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 112

post #3331 of 8336
1/18/10 at 12:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneAspen View Post

I just think that MDF looks a lot better when painted than plywood. I don't like the "rough" surface/texture of plywood, at least not the plywoods I've seen at the local big box home improvement stores. I think they'd look horrible once painted.

That's strange, I've never had trouble picking out decent-looking plywood at my local Lowes. With sanding and staining I've made plywood look furniture-grade, so long as the edges were hidden, of course.

Putting any weight on MDF suspended horizontally is just asking for trouble. It will sag, do you really want to risk your projector falling?
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #3332 of 8336
1/18/10 at 1:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneAspen View Post

I'll be using my Panny in a fully light-controlled room, with flat black ceiling, and dark GOM-covered walls. So, a batcave. But, the room is only about 13 feet deep. Throw distance will be about 137 inches (11 feet, 5 inches) give or take.

I cannot mount the projector any farther back than that. I plan on getting a Carada Criterion 2.35:1 screen, in the 112" diagonal size. Based on the Panasonic throw distance calculator, that's a little larger than what the projector can display, but that's okay, I'd rather have the screen a little larger than smaller.

I'm a big fan of 2.35, but in your situation you might consider 16:9 instead. The point of 2.35 is to have it be wider than a 16:9 image, but you're limited by throw distance. You might as well have 16:9 be as big as possible.

With a 112" 2.35 screen, your 16:9 image will be only 96" diagonally. With a 114" 16:9 screen, you'll have a 41% larger 16:9 image, while 2.35 content will be almost the same size as a 112" 2.35 screen.
http://www.displaywars.com/114-inch-...s-96-inch-16x9
Reply
Reply
post #3333 of 8336
1/18/10 at 1:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneAspen View Post

Just happened to think of a question...

I'll be using my Panny in a fully light-controlled room, with flat black ceiling, and dark GOM-covered walls. So, a batcave. But, the room is only about 13 feet deep. Throw distance will be about 137 inches (11 feet, 5 inches) give or take.

I cannot mount the projector any farther back than that. I plan on getting a Carada Criterion 2.35:1 screen, in the 112" diagonal size. Based on the Panasonic throw distance calculator, that's a little larger than what the projector can display, but that's okay, I'd rather have the screen a little larger than smaller.

My question is...with this setup, would the "normal" screen or the Brilliant White be a better choice? My concern would be that the BW would have TOO much gain for such a short throw distance in a batcave. I was thinking I might have to run the PJ on low-power mode anyway to cut down on the light output. So I was leaning toward the 1.0 gain one.

BTW, I'm not a big fan of grey screens, so I probably wouldn't go with that one anyway. Just trying to decide between the 1.0 gain and the BW one.

Thanks!

My room is 13 ft square. My AE4k is exactly 11 ft from my screen which is 100". I agree 16:9 is the best choice in a small room. For 2.35, I mask the bottom and shift the image to the top of the screen.
Reply
Reply
post #3334 of 8336
1/18/10 at 2:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Whitefield View Post

I'm a big fan of 2.35, but in your situation you might consider 16:9 instead. The point of 2.35 is to have it be wider than a 16:9 image, but you're limited by throw distance. You might as well have 16:9 be as big as possible.

With a 112" 2.35 screen, your 16:9 image will be only 96" diagonally. With a 114" 16:9 screen, you'll have a 41% larger 16:9 image, while 2.35 content will be almost the same size as a 112" 2.35 screen.
http://www.displaywars.com/114-inch-...s-96-inch-16x9

I completely agree.

I was in a similar situation (limited to about 12.2 feet of TD). I went with the largest 16:9 screen I could which was 118". This still allows for a 112" 2.35 image and I just use masking. If I had gone with a 112" 2.35 screen (largest that would fit that TD), then I'd be limited to a measly 88" sized image for 16:9 content.

When limited by throw distance, almost always better to go with the larger screen (16:9). And if you have a good masking system, no reason to not go with 16:9 anyway, so that you can get the larger image with that content. Just make sure you mount your screen at the height where you'll want the image to be when viewing 2.35 material.

Btw, if he went with 112" 2.35 screen, wouldn't that be a 90" 16:9 image instead of a 96" image? Basically just look at the height, which is 44". 112" 2.35 and a 90" 16:9 both have a 44" height. Whereas if he goes with 112" 16:9 then he'd have a 106" 2.35. Much better option. Or do like I did, go with 118" 16:9 and have 112" 2.35.
Reply
Reply
post #3335 of 8336
1/18/10 at 2:25pm
Thanks for the suggestions on the 16:9 vs 2.35:1 in a small room, but...if it's not a 2.35:1 screen, it won't seem "real" to me.

