post #141 of 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomhahn View Post

Ash makes it sound like the ISCO was in place for the ANSI reading. Is that true? Dennis -- Rob Hahn (my brother) said to say hi.

I have ANSI numbers for ISCO in and out. Numbers, and testing, were actually verified by ISCO themselves. This will be part of an upcoming report.

Certainly not even close to the 30% drop that some Scheissemeisters () claim. Ive been saying this for a couple of years, nice to have the testing validated.

Obviously the unit needs to be correctly installed and tested
post #142 of 1953
I had a chance to see the lens slide in front of the LUMIS and I would guetimate the reduction closer to 15-18% max. With the Lighting Reference the difference was in the 25-30%. I have a theory Xenon displays are more suceptible, but not a clue why. Just the observational data.



I for one believe that the Lumis BENEFITS from the ISCO lens. Anyone wanting to discuss the why's needs to get a copy of SIM2's demo material at EHX: ELTON JOHN'S 60 and Wild Hogs. The later was a far more homogenous picture, as something a little weird was going one with Elton which looked like a photoshop montage cutout, like when 3d movies look like the objects are flat but still has overall excellent depth. In any event a slight reduction odf this effect that was caused by intense ANSI coupled with some kind of noise filtering and contour enhancement video processing. That Elton John reminded me of the Meridian demo a bit, could the video processor be a Marvel? Probably not but the effect on Elton was distracting. Then the lens slid in, the programme changed and the image was very nice and cinematic.



I do admonish that although these numbers are outstanding somehow the overall picture does not come close to the contrast enhanced DCI machines, the filtered two dimensional cutout effect IS NOT THE WAY IT WAS MASTERED so the device is injecting it's own patina into the equation. Also having seen true REC 709 on a 6k unit, the colors are not as over saturated and the blacks do not appear crushed,here you are forced to look hard to discern low level detail (I saw this at the SIM2 and the Avielo booths). Seems to me for this to work will require transfers done at the same Cr.
post #143 of 1953
I forgot to add that the ISCOIII numbers were tested across a number of units, all with similar results.
post #144 of 1953
Quote:


theory Xenon displays are more suceptible,

An interesting observation, Pieter; however, I cannot offhand think of any physical explanation which would support that conclusion. We can wait for CM's published reports.
post #145 of 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomhahn View Post

Ash makes it sound like the ISCO was in place for the ANSI reading. Is that true? Dennis -- Rob Hahn (my brother) said to say hi.

Tom, please tell Rob , I said hi.

Art
post #146 of 1953
Peter, Im so glad my house has large windows.
post #147 of 1953
How does the video processing of the Host/Lumis compare to the C3X 1080 and the Lumagen Radiance....

Does anyone use the HD-SDI interface on the Host? What is the difference between connecting a Blu Ray player to the Host via HD-SDI and via HDMI?

That new OPPO BD player looks awesome. Will also be curious about the new Denon BD player... Maybe we can get HD-SDI mods on those players...

http://www.oppodigital.com/blu-ray-bdp-83/
post #148 of 1953
Could someone please comment on any differences between the PQ on the Lumis and a C3x 1080......black levels, shadow details, motion, depth & dimensionality, etc.

I will only be getting a 92 inch screen (complete light control) due to viewing distance restrictions (10 feet away feet away), so any thoughts on how PQ may compare in that environment is appreciated as well (T1 lens....about middle of the throw range, iris closed down pretty far due to the high lumen output at this distance, low lamp, etc.)
post #149 of 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamelover360 View Post

Could someone please comment on any differences between the PQ on the Lumis and a C3x 1080......black levels, shadow details, motion, depth & dimensionality, etc.

I will only be getting a 92 inch screen (complete light control) due to viewing distance restrictions (10 feet away feet away), so any thoughts on how PQ may compare in that environment is appreciated as well (T1 lens....about middle of the throw range, iris closed down pretty far due to the high lumen output at this distance, low lamp, etc.)

Someone check my math, but a 92" (1.78:1) screen might yeild 54+ ftL (1800+lumens/33ft^2). Too bright, maybe. May need a ND filter. But the short throw lens you'd need may lower the lumen output some. Too bright is a new problem for some of us. I like it though
post #150 of 1953
Quote:
Someone check my math, but a 92" (1.78:1) screen might yeild 54+ ftL (1800+lumens/33ft^2). Too bright, maybe. May need a ND filter. But the short throw lens you'd need may lower the lumen output some. Too bright is a new problem for some of us. I like it though

I am actually thinking of going 100 inch diagnol since the Lumis T1 offers a short throw of 1.3. That may allow me to deal with room contstraints and still throw a 100 inch diagnol image.

I don't know the furmula you are using but if I assume that the numerator is the light output and the denominator being the square footage of the screen......then....

At 92 inch : 1800\\25= 72 lumens

At 100 inch: 1800\\29.5 = 61 lumens


Can't I close the iris, or adjust something to get less light output? I don't want to watch the sun!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › Sim2 Lumis Owners Thread