or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sony VPL-vw1000 - Page 113

post #3361 of 9659
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

My guess is that Sony will within a year or two come out with a 4K ray player, whatever it will be called, and be releasing 4HD content from its library. I doubt there will be a beta testing program.The Bluray consortium has under active discussion 4HD standards.


Mark, do you have any feeling about whether the 4K BD will be 4HD or 'true' 4K (I think you know what I mean).

 

Bill

post #3362 of 9659
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Re an anmorphic lens with the Sony, i'd want to get a 4K rated lens and that's really expensive. The Sony has good lumens out for normal size large wide screens and I would just zoom. remember the chip is 1.89 to start with and as long as your active image is greater than 1.89 (or at least equal to that).ou can set the Sony to use the full chip width.

But that would require me to get around the mental block of not using all the pixels for scope biggrin.gif Well that and to actually get a 1000, which isn't going to happen for now, 4K is just a bit too up in the air right now for my taste, well that and the price.
post #3363 of 9659
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Re an anmorphic lens with the Sony, i'd want to get a 4K rated lens and that's really expensive. The Sony has good lumens out for normal size large wide screens and I would just zoom. remember the chip is 1.89 to start with and as long as your active image is greater than 1.89 (or at least equal to that).ou can set the Sony to use the full chip width.

Has anybody tried an ISCO or Prismasonic with there 1000. I seem to remember one guy was going to, but I think he sold the lens before he got the 1000. I know you should use a 4K rated A-lens, but I am curious how it would actually compare using current A-lens?
Reply
Reply
post #3364 of 9659
All I can say is.... WOW. Mine finally went in today and the picture is simply stunning. I think I need to tweak the panel adjustment some more but get a headache staring at the lines for 30 minutes. I can't figure out what to do with all of the darn adjustments:). How much better can the picture get? It looks pretty darn amazing right out of the box.

One thing I did notice... it takes a few seconds for it to decide to open the doors and then about 15-20s for it to decide to turn the lamp on. Is this normal?
Edited by scooter_29 - 10/27/12 at 9:08pm
post #3365 of 9659
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter_29 View Post

One thing I did notice... it takes a few seconds for it to decide to open the doors and then about 15-20s for it to decide to turn the lamp on. Is this normal?

Definitely normal. Enjoy the show....
post #3366 of 9659
Yep. But the lamp does turn on quickly but takes around the specified period to put out enough light to ligth the screen and even then one can see it get brighter a few seconds after the full picture become visable. But the lamp does strike very early in the start up sequence. Why the doors don't open immediately, I don't know but all units do have the delay you noticed in the doors opening.
post #3367 of 9659
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Re an anmorphic lens with the Sony, i'd want to get a 4K rated lens and that's really expensive. The Sony has good lumens out for normal size large wide screens and I would just zoom. remember the chip is 1.89 to start with and as long as your active image is greater than 1.89 (or at least equal to that).ou can set the Sony to use the full chip width.

I would assume letter box on any ratio smaller? Just zoom to taste? smile.gif

So watching 1.78 gives me about 6% pixel loss? Doesn't seem significant.....................

Have to get to Seattle to see for myself............
post #3368 of 9659
Its the other way. the source aspect has to be 1.89 or higher to use the full chip width and you have to tell the machine you wnt to use the full chip width. At higher than 1.89 you will have horizontal top and bottom black bars. If your screen aspect is 2.35 or whatyever you can zoom to fill it vertically. If you use an anamorphic, the Sony will strech the image vertically and your anamorphic supplies the horizontal stretch.
post #3369 of 9659

I'm curious what AR most of you use for HDTV.    I cannot see any pq diff between 'Normal' (16x9) and '2.35:1 Zoom' (17x9), but would be interested if any of you can.    (I CAN see some diff on some test patterns, but for the life of me I can't on any real pics.)

 

With the former AR (16x9) my screen provides a 128x72 pic, while with the latter (17x9) it gives 136x72.    So since I'm addicted to size, I'm using 17x9 at present, but would give it up if I'm sacrificing any pq.

post #3370 of 9659
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

I'm curious what AR most of you use for HDTV.    I cannot see any pq diff between 'Normal' (16x9) and '2.35:1 Zoom' (17x9), but would be interested if any of you can.    (I CAN see some diff on some test patterns, but for the life of me I can't on any real pics.)