I put up cardboard cutouts of a 112" diagonal 16:9, and a 112" diagonal 16:9, and I MUCH preferred the 2.35:1. Even in a smaller room, the 2.35:1 seemed like a "real" screen to me, and the 16:9 didn't. Personal preference, I know, and it might seem odd, but that's just the way I viewed the two choices. The 2.35:1 had a "wow" effect on me, the 16:9 didn't.

That being said...would the normal 1.0 gain screen be better than the 1.4 gain, given my short throw distance? The 1.4 seems like it might be too much brightness.

Thanks!

EDIT: Oops, I meant a 112" 16:9, not 96" as I first wrote.
Reply
Reply
post #3336 of 8336
1/18/10 at 2:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dustinst22 View Post

Btw, if he went with 112" 2.35 screen, wouldn't that be a 90" 16:9 image instead of a 96" image?

Oops. Thanks for the correction.

A 114" 16:9 screen has 60% more area than the 16:9 image on a 112" 2.35 screen.
http://www.displaywars.com/114-inch-...s-90-inch-16x9

2.35 only makes sense if you can make it tall enough for a no-compromise 16:9 image.

Not sure we're going to change Aspen's mind, though.
Reply
Reply
post #3337 of 8336
1/18/10 at 2:54pm
Damn nobody likes my screen shots, im not posting no more, forget you people, you guys are to boring.... :-(
Reply
Reply
post #3338 of 8336
1/18/10 at 2:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneAspen View Post


That being said...would the normal 1.0 gain screen be better than the 1.4 gain, given my short throw distance? The 1.4 seems like it might be too much brightness.

Thanks!

You should email David at Carada. He was incredibly helpful when I purchased my screen and is still helpful now when I need help with new parts. I also have a "cave" for a room (dark walls, floors, ceiling, total light control), and he recommended the brilliant white for me. Of course I went with 118" 16:9 image (much larger than the screen you are going with) which he felt needed the boost. With a smaller screen like yours, I'm not sure. I can tell you that I'm very happy with the decision and have never felt that the image is overly bright.

My screen is 5974 square inches whereas yours will be 4429 sq inches, so not sure if you need the gain or not. I'd email David and see what his recommendation is.
Reply
Reply
post #3339 of 8336
1/18/10 at 3:08pm
Yea the pics i sent (that no one compliments on) are from a Carada BW 110", lol ;-)
Reply
Reply
post #3340 of 8336
1/18/10 at 3:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by allroadCole View Post

Hello, my screen wall is already built, and it is not moving.

I want to use the auto adjust lens features to go between 16:9 and 2.35:1.

However, the screen is centered in the room. unfortunately ceiling joist are layed out in such a manner that there not one in the middle of the room, infact they are spaced perfectly to create a 16" gap right in the center of the room.

I have a RiteMounts NPL that I would like to use to mount the AE4000, but I was hoping have at least one screw hit a joist.

If the projector is off center 5-6 inches will the auto adjust function not work correctly? any other ideas? Thanks!

Mine is about 8 inches off to the left but my projector is even with the top border of the screen. Works fine. My small 16:9 is a little to the left but it fits in the screen area.
Reply
Reply
post #3341 of 8336
1/18/10 at 3:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Whitefield View Post

Oops. Thanks for the correction.

A 114" 16:9 screen has 60% more area than the 16:9 image on a 112" 2.35 screen.
http://www.displaywars.com/114-inch-...s-90-inch-16x9

2.35 only makes sense if you can make it tall enough for a no-compromise 16:9 image.

Not sure we're going to change Aspen's mind, though.

Actually, according to Panasonic's calculator for PT-AE4000U and 16:9 screens at:

http://www.panasonic.net/avc/project...69/ae4000.html

For a throw distance of 137 inches, the largest 16:9 screen is 116.6" diagonal.

But...as I posted previously, I had put up a cardboard cutout of a 112" 16:9 but it just didn't do it for me.

There were a few "must haves" I had when I started the HT project. Things like, it's going to be a batcave, it's going to be front projection, etc. One of the "must haves" was, it's going to be a 2.35:1 screen. That was confirmed when I did my cutout eval. The 2.35:1 wow'd me, the 16:9 didn't. Even though the 16:9 was a bigger image for 16:9 content, the emotional WOW factor there wasn't there for me.

