New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Sony VPL-vw1000 - Page 35

Quote:
Originally Posted by dangc

Art is not at long throw with 14' wide screen at 19'-7" throw. This puts him at 1.4 to 1 throw ratio.

Wrong.

14' wide vistascope. I believe a 2.40:1 IIRC.
Screen width = 14' = 168"
Screen height = 168/2.40 = 70"
Throw = 19'7" = 235"
Throw Ratio = throw/height * .5625
so TR = 235/70 * .5625
TR = 1.9

Technically, this is the 1.78 TR. It changes some if you want to use the native panel resolution. Both for comparing apples and apples, and displaying 1.78 content, I think it's reasoanble to use the 1.78 dimension as the TR (the .5625 constant is derived form a 1.78 aspect).

If you factor the native panel size, the lumen calc will go up a little. So you have to be careful here and understand the details.

### Gear mentioned in this thread:

Quote:

If you tell me you rather not know the science and like to think something is there that can mathematically be shown to not be there, and confirmed by the manufacturer of the projector to not be there, be my guest. But please don't ask me to play along .

I think you're getting me mixed up with someone else on this subject. I've not debated or challenged your science. I'm just trying get you to direct it toward analyzing the positive responses we're seeing, subjective or otherwise. I am hoping that you will have the ability use the science to say what something is rather than what it is not. Get my point?

The subjective or even emotional responses here aren't happening in a vacuum. Science is certainly involved, even if it's psychology. But there are several fellows commmenting on their new projector who have been looking at fine projection systems for quite a while. I think we owe it to them in the admirable tradition of this forum to communicate in a manner that is...friendly, for lack of a better word. That doesn't mean one has to abandon science.

Quote:

I should note: this is one of the oddest comments I have ever received on something like this.

I think that I can explain this. You and I are probably communicating across a blurred line. We are probably from different camps of the same tribe. As a director of photography I have to straddle the line between technology and creativity/subjectivity all day. I can't tell you how much fun it is not to explain to a director why the image on the monitor has to look rather blah; that it will look very different later. He doesn't understand why we must capture conservatively within the lattitude of the camera. He does, though, have a very strong opinion about his vision and what he "wants" to see. I have to respect that and work with it. Thank goodness that now we have LUTs that the DIT and I can program in advance so that the monitor has an image that will be close to the final.

I think there are parallels there to what we are experiencing in the discussions of this new projector.

I'm sure I would not make a good engineer. You might not make a very good filmmaker. I live in the middle serving both sides as best I can whether on the set or in the AV world...or on this forum.

So, if you can speak to the hows and whys about this projector whether from your engineering knowledge, or from the manufacturer, or whatever, we'd love to learn. If you don't, that's okay.

Quote:

And I don't want to be fooled . I want exactly what is on disc. I don't want my projector to boost contrast, create halos, exaggerate compression artifacts and film noise. But sure, it is good to have the tool for people who crave such things and that is why we have the adjustment dials on displays.

Excellent! Agreed. And that's why there are video processors and selectable features.

Cheers
Quote:
Originally Posted by pteittinen

I sense a great disturbance, as if a million DoPs and cinematographers suddenly cried out in frustration.

And, surprisingly, we get it on the set from directors all the time now when they don't see on the monitor how it will look as a final product.

What Lawguy expresses I have no problem with...because I know that he started from a known point, an objective calibration, to which he can deviate or return.

Edit: In fairness to the majority of directors who don't do this, I'll say is it most common on commercials when the ad agency and/or client are present, and don't know better and can't resist asking to "paint" outside the lattitude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dangc

Art is not at long throw with 14' wide screen at 19'-7" throw. This puts him at 1.4 to 1 throw ratio.

I did not say throw ratio, I said throw or distance to the screen. 19'7" throw would be longer than 13"5" throw.

