AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP › Panasonic PT-AE4000 MSRP $1999
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Panasonic PT-AE4000 MSRP $1999 - Page 8

post #211 of 8336
10/14/09 at 10:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viche View Post

The thing I'm still not sure about is why all the fuss over constant HEIGHT? In my proposed theater space I have a limit as to the width that I can make the screen, not the height. With the 4000 as my projector, wouldn't I be better off with a constant WIDTH screen? That way 2.35:1 and 16:9 would both be at there max size. I also think it would be easier to construct a removeable matte for the bottom of the screen when I'm in 2:35:1 than two side sliding mattes if I were to go with a constant HEIGH setup.

Look at it this way - a 16:9 projector is constant height for 4:3 and 16:9. If the optimal shape of your screen wall is 4:3, would you go for a 4:3 screen to maximize both 4:3 and 16:9 content?
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #212 of 8336
10/14/09 at 10:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobn4burton View Post

I personally like the idea of CIH because I want the more epic/blockbuster films to 'feel' the grandest in my theater. I DON'T want the anamorphic movies to have less viewing area than 'chick-flicks'.

This supports my point above about "feeling" the biggest in your setup...also, don't kid yourself about the animorphic widescreen chick flicks...(http://www.allmovie.com/dvd/ultimate...cs-41726)there are a ton. Conversely, only 3 out of IMDBs top 10 movies of all time are 2.34:1 (1 other was 2.4:1)...definitely not a majority.(http://www.imdb.com/chart/top)
Reply
Reply
post #213 of 8336
10/14/09 at 10:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viche View Post

The thing I'm still not sure about is why all the fuss over constant HEIGHT? .

over better experience. the wow factor
Reply
Reply
post #214 of 8336
10/14/09 at 10:39am
What I don't quite get is why would higher-end pj users (or those who aspire to a higher-end result) think a Lens Memory feature that zooms to make a 2.35:1 image larger is inferior to elaborate masking systems they might spend thousands on that slide in or out to accommodate the difference between 1.33:1/1.78:1 images and 2.35:1 images.

In both cases, no additional pixels are added to the central image, right?

And as a far as the downsides of zooming in general goes, isn't zooming in or out at initial setup something virtually every pj user does to one extent or another except for those whose home theater setups allow for perfect placement of their pj in the first place? And that's assuming everyone in the audience can sit in the best seat in the house relative to that supposedly perfect position.

I mean, is there really likely to be a huge difference in the eye of the beholder with regard to pixels between zooming an image to make it slightly larger and physically moving yourself from the third row to the first row in a home theater setup?
Reply
Reply
post #215 of 8336
10/14/09 at 10:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobn4burton View Post


If money is a concern, then the panny is a great way to go. You get nearly as good of an image compared to a lens setup. You cost will be at least half that of a lens setup. The biggest problem to a zoomed 'CIH' setup is that you are limited to ONE projector...this panny. (not counting those that manually zoom a projector by hand, that would get old real fast for me)

I am doing the zoomed CIH setup using the panny. I think its by far the best bang for the buck CIH setup and I will be very happy with it.

What happens to the black bars when you zoom for CIH with the typical black masking border on a typical screen? I currently have a Carada screen 16 x 9 -- and if went CIH would probably buy a Carada 2:35 screen (which at its best has about a 3 or 4 inch black felt border -- the higher end Carada). Is that enough to hide the black bars when zooming, or will you still see them on your wall?

I have a black painted wall by the way -- you can see my current setup in my signature link. But I'm thinking that the black bars will still be slightly visible on the wall, to the extent it overspills the black felt border on any Carada screen. So would you need to buy special masking for CIH zooming - -which adds to the cost?
Reply
Reply
post #216 of 8336
10/14/09 at 11:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar1 View Post

What happens to the black bars when you zoom for CIH with the typical black masking border on a typical screen? I currently have a Carada screen 16 x 9 -- and if went CIH would probably buy a Carada 2:35 screen (which at its best has about a 3 or 4 inch black felt border -- the higher end Carada). Is that enough to hide the black bars when zooming, or will you still see them on your wall?

I have a black painted wall by the way -- you can see my current setup in my signature link. But I'm thinking that the black bars will still be slightly visible on the wall, to the extent it overspills the black felt border on any Carada screen. So would you need to buy special masking for CIH zooming - -which adds to the cost?

