Sony VPL-vw1000 - Page 64

Have a question about the Sony BDP-s790 bluray player that will be coming out soon; it upconverts BD's and outputs them at 4K.

Any idea whether or not using it to send 4K directly to the VW1000 would be any better than having an Oppo output 1080p to a RadianceMini which sends 1080p to the 1000 for the latter to display as 4K?

Thats what I thought but just wanted to double check.

What about the overall experience with a curved screen, would it hurt the picture quality if used one? I actually like the look and feel but have never been in a setup like I would use (140" wide)?

There's a couple of people on this thread that use one. A friend of mine has a curved screen. I thought it had a nice feel to it. I wouldn't use it for a smaller screen but maybe for a 140 inch wide, it would work well.

Kinda off topic but kinda related. What is the feature on the oppo that places the sub titles on the screen when using the scope zoom feature of the vw1000? If the sony BDP had that feature I may be interested in it over the oppo as I havent purchased it yet.

That is the 64,000 dollar question. Sony sources have said it still won't do as good as the 4 or 5k scaler in the 1000. I still plan to try it just for kicks. So far I have had the same results sending 1080p in from whatever blu ray player I use.

I guess my question is whether folks believe the BDP-S790 will upconvert 1080p to 4K better than the VW1000 does. Probably no one knows, of course, so I'm just wondering if there is any 'intelligent speculation'.

Well if 'Sony sources' say this, I would count that as 'intelligent speculation'. So might as well pass on this new BD player.

I love their 780 though. I don't mind getting a newer player each cycle since we don't have to pay an arm and a leg anymore for picture Q. I just picked up thei new S590 at Target for cheap and it is a damn good player.

I really like mine but it's only 134" wide. Stewart Cinecurve AT 130 G3. Works really well with the A lens that I don't use now. I also have the AT masking panels.

I used a 120" wide Da-Lite HP in a family room at my last house. I loved the HP in that setting but would never use one in a dedicated theater.

There are 2 reasons to use a curved screen IMO:
a) compensate for pincushion IF you have a low TR (throw ratio) and and Anamorphic lens. In this case I recommend splitting the error with A) below.
b) Brightness uniformity on large screens with screens that have a narrower viewing cone (typically gain screens liek my Firehawk).

If you have a good screen and PJ dealer they can advise when b) is in order.

There is one reason to not have a curved screen:
A) Barrel distortion, which will vary substantially with TR, and mounting position.
B) OK, 2. You have to be careful with negative gain screens with 180 degree viewing cones. They can cause a decrease in MTF due to the curved screen washing itself out when it comes to ANSI CR performance. And with LCOS you dont' typically have much to spare in that department.

Randal..what about a hp in a 2 person theatre?

Yes, I went through the source menu and found the appropriate mode that eliminate all processing levels. The mode is called picture mode 'Direct' on the 80.3. I just reconfirmed in the manual that it 'Does not adjust picture quality (does not change resolution)'. It overrides the resolution mode adjustment as well, which I first tried to in 'Through' mode as well. I yet to post on the 80.3 thread, so I better get cracking and do that now just in case someone has an answer over there.

EDIT: I've also just now glanced at the input/output table in the manual and noted only 4K output is mentioned, nothing higher than 1080p HDMI on the input side. So I may have deluded myself that the 80.3 was going to do the job in this case. Even my friend at the Onkyo/Integra local distrib knew that was why I was keen to have one, yet I guess I'm prob the first to test for 4K pass-through.

I have nothing against the HP, I just don't think it works well in my theater. It is a great screen for what it does. I've owned three of them. If it fits your situation then you should use it. The HP is retroreflective and good at rejecting ambient light and this is one reason it works well in non dedicated(family room) type theaters.

my understanding is the scaler in the projector is far superior to the Blu-ray player. Also if you feed the projector a 4K signal then Reality creation is not available.

The best signal

true Native 4K
the best 1080P signal (this will be up scaled to 4K using Reality Creation)

I use a 10' wide CineCurve with a 50' radius. I have an ISCO lll L and like it very much. I think it is sharper and brighter than zooming. with 16x9 content I do not see any distortion.

Thanks much; I had forgotten about the RC angle. So this settles my original question in my mind.

Are you using the ISCO with the Sony VW1000? If so, I don't see how it would be any brighter or sharper. On second thought, it could probably be brighter if you are near minimum throw.

I agree. It would be brighter since you would be using all 4096 x 2160 pixels but no way could it be sharper. The depth of field would dramatically decrease from several feet to about 2 inches and screen extreminities would definately be less sharp. However, one does not watch the extreminities, those primarily only being in one's peripheral vision and given use of a very large screen the net increase in brightness could outweigh the sharpnes losses.

If you did not do the button sequence on the front panel mentioned above your post then you do not have the unit in a true passthrough. You dont have to worry about what mode it is in in the menus if you hit the front panel VCR button and "return" (i think) at the same time. It will say "video processor": use or "skip" on the front panel and you can cycle between them.

I think the 1.33 lens will only do 3840 x 2160. You would need a 1.25 lens to use the full panel.

OK

So a certain lens would need to be used since this is a 4k projector? How will it affect the throw? Will the short throw still be able to be used or would it even make the throw capable of being even shorter?