The anecdotal information consistent in the various threads regarding this projector suggest that a "throw distance" of less than 15' yields a higher lumen value compared to projector placement "throw distance" at approximately 20'. I'm assuming the same size screen in this example and the zoom would be used at the projectors position to fill the screen.

HT Magazine reported a similar lumen value to what Art got at approximately the same "throw distance" but on a 10' wide screen vs. Art's 14'. Obviously, the "throw ratios" were very different. The smaller screen yielded a higher foot lambert value than Art's while the lumen values were approximately the same. The projector placement "throw distance" was approximately the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm

It is news to me that we no longer care about fidelity and science in this forum. Is there a consensus view that we should no longer care here?

Fidelity compared to what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray

Wrong.

14' wide vistascope. I believe a 2.40:1 IIRC.
Screen width = 14' = 168"
Screen height = 168/2.40 = 70"
Throw = 19'7" = 235"
Throw Ratio = throw/height * .5625
so TR = 235/70 * .5625
TR = 1.9

Technically, this is the 1.78 TR. It changes some if you want to use the native panel resolution. Both for comparing apples and apples, and displaying 1.78 content, I think it's reasoanble to use the 1.78 dimension as the TR (the .5625 constant is derived form a 1.78 aspect).

If you factor the native panel size, the lumen calc will go up a little. So you have to be careful here and understand the details.

Uhhh, I don't think so....

First, Art is using the zoom method, read the posts, I asked him that. This means his height is ~94".

Second, you determine the throw ratio by the screen width not the screen height.

So the throw ratio is throw/width
235"/168" = 1.398.

This is how all the calculators determine throw, and I did a quick search and verified that width is used not height just to make sure. I certainly have been wrong before....
Quote:

Properly tweaked, black crush is non existent. I demoed some scenes from the RR Hall of Fame Concert. Sting was wearing a black sport coat with a black tshirt. I could clearly distinguish both and could and even clearly see some black fuzz on his jacket and t. Black levels are amazing on this thing. Amazing how it handled the various shades of black.

That's what I figured, thanks!

By the way, one of the scenes I watched was from Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, the scene where Hagrid first comes to meet Harry in the middle of a thunderstorm.

We were watching it with no sound at all, because the dealer's processor was having some HDMI issues. And, because of the temporary (tabletop) location, the lens was less than a foot from my ear.

It was really interesting to be sitting so close to the projector with no movie audio for this scene, because I could hear the iris working, and man was it working hard for a scene like this! Lightning flashes, flickering firelight, etc. But the picture on screen never gave a hint that the iris existed. I was quite impressed.

I did, by the way, move just a few feet away from the projector to make sure I couldn't hear the iris anymore, and I couldn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm

It is news to me that we no longer care about fidelity and science in this forum. Is there a consensus view that we should no longer care here?

The wheels really came off when Frame Interpolation gained popularity.

People will look at your image showing the effects of sharpening and say that it is a bad thing. But, since people don't watch test patterns, they will go ahead and do what they think looks good.

Manufacturers encourage this by creating new and sometimes gimmicky features each year instead of focusing on improving the core components of image quality.

I really see the arguments both ways. SOME deviation from purity must be acceptable to a purist or else all a purist would ever own would be a studio monitor. On the other hand, I do see many more people demandng controls that actually work (like CMSs) even if we don't always get them or reasonably color-accurate presets.

For these reasons, I think it is unproductive to look at things in this kind of black and white way. Reasonable people in the exercise of their judgment can disagree about what makes good image quality.
Just a quick note to express my thanks publicly to Mark Haflich for his hospitality and help in introducing me to the VW1000. And also helping me get it into my canvas bag--basically just a big heavy duty grocery bag--(a snug fit), bottom down, with a towel tucked over the top (lens) end. Brought it back as carry-on baggage (using one of the old-fashion detachable 'wheelies' to get it through the airports). The TSA guys looked at it rather quizzically, but let me go ahead! I truly felt like the Okie going west with a Steinway in his covered wagon. But it all worked out extremely well (fits the overhead bin on the plane just right!).