Darn nice room! I've got similar equipment as yours but I guarantee it sounds better in your setup. In an ideal setup, and assuming that you have enough zoom capability left after you set up your pj (might affect where you place it to accommodate this option), zooming the image bigger makes the blank on the image spill off the screen onto your black screen border and, unless your front wall is white, you won't notice the low light spill on the outside of the border. NOw that I think about it, it shouldn't matter where you place the pj in the room, the ability to zoom a pj out to fill a CIH screen is inherently built into the zoom ration of the lens. I remember reading somewhere that a ~1.35X zoom would just give you enough range for the desired effect, as 2.35 divided by 1.3 = ~1.78:1, which will also allow you to take advantage of 1.85 material as that falls in the zoom range between 2.35-1.78. If you were using a 2.35:1 screen your problem would be on 1.85:1 material, as your black bars would "fall" on the left and right side on the actual screen material. My ideal way would be to have 2 retractable screens, 1 for 2.35 and 1 for 1.78 (or 1.85). Now that, would be high cotton.

Did this answer what you were asking?
Reply
Reply
post #217 of 8336
10/14/09 at 11:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar1 View Post

I have a black painted wall by the way -- you can see my current setup in my signature link. But I'm thinking that the black bars will still be slightly visible on the wall, to the extent it overspills the black felt border on any Carada screen. So would you need to buy special masking for CIH zooming - -which adds to the cost?

Great looking home theater, Caesar.

I have a Carada screen too and wanted to extend the black fabric borders well beyond the usual 3 1/2" width. I went to my local art supply store, bought large pieces of foamboard, cut them to size to accommodate all four sides of my screen, "gift wrapped" them in a black fabric very similar to the one Carada uses with all the folds of the wrapping on the backside of the foamboard and simply nailed the fabric wrapped panels to the wall flush to the outer edge of the screen frame with black nails. Most people think the additional 12" black fabric "frame" all around my screen came with my Carada screen and is part of the frame.

You can probably find better solutions to this problem in the home theater construction forum, but my solution was very easy and probably didn't cost more than $50 total including the foamboard, fabric and nails.
Reply
Reply
post #218 of 8336
10/14/09 at 11:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

Great looking home theater, Caesar.

I have a Carada screen too and wanted to extend the black fabric borders well beyond the usual 3 1/2" width. I went to my local art supply store, bought large pieces of foamboard, cut them to size to accommodate all four sides of my screen, "gift wrapped" them in a black fabric very similar to the one Carada uses with all the folds of the wrapping on the backside of the foamboard and simply nailed the fabric wrapped panels to the wall flush to the outer edge of the screen frame with black nails. Most people think the additional 12" black fabric "frame" all around my screen came with my Carada screen and is part of the frame.

You can probably find better solutions to this problem in the home theater construction forum, but my solution was very easy and probably didn't cost more than $50 total including the foamboard, fabric and nails.


Thanks. But I guess my question is -- is it necessary to add to the 3.5 inch Carada border when zooming for CIH (particularly with a black painted wall)? Or will the black bars be somewhat visible without adding to the border as you did (or doing something similar)?

Put it this way -- I'll consider CIH with this projector if all I have to do is buy this projector and a new Carada screen in 2:35 ratio. If I have to do anything else -- like add to the masking, etc. -- I'll probably just stick with 16 x 9.
Reply
Reply
post #219 of 8336
10/14/09 at 11:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by pottscb View Post

Darn nice room! I've got similar equipment as yours but I guarantee it sounds better in your setup. In an ideal setup, and assuming that you have enough zoom capability left after you set up your pj (might affect where you place it to accommodate this option), zooming the image bigger makes the blank on the image spill off the screen onto your black screen border and, unless your front wall is white, you won't notice the low light spill on the outside of the border. NOw that I think about it, it shouldn't matter where you place the pj in the room, the ability to zoom a pj out to fill a CIH screen is inherently built into the zoom ration of the lens. I remember reading somewhere that a ~1.35X zoom would just give you enough range for the desired effect, as 2.35 divided by 1.3 = ~1.78:1, which will also allow you to take advantage of 1.85 material as that falls in the zoom range between 2.35-1.78. If you were using a 2.35:1 screen your problem would be on 1.85:1 material, as your black bars would "fall" on the left and right side on the actual screen material. My ideal way would be to have 2 retractable screens, 1 for 2.35 and 1 for 1.78 (or 1.85). Now that, would be high cotton.