Just goes to show even emotion overrides logic sometimes. Hey, that's something even Spock would agree with

EDIT: Thanks for the suggestions to contact David at Carada. I sent him a PM here, hopefully he'll respond quickly, as I'm looking to place order in next couple days.
Reply
Reply
post #3342 of 8336
1/18/10 at 4:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneAspen View Post

Actually, according to Panasonic's calculator for PT-AE4000U and 16:9 screens at:

http://www.panasonic.net/avc/project...69/ae4000.html

For a throw distance of 137 inches, the largest 16:9 screen is 116.6" diagonal.

Yes, the reason I suggested 114" is because there's a 16:9 Carada Criterion in that size.

Quote:
But...as I posted previously, I had put up a cardboard cutout of a 112" 16:9 but it just didn't do it for me.

There were a few "must haves" I had when I started the HT project. Things like, it's going to be a batcave, it's going to be front projection, etc. One of the "must haves" was, it's going to be a 2.35:1 screen. That was confirmed when I did my cutout eval. The 2.35:1 wow'd me, the 16:9 didn't. Even though the 16:9 was a bigger image for 16:9 content, the emotional WOW factor there wasn't there for me.

Illogical.

Before making a decision of the screen, please watch a 16:9 movie on the wall using your 112" 2.35 size, then zoom to a 114" 16:9 size and try it there. You may find your emotions are different in the dark.

I have a 131" 2.35 screen, which I thought was going to be insanely big. But after a week, I started thinking about a 150", mainly so I could get 16:9 and 1.85 content a bit bigger. Nobody regrets getting too big a screen, only too small. Well, except for qlee72, but he'll get over it.
Reply
Reply
post #3343 of 8336
1/18/10 at 4:44pm
Hi guys,

Just trying to get some advice: I am thing of uprading my 1000 with either the 4000 or the epson 8500UB... or even waiting for the prices to drop when the "5000" most like 3D projectors. I don't like the 3d technology, saw it all at CES and I was not impressed. If I wait I could get the 1000 prof calibrated. From what I see in the in the calibration forums, after calibration the images are greatly increased.

What do you guys think?
Reply
Reply
post #3344 of 8336
1/18/10 at 5:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Whitefield View Post

Yes, the reason I suggested 114" is because there's a 16:9 Carada Criterion in that size.



Illogical.

Before making a decision of the screen, please watch a 16:9 movie on the wall using your 112" 2.35 size, then zoom to a 114" 16:9 size and try it there. You may find your emotions are different in the dark.

I have a 131" 2.35 screen, which I thought was going to be insanely big. But after a week, I started thinking about a 150", mainly so I could get 16:9 and 1.85 content a bit bigger. Nobody regrets getting too big a screen, only too small. Well, except for qlee72, but he'll get over it.

I'm good now. I bought felt and velvet fabrics. Felt was rigid enough to use the 2 straight ends to cut out ~2" width strips and stick it in either sides of the frame. I tried spray glueing the velvet onto foam board cutouts...didn't work out too well on my first try. I'll try to spray on another layer on top of the existing layer to see if it looks any better...else I wasted over $20 on the velvet! Now I have a 126" diag 16:9 screen that looks nice w/o lighter edges.
Reply
Reply
post #3345 of 8336
1/18/10 at 7:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by avsform1 View Post

Hi guys,

Just trying to get some advice: I am thing of uprading my 1000 with either the 4000 or the epson 8500UB... or even waiting for the prices to drop when the "5000" most like 3D projectors. I don't like the 3d technology, saw it all at CES and I was not impressed. If I wait I could get the 1000 prof calibrated. From what I see in the in the calibration forums, after calibration the images are greatly increased.

What do you guys think?

I think you should upgrade to the 4000 now. 3D tech is silly to me and I would not wear glasses to watch tv. Who really needs 3D. I feel technology is advancing way to rapidly and need to slow down, they are getting ahead of themselves. I have a 4000 not prof calibrated and now I watch in Cinema3 and the picture to me is WOW. Just finished watching the new Star Trek movie and it looked awesome. Just invest in a good name brand screen, perferably an Amercian brand, have dark walls and ceiling and light control and your set.
Reply
Reply
post #3346 of 8336
1/18/10 at 7:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by neverfaithful View Post

Damn nobody likes my screen shots, im not posting no more, forget you people, you guys are to boring.... :-(

What are you talk about?!?! I posted a comment on your screen shots a few pages back...the bikini girl. Keep those shots coming anytime
Reply
Reply
post #3347 of 8336
1/18/10 at 8:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nsguy View Post

What are you talk about?!?! I posted a comment on your screen shots a few pages back...the bikini girl. Keep those shots coming anytime

I have to say that in general screenshots aren't very useful. I've seen screenshots from $300 projectors that actually looked good when viewed at 500x300 resolution. There are so many variables with cameras and exposure that screenshots can't really show you what the image looks like.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think we can do without embedded screenshots unless they show something specific. Links are fine. Have mercy on the people with slow internet connections that try to read the entire thread.