I've got a ton of things to do to catch up with trivia, but couldn't help not putting it up and turning it on. Wow, I think it looks even better than at Mark's! Maybe the larger (HP2.4) screen. Still lots of playing to do with all the settings, and I'll be making some measurements in a few days to see how they compare with what Mark and Tom got.
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill

Just a quick note to express my thanks publicly to Mark Haflich for his hospitality and help in introducing me to the VW1000. And also helping me get it into my canvas bag--basically just a big heavy duty grocery bag--(a snug fit), bottom down, with a towel tucked over the top (lens) end. Brought it back as carry-on baggage (using one of the old-fashion detachable 'wheelies' to get it through the airports). The TSA guys looked at it rather quizzically, but let me go ahead! I truly felt like the Okie going west with a Steinway in his covered wagon. But it all worked out extremely well (fits the overhead bin on the plane just right!).

Quote:
Originally Posted by dangc

Uhhh, I don't think so....

First, Art is using the zoom method, read the posts, I asked him that. This means his height is ~94".

Might want to ask again. I believe Art uses a scope aspect Stewart screen StudioTec 130, micro-perf. He also is constant height with an ISCO lens. 94" high doesn't work with a 14' wide screen for scope and constant height.
Stewart has a stock size in scope; size is 169" by 72".

http://artsonneborn.com/

If Art didn't use his ISCO IIIL and zoomed, maybe the spill over was ~94". Or, maybe he had black bars on the screen, I don't know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dangc

Second, you determine the throw ratio by the screen width not the screen height.

So the throw ratio is throw/width
235"/168" = 1.398.

This is how all the calculators determine throw, and I did a quick search and verified that width is used not height just to make sure. I certainly have been wrong before....

I don't want to speak for GetGray, but he's a major dealer for ISCO lens. Calculating throw ratio using screen height is a very reliable way to do it. All calculations are not done by width.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dangc

Uhhh, I don't think so....

First, Art is using the zoom method, read the posts, I asked him that. This means his height is ~94".

Second, you determine the throw ratio by the screen width not the screen height.

So the throw ratio is throw/width
235"/168" = 1.398.

This is how all the calculators determine throw, and I did a quick search and verified that width is used not height just to make sure. I certainly have been wrong before....

My bad IF they measured while zoomed. Didn't see that. Doesn't sound like something Ken would have done to check lumens. But if you say so... Then it is even worse.

But my formula using height is correct for 1.78 aspects. I use that to take the ambiguity out of screen size. Often customers say "my screens is a 130 inch st130 etc. I don't know if they mean width 2.35, 2.40, or diagonal. Height doesn't change (assuming CIH). Thus the reason for the formula format I use. Feel free to check the math. I've been doing it a long time, and it's my vocation.
When we took the image down to the 16x9 shape ,at the same throw ,we got 21.3fL which is 1256 lumens with a calibrated projector.

We zoomed specifically since this is likely how I would have used it if it had had enough light to use it that way.

Art
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawguy

The wheels really came off when Frame Interpolation gained popularity.

People will look at your image showing the effects of sharpening and say that it is a bad thing. But, since people don't watch test patterns, they will go ahead and do what they think looks good.

Manufacturers encourage this by creating new and sometimes gimmicky features each year instead of focusing on improving the core components of image quality.

I really see the arguments both ways. SOME deviation from purity must be acceptable to a purist or else all a purist would ever own would be a studio monitor. On the other hand, I do see many more people demandng controls that actually work (like CMSs) even if we don't always get them or reasonably color-accurate presets.

For these reasons, I think it is unproductive to look at things in this kind of black and white way. Reasonable people in the exercise of their judgment can disagree about what makes good image quality.

I'm glad Joe Kane is still living otherwise he'd be flipping over in his grave.