Did this answer what you were asking?


Thanks -- I should be okay with my PJ placement where it is (16 feet back from the screen). the largest 2:35 screen I'd probably do is 126 inches diag. My 16 x 9 screen is 114 inches diag. Based on Panasonic's site, I would be fine where I am now if I switched to a 126 inch diag 2:35 screen.

As long as I don't see the black bars on a black painted wall -- I'm fine. I just need to know for sure.
Reply
Reply
post #220 of 8336
10/14/09 at 1:22pm
I'm starting to get a headache here.
Why is it so hard to discuss CIH in the CIH forum?
I can understand some comments about the Panasonic memory function, but this is starting to get out of hand.
I just spent a half hour reading though CIH babble (which more than half of it is technical misinformation).
.
.
.
2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat
.
.
.

Reply
Reply
post #221 of 8336
10/14/09 at 1:31pm
Can soft screen be truned off?
Reply
Reply
post #222 of 8336
10/14/09 at 1:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smarty-pants View Post

I'm starting to get a headache here.
Why is it so hard to discuss CIH in the CIH forum?
I can understand some comments about the Panasonic memory function, but this is starting to get out of hand.
I just spent a half hour reading though CIH babble (which more than half of it is technical misinformation).

Because the defining feature of the Panny is the lens memory, which greatly facilitates CIH. The Panny is the only budget projector that raises awareness of CIH, so naturally we'll see a lot of CIH questions in Panny threads. Just keep pointing them to the CIH forum .
Reply
Reply
post #223 of 8336
10/14/09 at 1:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smarty-pants View Post

I'm starting to get a headache here.
Why is it so hard to discuss CIH in the CIH forum?
I can understand some comments about the Panasonic memory function, but this is starting to get out of hand.
I just spent a half hour reading though CIH babble (which more than half of it is technical misinformation).
.
.
.
2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat
.
.
.


Dave,
I seem to be having trouble with this constant image height thing...Is there a link or something you could provide that might help me...
Best,
Chris
Reply
Reply
post #224 of 8336
10/14/09 at 1:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mopar_Mudder View Post

Can soft screen be truned off?

are you trolling? It is "smoothscreen", and no is your answer....
Best,
chris
Reply
Reply
post #225 of 8336
10/14/09 at 2:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCONKLIN1 View Post

are you trolling? It is "smoothscreen", and no is your answer....
Best,
chris

Sorry for the wrong term

Was just wondering, some people seem to like it and some not. Seems like it would be an easy feature to turn beable to make user selectable. Make everyone happy, well sort of any way.....
Reply
Reply
post #226 of 8336
10/14/09 at 2:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pottscb View Post

...Conversely, only 3 out of IMDBs top 10 movies of all time are 2.34:1 (1 other was 2.4:1)...definitely not a majority.(http://www.imdb.com/chart/top)

True...although you need to also take into account the dates for those movies:
Shawshank Redemption, 1994, 1.85
Godfather, 1972, 1.85
Godfather II, 1974, 1.85
il buono, 1966, 2.35
Pulp Fiction, 1994, 2.35
Schindler's List, 1993, 1.85
12 Angry Men, 1966, 1.66
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, 1975, 1.85
The Dark Knight, 2008, 2.35/1.78 (or 1.85?)
Star Wars, 1980, 2.20

So...it is a little unfair to compare the top ten movies when 6 of the 10 movies where all 1980 or earlier. I think 2.35 movies have become more popular lately, especially with blu-rays.

