or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Planar 8150 follow up impressions
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Planar 8150 follow up impressions - Page 6

post #151 of 773
quote:I am impressed with how the machine is packed

I was surprised with the packaging as well Mark. Very nice machine with plenty of features. I am impressed with the saturated colors which is not typical from 1 chip dlp. Very nice guys.
So far I prefer dynamic black "on" adaptive contrast "on" brilliant color "off"
Gamma set to "film 2.2"
More to come.



.
post #152 of 773
The top screen edge placement is for better ansi contrast, since less light is reflected back from them the lens this way. But how large is the difference? At top edge placement the projector has over 700 ansi cr, but what does it have near the middle of the screen? If the difference is big enough I'll gp through the extra trouble to place it higher.
post #153 of 773
Quote:
Originally Posted by CADOBHuK View Post

The top screen edge placement is for better ansi contrast, since less light is reflected back from them the lens this way. But how large is the difference? At top edge placement the projector has over 700 ansi cr, but what does it have near the middle of the screen? If the difference is big enough I'll gp through the extra trouble to place it higher.



I think it is worth mentioning here that both the 8130 and the 8150 have the exact same range of vertical lens shift, despite what some of the specs say even from Planar. I have this from Brian:


"The vertical offset was going to be different between the two models, then we decided to make them the same. So they are the same.

I'm not sure what your screen width is, but I used a 92" wide 16:9 screen. The max offset (from center of the screen to the center of the lens) is 31.1". That would put the center of the lens 5.2" above the top of the image.

It can go lower than the top of the image by quite a bit (-12.9" below the center of the image).

Brian"

If I'm not mistaken, with ceiling mounting, you can't get the lens all the way to the bottom of the screen, only the top. For table top mounting, the converse would be true . And the best contrast presumably therefore is only at one end of the screen not both, as the range of lenshift only encompasses one end of the screen. Correct me if I have this wrong Brian .
post #154 of 773
When one ceiling mounts, the machine is normally inverted. When one table mounts the machine is usually not inverted. Thus the behavior is the same whether table or ceiling mounted and the recommendation re top or bottom edge placement for center of the lens placement. The magic number here is 60% lens shift. 60% of your screen height. This means using lens shift, inverted mount, one can lower the center of the screen as much as 60% of the screen height below the lens center. Or raise the lens center as much as 10% of screen height above the top of the screen, same thing. If the machine is not inverted say for a table mount, same thing. The machine can be placed no lower than 10% of screen height below the bottom of the screen. Either way, the machine can be placed at screen center (in which case no vertical lens offset would be used). Keeping the same machine orientation one can go the other way (mounting the machine non inverted,, say on a shelf) with the lens center above screen center as much as 25% of screen height above screen center. This is the same thing as saying if you are shelf mounting high, your lens center must be 25% of screen height below the top of the screen. Any higher and the projector must be inverted on that shelf.

Now how does changing the location within these limits affect performance. The manual recommends top or bottom edge lens center mounting and the notes in the manual state that no using no lens shift the center of the lens is aligned with screen center. But the manual recommends that you use lens shift with optimum use using shift to place the lens center at the top or bottom edge depending on machine orientation (inverted top edge, non inverted bottom edge). How much does ANSI fall off with screen center placement instead of edge placement, I haven`t a clue. Maybe Brian and Bob have some measurements. My theater isn`t set up to easily change mounting heights. One would need a clean line of sight and something like a rack with multiple shelves for mounting the projector say non inverted from bottom edge to center.
post #155 of 773
Alan. Adaptive contrast is included in the Gennum chip and a manufacturer can use it if it wishes. Also all those noise reduction and sharpness functions too. The Lumagen Radiance processor uses the same Gennum chip and has the same functions. Gennum provides lots of control options for those functions. For example, Lumagen employs variable adaptive contrast and the user can select the degree. Planar has chosen only an on\\off control for the function. Be interesting to not the setting corresponence. Mild (1) or a higher integer.Whatever. On my Lumagen when watching indoor sports, I usually set it in my Lumagen at 1. The effect is like someone washed the basketball floor. But it really is eye candy. I have never been able to find out a lot about what it does exactly. The Planar manual states it expands the light and dark portions of the output image according to the mean luminance of the input image. Whatever that means. I suspect the setting used by Planar is something minimal like 1 or 2. I suspect 1.