Art
I'm going to modify a few things I said about the image after more critical viewing of video that I know well, today. I will just say that I now see what a few members like Cineramax have said regarding LCoS compared to DLP.

I'm still extremely impressed with this unit especially the apparent detail and close seating superiority.

Art
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn

I'm going to modify a few things I said about the image after more critical viewing of video that I know well, today. I will just say that I now see what a few members like Cineramax have said regarding LCoS compared to DLP.
Art

Or was that your modification? (Because I'm not sure what you are saying).
Art. How many fl did you get at a14ft wide image zooming?
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness

Or was that your modification? (Because I'm not sure what you are saying).

I'm saying I need to go to bed. I can add more tomorrow. Just suffice it to say that after a little more critical viewing, even at the same fL value ,after zooming down, the ANSI or some component of intrascene contrast ,other the sequential contrast, really reared it's head.

The dimensionality of the image on the 3chip DLP was way way better despite getting the two units to project the same fL value from patterns generated externally.

This was done in fairly rapid A/B comparisons.

Art
Quote:
Originally Posted by img eL

Mark took some pictures to have some chuckles.

Also, just made a few quick lumen measurements. Keeping everything in 'Reference' and D65 presets, 709 color space, I first made all the settings I could think of to maximize Lumens: high lamp, Contrast = max (the 235 bars on the M&S disk are still well resolved even at max), DI = full, Gamma = 2.2, and I got 1580 lumens. Changing only to low lamp, I got 1200 lumens.

Now the settings I like best (so far): DI on low ('limited'), Contrast = 95--both of which lower lumens--and this gives 950 lumens, producing 30+ ftL off my HP2.4 screen. A very refined, solid (analog-like), yet extremely sharp, detailed, and dynamic (but smooth), with rich colors. I also have motion flow on low, Realty Creation 'on', Smooth Gradation on 'middle', and most everything else 'off'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill

Mark took some pictures to have some chuckles.

Also, just made a few quick lumen measurements. Keeping everything in 'Reference' and D65 presets, 709 color space, I first made all the settings I could think of to maximize Lumens: high lamp, Contrast = max (the 235 bars on the M&S disk are still well resolved even at max), DI = full, Gamma = 2.2, and I got 1580 lumens. Changing only to low lamp, I got 1200 lumens.

Now the settings I like best (so far): DI on low ('limited'), Contrast = 95--both of which lower lumens--and this gives 950 lumens, producing 30+ ftL off my HP2.4 screen. A very refined, solid (analog-like), yet extremely sharp, detailed, and dynamic (but smooth), with rich colors. I also have motion flow on low, Realty Creation 'on', Smooth Gradation on 'middle', and most everything else 'off'.

Is your 950 lumens on low or high lamp?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifiaudio2

Is your 950 lumens on low or high lamp?

Low; sorry I forgot to note this.
Millerwill..what is your throw distance and screen size?
It looks like the hipower 2.4 and the sony will be a good match for we larger screen types
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn

When we took the image down to the 16x9 shape ,at the same throw ,we got 21.3fL which is 1256 lumens with a calibrated projector.

We zoomed specifically since this is likely how I would have used it if it had had enough light to use it that way.

Art

Don't know how you guys calculated it but that looks inconsistent from another unit I know of. Zooming to a narrower beam should have made the lumens go down, not up. If the numbers were reversed it would look right. Something going on there. Interesting anyway. Someone near me offered to let me come see theirs when it gets in. I'll get to the bottom of it then if they don't mind me taking some measurments. These are surprisingly low numbers though vs. advertised, IMO. And we haven't even started talking about bulb aging much. Frankly amazed to see people already considering a HP screen for a PJ that is supposed to be 2k lumens

Cheers,
Scott
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray

Don't know how you guys calculated it but that looks inconsistent from another unit I know of. Zooming to a narrower beam should have made the lumens go down, not up. If the numbers were reversed it would look right. Something going on there. Interesting anyway. Someone near me offered to let me come see theirs when it gets in. I'll get to the bottom of it then if they don't mind me taking some measurments. These are surprisingly low numbers though vs. advertised, IMO. And we haven't even started talking about bulb aging much. Frankly amazed to see people already considering a HP screen for a PJ that is supposed to be 2k lumens