So while your point is well taken...there are a lot of good movies that are in a 16:9 format. My personal opinion is that 2.35 is becoming more popular than 1.78/85 with newer movies...especially on blu-ray format.
Reply
Reply
post #227 of 8336
10/14/09 at 5:34pm
I noticed projector people just put up a rebate for this model....no surprise, its the 2 year limited warranty or 2000 hour bulb whichever comes first deal. Useless for me of course, I plan on having 2000 hours on this baby by xmas.
Reply
Reply
post #228 of 8336
10/14/09 at 7:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCONKLIN1 View Post

Dave,
I seem to be having trouble with this constant image height thing...Is there a link or something you could provide that might help me...
Best,
Chris

You mussa forgot to put on your tri-focals today.
Reply
Reply
post #229 of 8336
10/14/09 at 7:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar1 View Post

Thanks. But I guess my question is -- is it necessary to add to the 3.5 inch Carada border when zooming for CIH (particularly with a black painted wall)? Or will the black bars be somewhat visible without adding to the border as you did (or doing something similar)?

Well, I have a white wall but have only allowed spill-over of the black bars onto my DIY black fabric extra border I described, where I don't notice it at all.

However, pottscb seems to have more experience with the black painted wall situation and thinks it wouldn't be noticable on a black painted wall.

That being the case, from the pictures of your screen setup, the only place where it might be an issue is your white ceiling. If your 2.35:1 screen is mounted with the top edge as high as the top edge of your 1.78:1 screen is mounted now, the Lens Memory zoom might cause the top black border to spill onto your white screen (where it might not be all that much of a distraction there either). But if the top edge is a few inches lower, the top border probably won't ever get that far anyway, not even with Ben-Hur.
Reply
Reply
post #230 of 8336
10/14/09 at 8:14pm
So am I correct, that when incorperating the lens memory function of the 3000/4000, that the black bars on top and bottom a still projected as they normally would be?
The pj does not some how eliminate the bars from being projected?

2nd, is there more that just one memory available for the above function?
To switch from 16:9 mode to 2.35:1 mode, you just hit a button and it's all automatic, right?
So can this be done with other aspect ratios too?... like 1.66:1 or 2.50:1?... in addition to the 2.35:1 mode?
I hope I am making this clear.

TIA for any info.
Reply
Reply
post #231 of 8336
10/14/09 at 8:27pm
Response below in blue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smarty-pants View Post

So am I correct, that when incorperating the lens memory function of the 3000/4000, that the black bars on top and bottom a still projected as they normally would be?
The pj does not some how eliminate the bars from being projected?

Correct.

2nd, is there more that just one memory available for the above function?
To switch from 16:9 mode to 2.35:1 mode, you just hit a button and it's all automatic, right?
So can this be done with other aspect ratios too?... like 1.66:1 or 2.50:1?... in addition to the 2.35:1 mode?
I hope I am making this clear.

The 3000 has 3 memory positions, the 4000 has 6. For the 3000, you enter the lens memory menu, select at memory position, wait ~12 secs for the projector adjust zoom/focus/shift, and then exit the lens memory menu. The 4000 is the same, but now it has the auto-switch feature; let's say you're in default 16:9 lens mode, the 4000 analyzes the image and if it detects black bars, it will automatically call out a user defined lens memory and adjust zoom/focus/shift accordingly.
TIA for any info.
Reply
Reply
post #232 of 8336
10/14/09 at 8:31pm
Awesome! Thanks ilsiu.
Reply
Reply
post #233 of 8336
10/14/09 at 8:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smarty-pants View Post

So am I correct, that when incorperating the lens memory function of the 3000/4000, that the black bars on top and bottom a still projected as they normally would be?
The pj does not some how eliminate the bars from being projected?

2nd, is there more that just one memory available for the above function?
To switch from 16:9 mode to 2.35:1 mode, you just hit a button and it's all automatic, right?
So can this be done with other aspect ratios too?... like 1.66:1 or 2.50:1?... in addition to the 2.35:1 mode?
I hope I am making this clear.

TIA for any info.

I am totally confused. I thought you didn't want to talk about CIH here.
Reply
Reply
post #234 of 8336
10/14/09 at 9:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar1 View Post

Thanks. But I guess my question is -- is it necessary to add to the 3.5 inch Carada border when zooming for CIH (particularly with a black painted wall)? Or will the black bars be somewhat visible without adding to the border as you did (or doing something similar)?

Put it this way -- I'll consider CIH with this projector if all I have to do is buy this projector and a new Carada screen in 2:35 ratio. If I have to do anything else -- like add to the masking, etc. -- I'll probably just stick with 16 x 9.