I shut it off for film viewing and for outdoor sports, I don`t use it. I think I see it cause some white clipping but I am not sure. You see I have this problem, I watch the game and forget that I am supposed to only evaluate the projector instead of enjoying the content.

On my 54 x 96 1.3 gain screen, standard lamp was too bright, default is economy anyway. I also prefered film gamma for my sports instead of video but I need to view this more. Dind`t try CRT gamma. Video gamma says similar to the 2.2 film gamma but differs in dark areas of the image. The video gamma standard is very close to 2.2 but not exactly, so maybe the video gamma of the planar exactly conforms to the standard video gamma standard. Here comes the problem with adaptive contrat again, in essence changing the selected gamma curve. Whatever. None of it makes that much difference. Film or video gamma with or without adaptive contrast. Whatever you prefer for video. For film, I would use film gamma and shut adaptive contrast off but if you like it on, fine. Watch the film, enjoy.

Since there are no iris settings, DI must be used to obtain decent blacks. The lens is not as sharp as the Marantz lens, not bad. Sharper than the JVC. Lens measurements in a few days. Personally, I really like sharp. That`s just me and in comparison. If you have only one machine, any of these will look plenty sharp but in comparison I like the sharpest.

That`s about it for this morning. Tom Huffman and I will be measuring this machine and calibrating it in a few days. My guess is it will measure very fine out of the box but of course better when tweaked and one can notice the difference. Its always like that.
post #156 of 773
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Lens measurements in a few days.

Are we getting MTF specs?
From Planar? if not what company?
These numbers would be useful if we can get the other manufactures to give out this info, would be nice some day.









.
post #157 of 773
MTF numbers from a manufacturer? LOL

NO. I am going to run some resolution test patterns. Lens line pairs yada. CA can be assessed.
post #158 of 773
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

MTF numbers from a manufacturer? LOL

NO. I am going to run some resolution test patterns. Lens line pairs yada. CA can be assessed.

Mark I was afraid that's where this was going. Please keep this off the board. Not interested in having this lens debate start all over again. Unless coming direct from an optical company along with per test certification this is subjective and will be seen as bias. Lets leave this to those interested to display their own test patterns to reach their own conclusion.
Lets talk projectors

Thank you!
post #159 of 773
Thread Starter 
I run the CRT gamma with dynamic black on but adaptive contrast and BC off.

The 8150 is factory calibrated with a Minolta CL-200 so out of the box it is VERY close. I still find that RGB color balance needs some tweaking though.

I am a big fan of the 2.5 gamma that the CRT setting offers. With REALLY dark material it does hurt shadow detail a bit, but it does wonders for 99% of the material I watch. Plus it is easy to shift on the fly anyways.

There are some things I would love to see Planar add though:

1. Ability for the consumer/calibrator to utilize the CCA function for CMS tweaks
2. An info screen that shows input colorspace/bit depth and resolution (i.e. 4:4:4 vs 4:2:2)

Also as an FYI, if you send the projector a 4:4:4 signal and the projector is not doing any de-interlacing and you have the advanced sharpness feature off, it keeps the colorspace intact throughout the video processing chain. No color conversions or loss of bit depth.
post #160 of 773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

I run the CRT gamma with dynamic black on but adaptive contrast and BC off.

Ill give this a try.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

An info screen that shows input colorspace/bit depth and resolution (i.e. 4:4:4 vs 4:2:2)

So far the Marantz has been the only projector Ive come across that displays bit depth info. I found it very useful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post


Also as an FYI, if you send the projector a 4:4:4 signal and the projector is not doing any de-interlacing and you have the advanced sharpness feature off, it keeps the colorspace intact throughout the video processing chain. No color conversions or loss of bit depth.

Thanks for this tip Kris. Im running a Calibre VP Pro which outputs everything at 4:4:4 10 bit.

All good info, thank you
post #161 of 773
Kris Deering,

Do I infer correctly that you have switched from the JVC RS2 to the Planar for your personal projector?
post #162 of 773
I would...