Cheers,
Scott

Yup, pretty amazed by this also...as I am now considering going with a HP as well, but I may need to add an ND filter. Almost like having a 4k 3d Lumis Solo at a fraction of the price... on a neutral gain screen. If I go with the HP, the Sim2 Mico150 LED will also work with an anamorphic lense (with no ND filter) but I would lose the benefits 4k on a fairly large 141" wide screen.
Quote:

So who's using or planning to use an AT screen with this projector? Which one do you have or plan to own? I should make final decisions tonight.

I'm torn between the Stewart ST 1.3 MP, Enlightor 4K, or Center Stage XD

Not only AT, not only 160" wide 2.37, but also Enlightor 4K.

Luckily, I may have the option to back down to Center Stage XD if I decide it isn't bright enough and I don't just decide to not project to the full size of the screen...

I'm sure the lumens "mysteries" will be solved by the time I get my screen and room setup, which will probably be at least mid-March.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn

Home Theater Magazine had 860 lumens in their review.

Art

Art, that was a prototype. ( a prereview )

dj
Quote:
Originally Posted by samalmoe

Millerwill..what is your throw distance and screen size?
It looks like the hipower 2.4 and the sony will be a good match for we larger screen types

What I reported above is for my 16x9 configuration, 128x72 (64 sq ft), and the pj is at the absolute minimum throw distance, 1.27x128" = 13.5 ft. (For 2.35 my screen size is 144x61; this weekend I will move the pj back for this min throw distance, and leave it there; it will then be at ~ 15.25 ft and thus not at the min distance for 16x9; means I'll loose a little brightness, but I have MUCH to spare.)
I am planning to start public and private viewings this week and next so let me know. All is invited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill

What I reported above is for my 16x9 configuration, 128x72 (64 sq ft), and the pj is at the absolute minimum throw distance, 1.27x128" = 13.5 ft. (For 2.35 my screen size is 144x61; this weekend I will move the pj back for this min throw distance, and leave it there; it will then be at ~ 15.25 ft and thus not at the min distance for 16x9; means I'll loose a little brightness, but I have MUCH to spare.)

I think that you have a screen size which is about what this projector is made for IMO.

Art
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray

My bad IF they measured while zoomed. Didn't see that. Doesn't sound like something Ken would have done to check lumens. But if you say so... Then it is even worse.

But my formula using height is correct for 1.78 aspects. I use that to take the ambiguity out of screen size. Often customers say "my screens is a 130 inch st130 etc. I don't know if they mean width 2.35, 2.40, or diagonal. Height doesn't change (assuming CIH). Thus the reason for the formula format I use. Feel free to check the math. I've been doing it a long time, and it's my vocation.

Hi I know your reputation and have the utmost respect for you but I must profess to being confused on this throw ratio thing. The throw ratio is a specification on a given projector typically expressed in a range that corresponds with the focal length of the zoom lens deployed, right? For instance my projector (Infocus SP8602) has a throw ratio spec that is 1.49 - 2.28. So I have a 1.78 screen that is 81" H by 144" W. If I tried to calculate the closest my projector could be from the screen or my throw (right) using its height I would get 81" * 1.49 which gives me a min throw of 120.69 inches....That simply doesn't work. My projector is 17' 11" from the screen and I am at maximum zoom to get my screen size. I can't make my image any larger. So this equates to the specification from Infocus of 144" (my screen width) * 1.49 (min throw ratio specification from Infocus) = 214.56" or 17' 10.56". Now sure you can use height to come up with a throw ratio but of course that is a different ratio than using the width.

Please let me know where I have gone wrong????T Thanks for your patience with me.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home