Now the bikini girl had, um, artistic merit.
Reply
Reply
post #3348 of 8336
1/18/10 at 8:24pm
yes, I admit neverfaithful's initial screen shots where quite pleasing on the eyes. Makes one wish for 3D projection sooner. The color and tone of the subject matter is great, speaking of the swimsuit model. Keep up the good work.
Reply
Reply
post #3349 of 8336
1/18/10 at 9:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneAspen View Post


For a throw distance of 137 inches, the largest 16:9 screen is 116.6" diagonal.

But...as I posted previously, I had put up a cardboard cutout of a 112" 16:9 but it just didn't do it for me.
.

I know you've already made up your mind. But if you really want to compare your options, what you should do is compare the 2 aspects using the same width rather than the same diaganol. Throw distance is determined by the width of the image. For example, if you're considering a 112" 2.35 screen and are putting that size cardboard to get an idea of it, then you'd want to cut out a 118" 16:9 and do the same (both the 112" 2.35 and 118" 16:9 have a 103" width and will require the exact same throw distance).

Then, if you REALLY want to compare things, do as Bob suggested. Cut out a 90" 16:9 piece and put that up as well. Because that will be what you're limited to for 1.85 films and 16:9 content. That's really the difference -- 118" versus 90" for high def content.

Again I know you've made up your mind, but the above two sizes would be the best way to compare. I think you'd be surprised how much larger the 118 is, and the cool thing is when you're watching 2.35/2.4 material, you will have a 112" image. The carada works well for DIY masking btw -- that's what I did. With masking, the screen looks exactly like a 2.35 screen.

Just food for thought as I would have regretted it tremendously if I went with the smaller 2.35 size.
Reply
Reply
post #3350 of 8336
1/18/10 at 9:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Whitefield View Post

Links are fine. Have mercy on the people with slow internet connections that try to read the entire thread.

Now the bikini girl had, um, artistic merit.

Wow dial up sill exist. If someone owns a 4000 and still has dial up they should not have a 4000. Thats just sad.
Reply
Reply
post #3351 of 8336
1/18/10 at 9:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaveShark View Post

yes, I admit neverfaithful's initial screen shots where quite pleasing on the eyes. Makes one wish for 3D projection sooner. The color and tone of the subject matter is great, speaking of the swimsuit model. Keep up the good work.

Ok ill buy some HD pornos.
Reply
Reply
post #3352 of 8336
1/18/10 at 9:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dustinst22 View Post

I know you've already made up your mind. But if you really want to compare your options, what you should do is compare the 2 aspects using the same width rather than the same diaganol. Throw distance is determined by the width of the image. For example, if you're considering a 112" 2.35 screen and are putting that size cardboard to get an idea of it, then you'd want to cut out a 118" 16:9 and do the same (both the 112" 2.35 and 118" 16:9 have a 103" width and will require the exact same throw distance).

Then, if you REALLY want to compare things, do as Bob suggested. Cut out a 90" 16:9 piece and put that up as well. Because that will be what you're limited to for 1.85 films and 16:9 content. That's really the difference -- 118" versus 90" for high def content.

Again I know you've made up your mind, but the above two sizes would be the best way to compare. I think you'd be surprised how much larger the 118 is, and the cool thing is when you're watching 2.35/2.4 material, you will have a 112" image. The carada works well for DIY masking btw -- that's what I did. With masking, the screen looks exactly like a 2.35 screen.

Just food for thought as I would have regretted it tremendously if I went with the smaller 2.35 size.

This calculator might be helpful also.

http://www.silisoftware.com/tools/sc...mage_height=60

Teecue
Reply
Reply
post #3353 of 8336
1/19/10 at 3:21am
Can anyone recommend a projector ceiling mount for the AE4000? Are there any that allow the cabling to be run down the center pipe, to hide all cabling (outlet would be installed in attic).

Thanks!
Reply
Reply
post #3354 of 8336
1/19/10 at 4:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by WannaTheater View Post

Can anyone recommend a projector ceiling mount for the AE4000? Are there any that allow the cabling to be run down the center pipe, to hide all cabling (outlet would be installed in attic).