Off topic question, what is the ansi contrast of the Sony vw70?
post #163 of 773
Alan. How go you think image sharpness compares to your 11S? I do notice some CA horizontally as you near the edges. manly red vertical but also some red horizontal. This is with the lens shift close to center screen placement.
post #164 of 773
One need not infer. He stated he has. One can not really refer to some ones random ANSI measurements. Its difficult to do it right. The best is someones comparative to another machine they have measured and even then it depends on a lot of careful test factors. What is the smallest ANSI delta that might rerally make a difference. 50? 100?
post #165 of 773
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

Ill give this a try.



So far the Marantz has been the only projector Ive come across that displays bit depth info. I found it very useful.



Thanks for this tip Kris. Im running a Calibre VP Pro which outputs everything at 4:4:4 10 bit.

All good info, thank you

I believe the new JVC's display bit depth as well. I am using the Oppo 83 for my primary source and have it outputting 12 bit 4:4:4.
post #166 of 773
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Kris Deering,

Do I infer correctly that you have switched from the JVC RS2 to the Planar for your personal projector?

That is correct. The Planar is delivering better contrast performance for both on/off and ANSI and can be dialed in far better. It is also a bit sharper than my RS2 was.

The RS20 seems to be more in line with the Planar though. Its absolute blacks are a bit better but it still falls short in ANSI. I like Planar's interface and tweakability a tad more than the RS20 but the two are very similar in overall image performance to my eye. Each has its advantages with different material so it would be a personal taste choice in the end I think. Personally, I would lean toward the Planar, but completely understand the praise for the RS20 right now.
post #167 of 773
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOWK View Post

I would...


Off topic question, what is the ansi contrast of the Sony vw70?

I don't remember if Darin measured his VW80 but for some reason around 300-400:1 comes to mind. He could probably chime in on that.
post #168 of 773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

I don't remember if Darin measured his VW80 but for some reason around 300-400:1 comes to mind. He could probably chime in on that.

I don't have my notes right now, but about 400:1 is what I recall. I got around 760:1 with the 8150, but the black level was down at the low end for the meter and so likely a fairly high margin of error.

--Darin
post #169 of 773
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Alan. How go you think image sharpness compares to your 11S? I do notice some CA horizontally as you near the edges. manly red vertical but also some red horizontal. This is with the lens shift close to center screen placement.

I hope Brian or the other heavy hitters here would comment more on this. How much CA is to be expected from PJ's in this class? Does the 8150 compare favorably and how would it be affected by lens shift/throw ratio?

Thanks,
Mike
post #170 of 773
Thread Starter 
There is definitely less CA than what I've seen on the 11S1 and 11S2 with the 8150. It isn't quite as sharp overall, but still better than what I've seen from the JVCs. The Samsung 800 was the sharpest DLP I've seen with the S2 and the 8150 coming in just a tad below and the Marantz just edging out the Planar.

In my experience you want to have someone help you to get the best focus possible with the 8150. I typically stand with my nose to the screen and have someone make the finest adjustments possible until it looks right. I try to eliminate any fringing but there is still a tad with green on mine that isn't discernable more than about 2-3 feet away. I can clearly make out the dimple in the center of each pixel though.
post #171 of 773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

That is correct. The Planar is delivering better contrast performance for both on/off and ANSI and can be dialed in far better. It is also a bit sharper than my RS2 was.

The RS20 seems to be more in line with the Planar though. Its absolute blacks are a bit better but it still falls short in ANSI. I like Planar's interface and tweakability a tad more than the RS20 but the two are very similar in overall image performance to my eye. Each has its advantages with different material so it would be a personal taste choice in the end I think. Personally, I would lean toward the Planar, but completely understand the praise for the RS20 right now.

Kris, weren't you a member of the triumvirate (with Tryg and Darin, I believe) that tested hi ANSI CR (the Sharp 20000 I think) with lower but high o/f CR units (one of the JVC's I think), and concluded that high ANSI CR was not nearly so important as o/f?
post #172 of 773
A single chipper will have no convergence errors because by definition there is nothing to converge. If a grid line (say red) is off from another two grid lines (green and blue), the error would be due to lens chromatic aberrations.and this would also change with degree of lens shift used. On mine there is slight divergence near either side and slight vertical. This is unnoticeable moving back say 2 feet from the screen. Very good performance.