Here are my interests as of right now

15-16' throw
140" wide scope curved seymour screen (probably the xd center stage as it is brighter)
lens- ?
Would like a 13' wide scope screen but not paying the cost of perf from stewart unless things really change my mind. I could buy a nice lens and other equipment for the price difference between seymour and stewart screens.

The A lens has been discussed quite a bit already if you go back through the 2 threads for the VW1000. With the 1.25 A lens you could use the full panel and mount the projector at closest throw for a 1.78 picture and still be able to expand to 2.35. If you mount this projector at closest throw for 1.78 you would not be able to expand to 2.35 without the A lens. Last point is the price of the lens is around $17K retail.

Yeah I agree and have spent way more on the speakers than the pj but I just cant see the screen really being that more impressive than the seymour being that the seymour has more gain doesnt it, the center stage? I understand that if the seating were at like 8-10' then the stewart would be the better option, correct? I dont want to skimp on the screen but if the seating isnt close enough to take advantage of the 4k screen or perf screen then the brighter center stage may be the logical thing to do way I get the brighter image.

Mike you never modeled the center stage material. What does it look like at the 140"? I've noticed some 1000 owners have gone with it.

Randall, no offense but searching through the 65 page thread to find bits of info on a lens just isnt worth the hours it would take when I can ask those who have been on board the thread since it began I've only recently started keeping up with it. But have made some progress. I'm excited to see new posts in here each time I open the pj threads. This leap into the higher end projectors has me very excited! All the options that were not available before are making me feel like its Christmas time picking out all this stuff that I've never been able to look at until now.

So, Mike says no lens and Randall says 17k. I'm assuming even when more become available they will be quite a bit more expensive than the 1080 lenses? How expensive were 1080 lenses when they first came out? Probably not even close to the 17k mark I'm sure.

It is indeed true that if you start with a panel that is 4096 x 2160 or 1.89 the horizontal stretch that an anamorphic lens would have to do to fit a 2.35 screen would be around 1.24, the issue is not so much the horizontal zoom ratio but the ability of the lens to fully resolve those 8 million plus pixels. That is why the cost of a 1.25 or so 4K lens is so much more than a 2K (or 1080p or so, actually 2K would be 2048 x 1080 while 1080p would be 1920 x 1080) lens. That, and since we are just entering into the realm of true 4K consumer panels, the economies of production scale are unfavorable compared to 2K lenses. But 1.24 K lenses are available and can be ordered for the list prices mentioned by Randy. Assuming you want to go the anamorphic lens route with a 1.33 horizontal stretch lens, than one would leave the Sony panel functioning as a 3840 X 2160 panel, set the Sony internal vertical stretch to 1.33 and get all those unused vertical pixels but give up approximately 7% of the pixels available at 4096 x 2160. he issue at that point is how good are the optics at handling 3840 x 2160 pixels (still in excess of 8 million). Some lenses out there such as an ISCO III reportedly by some do a decent job at that. Others demand a true 4K lens. Me. At this point I would just use the zoom method leaving a choice to add an anamorphic later as time sorts things out.

I'm very much in agreement, Mark, that the zoom method makes a great deal more sense than screwing around with an a-lens, given the brightness and resolution of the 1000.

Yeah that post most def made me make up my mind. I'll just stick with a 140" wide curved scope screen with seymour material that produces the most fls way 3D can atleast be a little brighter. That is unless Mike or someone else talks me out of it.

I just hate the thought of leaving all that square footage of a 140" wide 16:9 screen behind. I love scope but since the material is only about 50% or less I cant help but to think about going a different way. I havent seen a curved 16:9 screen but surely one can be made. What would the cons be of such a screen? That would allow me to use an oppo or sony (if has feature) to place text on the screen until true 4k lenses are affordable.

Loss of screen sqft
Scope 140" wide=122" 16:9
16:9 of 161"=140" wide scope and only need some masking to have best of both worlds.

Decisions decisions

Optimal goal would be 13' wide scope way could have the larger 16:9 but screen costs and throw location change may push me away. Maybe someone will talk me into it as that would be so so awesome.

The worst part of all this is that I just had my first son and now have two children in car seats so I sold my slightly modded 2010 GTR way could buy my wife a Honda minivan. The original plan was I was going to buy some stuff for the theater, (sony pj, and couple other things), work truck, and a new 2012 BMW 550for me to have modded to 550hp/575lbtq way I wouldnt miss the GTR as much since the children could easily fit in the 4 door bimmer. But now she has talked me into buying her the van while giving me her suv way I can use it for my work. Then she will buy me a new car in two years after the suv is paid off. My wife is the love of my life and puts up with all my crazy hobbies so I couldnt tell her no by any means. The sony has pretty much made me care less about having a fast car for a few years as it allows me to incorporate so much more than I had planned for the theater with the JVC RS45. Its like opening up the doors of the chocolate factory to me.

Sorry for the long story behind why/how this all came about but none of my friends quite understand the difference in projectors. All they really know is they like watching a nice big picture with surround sound and think all it takes is a projector and screen.

How would you compare the two live images(I assume you took the pics)

Size aside, observing from the same viewing angle.

From the pics, the JVC seems to have a more dynamic image. Brighter brights and darker darks.

Thanks.

I only photographed the JVC as i saw this pic posted and thought i can compare with this.

The 1000 pic looks like Reality Creation is off as well as other "pop" settings. My 1000 looks much more lifelike than that.