Thanks!

This is what I have. Not as foolproof as a Chief mount, requires some fiddling to get set up initially, instructions are poor. But once done it's very solid and looks nice. Wires can go through center pipe.

http://www.mountdirect.com/Projector...ries_p/npl.htm
http://www.mountdirect.com/NPL_Exten.../npl_ext_v.htm

There's usually a coupon code on the home page to get an additional 10% or so off.
Reply
Reply
post #3355 of 8336
1/19/10 at 4:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironwill96 View Post

I'd like to echo the earlier positive comments toward getting a UPS for your projector. The cost investment is not that great ($100) and it can save you a great deal of headaches. If you get a decent one (I got a nice system for $130 from BestBuy that has an LCD panel on it) you can run all of your equipment for 10-15 minutes (including surround sound, blu-ray player, projector etc) which gives you time to find a good stopping point :-)

Also, I don't think it is so much for the power outages but for the voltage drops that others have mentioned. Inevitably the power coming in will not be clean, so having a UPS/line-conditioner helps a ton with device longevity. I've worked with a lot of projectors in a corporate environment that have been damaged by bad power in the building.

Here's one for $150 w/ power conditioner: http://www.buy.com/prod/cyberpower-intelligent-lcd-series-cp1500avrlcd-ups-1500va-900w-4-x/q/loc/101/203277717.html?adid=17653
Reply
Reply
post #3356 of 8336
1/19/10 at 6:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bujee1 View Post

My room is 13 ft square. My AE4k is exactly 11 ft from my screen which is 100". I agree 16:9 is the best choice in a small room. For 2.35, I mask the bottom and shift the image to the top of the screen.

How? what is the best way to mask the bottom?
Reply
Reply
post #3357 of 8336
1/19/10 at 6:03am
I'm in northern VA and have Cox cable. I noticed that while flipping through different HD channels, the screen size/resolution changes. I'm not talking about the pillar boxes added to channels like ESPN (on certain occasions) or the commercials. Some screens have about an inch gap on the top and/or bottom and even the sides creep in about 1/2" or so. But other channels are fill the screen fully. Anyone else notice this? It's pretty annoying!

Also, does anyone know if the masking feature in the PJ shrinks the image or just cuts off the edges?
Reply
Reply
post #3358 of 8336
1/19/10 at 6:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by qlee72 View Post

I'm in northern VA and have Cox cable. I noticed that while flipping through different HD channels, the screen size/resolution changes. I'm not talking about the pillar boxes added to channels like ESPN (on certain occasions) or the commercials. Some screens have about an inch gap on the top and/or bottom and even the sides creep in about 1/2" or so. But other channels are fill the screen fully. Anyone else notice this? It's pretty annoying!

Also, does anyone know if the masking feature in the PJ shrinks the image or just cuts off the edges?

It cuts off...does not shrink....I don't notice the gap, I do notice an occasional white / bright line at the top esp. in SD channels or SD commercials on HD channels
Reply
Reply
post #3359 of 8336
1/19/10 at 6:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dabagboy View Post

It cuts off...does not shrink....I don't notice the gap, I do notice an occasional white / bright line at the top esp. in SD channels or SD commercials on HD channels

Nice raised/stadium seating! I regret not having one built when then basement was done. I think I'll have to build one this summer. How high did you make the box?

If I decide not to carpet it, do you think routering the edges of a plywood board will splinter it? If not, I might make the lip protude a bit, router it to a nice 'half bullnose', then stain/shellac the box. I don't know how hard it will be to get the matching carpet and carpet the box.....
Reply
Reply
post #3360 of 8336
1/19/10 at 7:27am
I have an AE4000. My throw is about 10ft. I am currently projecting onto my dark brown wall and am deciding on what type of screen to buy. I have samples from Elite and Carada. I run the lamp in eco mode. I use the Color 1 setting, no additional tweaks.

I put up all the samples, and watched the intro to star wars. I noticed that the image of space on my wall was "black." However, when I looked at the screen samples (CCW, brilliant white, cinewhite, cinegray, HC gray) the "black" space image was lighter and more of a "blue" space image.

How can I get the screen samples more "black" and less "blue?" I fiddled with contrast, brightness, gamma, etc. and NOTHING changed the "blueness" of the screen samples. Does this mean I have to get a black screen? Tweaking wise, is there anything else I can try to make the blue more black? Hell, Id even prefer "darker gray" than blue.

The gray screens did produce somewhat of a darker blue, but I cant figure out why the screen samples are blue looking.
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