I don't want to sound like a fanboy, but ever since I switched to 2.35:1, I can't imagine ever switching back. Your setup is screaming for 2.35:1. Just look at all that black on the sides that is wasted. You can have the same height screen and add so much more picture. I have the largest Carada 2.35:1 Criterion screen available (with Brilliant White screen option) and I used it with a CRT projector. I have no worries whatsoever about it being too big for the Panasonic that I am considering purchasing.

Regarding your question, there will definitely be spill over because the boarder of the Criterion series is not as big as the black bar. However, Any work that you have to do is WELL WORTH IT to go with 2.35:1 IMHO.

You can probably get away with your white ceiling. I had the same setup and it never bothered me too much even though there was light bouncing off of it. There will probably be more light bouncing off of it from reflections off your screen than any black bar would light up on it.

That being said, in the long term, you might want to either paint them black or replace them with black tiles. It will make your screen more vibrant most likely.

Take care,
Mike
Reply
Reply
post #235 of 8336
10/14/09 at 9:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorr View Post

I am totally confused. I thought you didn't want to talk about CIH here.

Not talking about CIH. Talking about the lens/memory feature of the projector. Not the same thing.
Hopefully your confusion will clear up soon.
If not, your doctor may be able to write you a prescription to help.
Reply
Reply
post #236 of 8336
10/14/09 at 9:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smarty-pants View Post

Not talking about CIH. Talking about the lens/memory feature of the projector. Not the same thing.
Hopefully your confusion will clear up soon.
If not, your doctor may be able to write you a prescription to help.

LOL! (about you're whole post)
Reply
Reply
post #237 of 8336
10/14/09 at 11:04pm
Hey give Smarty Pants a break. He admitted to not being a guru on this stuff.

He has been rather helpful if, acerbic at times, in many places on AVS.

We all appreciated his posts concerning the development of the BDP-83 as a beta tester.

He does have a point. This is not about a CIH implementation, it is about the rather unique capabilities of this Panny unit. What does that afford users. A simple question.

In my case I have a 133" diagonal 16:9 screen in my HT. The maximum vertical and horizontal screen size that will fit in my room.

CIH sounds good on the first look. I'll survive with aspect ratios that don't conform to 16:9. Black bars at top and bottom okay here if they are close to 0 IRE.

Joe
Reply
Reply
post #238 of 8336
10/15/09 at 12:05am
Sorry, I guess my feathers get a little ruffled when someone posts in huge bold letters telling people to stop talking about something when the discussion starts going down a path they don't like, but maybe those who are involved in the discussion are enjoying it, even if it is in the wrong forum. Then to turn around and join the discussion, knowingly or not, was a bit odd. I didn't mean to belittle him or his knowledge in any way. It was more in defense of the discussion.
Reply
Reply
post #239 of 8336
10/15/09 at 12:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronco70 View Post

In my case I have a 133" diagonal 16:9 screen in my HT. The maximum vertical and horizontal screen size that will fit in my room.

CIH sounds good on the first look. I'll survive with aspect ratios that don't conform to 16:9. Black bars at top and bottom okay here if they are close to 0 IRE.

Joe

It sounds like in your case you did the right thing. If your front wall is more square in shape and you can fill it horizontally and vertically with a 16:9 screen and still have room for your speakers and other equipment I can see why you would want to go with 16:9. In my case, I had lots of horizontal room available and was able to get a much wider screen with 2.35:1, not to mention most movies are 2.35:1 or 2.4:1 so it really takes advantage of the screen. If you watch a lot of HDTV, then 16:9 would be the majority of the content.
Reply
Reply
post #240 of 8336
10/15/09 at 5:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar1 View Post

Thanks -- I should be okay with my PJ placement where it is (16 feet back from the screen). the largest 2:35 screen I'd probably do is 126 inches diag. My 16 x 9 screen is 114 inches diag. Based on Panasonic's site, I would be fine where I am now if I switched to a 126 inch diag 2:35 screen.

As long as I don't see the black bars on a black painted wall -- I'm fine. I just need to know for sure.

i just check out you HT wow Nice setup, you will enjoy 2.35:1 my HT it 22'x15' aprox. with 140" 2.35:1 screen im thinking about going to 150"
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP › Panasonic PT-AE4000 MSRP $1999