Non of these machines are perfect. I prefer the Planar to the JVC but that's me. If I watched a lot of dark movies, I would prefer the JVC, But I don't and what the Planar beats the JVC in are important to me. Sharper lens, more ANSI pop. Better build quality. There is more but that's for later.
post #173 of 773
Say Darin, did you ever post about your experience w/the 8150?

I'm really interested what your take on it is compared to the JVC's.
post #174 of 773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

I run the CRT gamma with dynamic black on but adaptive contrast and BC off.

The 8150 is factory calibrated with a Minolta CL-200 so out of the box it is VERY close. I still find that RGB color balance needs some tweaking though.

I am a big fan of the 2.5 gamma that the CRT setting offers. With REALLY dark material it does hurt shadow detail a bit, but it does wonders for 99% of the material I watch. Plus it is easy to shift on the fly anyways.

There are some things I would love to see Planar add though:

1. Ability for the consumer/calibrator to utilize the CCA function for CMS tweaks
2. An info screen that shows input colorspace/bit depth and resolution (i.e. 4:4:4 vs 4:2:2)

Also as an FYI, if you send the projector a 4:4:4 signal and the projector is not doing any de-interlacing and you have the advanced sharpness feature off, it keeps the colorspace intact throughout the video processing chain. No color conversions or loss of bit depth.

I have been interested in the Planar because it has the DI which can really improve the black levels and decrease dithering artifacts in a single chip DLP projector. if I remember it also has an Osram unishape lamp which can improve the color depth

Am I correct in that it does not have an adjustable Iris and the zoom is manual

I noticed some of the early reviews of this projector were luke warm where yours was enthusiastic. Not negative but not overwhelming positive. This surprised me because on paper the Planar looks like a wonderful projector

any explanations.
post #175 of 773
What were the negative things said about the 8150?
post #176 of 773
I haven't been following the Planar 8150 recently since I got a RS20, but it sounds like the short throw lens option is now a true replacement lens and not an added attachment as I think it was initially. Is that correct?

Had that been true earlier, I might have considered it more carefully.
post #177 of 773
Mlang. Zoom, focus, H & V lens shift are all manual. The DI can be switched off and on but there are no user selectable user fixed iris settings. The machine has been refined since its introduction. Its a nice all around balanced machine that outperforms say the RS20 in some areas but not in others. It is not a stop the presses a new level in single chip DLP performance. But on balance it might be the best for the money particularly if your strength priorities match its.
post #178 of 773
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

I haven't been following the Planar 8150 recently since I got a RS20, but it sounds like the short throw lens option is now a true replacement lens and not an added attachment as I think it was initially. Is that correct?

The short throw lense has always been a true replacement lense.

Maybe you're confusing this with 21:9 cinemascope anamorphic lenses. Those are still an attachment (and needs to be for practical purposes as you want to be able to slide the lens in/out to switch between 16:9 and 21:9)

Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

Had that been true earlier, I might have considered it more carefully.

It has always been the case. Maybe the fact that you cannot purchase the projector with a short throw lense out-of-the-box is what made you not consider it? The short throw lense needs to be purchased separately at additional cost and you end up paying for a lense that you do not use (the regular lense).

Peter
post #179 of 773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Nielsen View Post

Maybe the fact that you cannot purchase the projector with a short throw lense out-of-the-box is what made you not consider it? The short throw lense needs to be purchased separately at additional cost and you end up paying for a lense that you do not use (the regular lense). Peter

OK, yes, I think that is it. So one still needs to purchase the ST lens in addition, and cannot just order the pj with it. Weird. (Even the min 1.56 throw ratio, though, this would have been a squeeze for me; the ~1.37 min throw of the JVC's does work better for me anyway.)
post #180 of 773
Your dealer can handle it all. Its between him/her and you. You never have to see the standard throw lens if you don't want it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Planar 8150 follow up impressions