With the former AR (16x9) my screen provides a 128x72 pic, while with the latter (17x9) it gives 136x72.    So since I'm addicted to size, I'm using 17x9 at present, but would give it up if I'm sacrificing any pq.

Well.................I'm no projector guru, just an old man trying to wrap my mind around this machine. Just when I've settled on which projector, this Sony machine has my head swimming in circles........aka. shark tank. BTW, did you use a previously owned screen or did you purchase a new screen just for this Sony?

Anyhow, I just have to see this 1000 for myself...........have someone zoom in and out using all sorts of aspect ratios. Since this machine will mostly be used in a black hole watching movies and in the Fall be used in a lighted room for watching college football...........I want to make sure this machine fits the bill. Seems to me there hasn't been an outcry for the zooming process so simplicity might be my forte' due to my simple-mindedness. biggrin.gif

A question for the experts......................what would be an ideal screen size for this machine considering approximate 19 ft throw? Is there any reason to custom build a specific sized screen? My take is to use a machine that will light up a 12 ft screen in scope using a TBA acoustic type screen.

I guess I need a few "laser beams".......................
post #3371 of 9659

Doublewing11:    Not sure who's older (I'm 71) but surely am having fun with all the HT business!    Re screen size, it's very personal, and of course limited by your room situation.     I really like the big screen/emersive experience, so got he widest screen my room could take, 144"W, and I decided that 72"H was as high as would fit.    So I have full width for 2.35 pics (144 x 61), and full height for 16x9 (or 17x9 with the 1000), 128 or 136W x 72H.    

 

Because of the size , for the brightness I wanted I went with a Dalite HP screen, the new 2.4 version (had a smaller earlier 2.8 version with a RS20 and loved it, so I had no hesitation about it).    Works great in my situation because the 2 or 3 viewers are all near the screen center, and the projector is on a stand just above head height.     But all of these considerations are things that one needs to think through carefully for their own setup.     I have the Sony1000 at its min throw distance, which helps with brightness and also for the HP's retro-reflective character, so its very short min throw ratio was of critical importance for me.     You need to get out your calculator and check out all he parameters for your own case.

post #3372 of 9659
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

Has anybody tried an ISCO or Prismasonic with there 1000. I seem to remember one guy was going to, but I think he sold the lens before he got the 1000. I know you should use a 4K rated A-lens, but I am curious how it would actually compare using current A-lens?

I did have a Schneider m anamorphic lens but sold it before I purchased the Sony. I can't say I have any regrets..the Sony provides a pristine picture on my 3.6m wide scope Seymour screen.

Looking to the future, I'm looking forward to the time we're able to play native Ultra HD material through our sonys to fully realise their potential:)
post #3373 of 9659
Hey everyone - I've done a few searches in this forum on this topic and although it's been touched on a few times I'm not sure a definitive answer has come to light. My apologies in advance if it has.

First up - I have to say that the 1000 is the finest projector I have ever seen for the HT market and I can't say that there's been a single piece of content that I have fed it that hasn't stunned me or my guests. This is the projector I feel like I've been waiting for since I got addicted to this whole racket in the first place. In particular the 3D performance is just superb with it's ferocious brightness and nearly non-existent ghosting. I've seen the RED 4K projector in action and the PQ doesn't really compare to the 1000 in it's present nascent incarnation (Although I was impressed by it's limited speckle and I am a fan of passive glasses).

That being said, there is one small little issue that constantly gets brought up to me by each and every guest who watches a 3D bluray in my theater - the color shifting from the glasses when you tilt your head.

From my searches in this thread I learned that the stock Sony glasses need the additional polarization filter to be fitted on the front of the glasses, and I believe that someone said this would take care of the color shift. I ordered many of these filters from Sony and fitted all of them onto all my pairs of glasses. Unfortunately, while the additional polarization certainly helped a little with whatever small amount of ghosting was present in the projector (which really was basically nonexistent in the first place) it did absolutely nothing for the red/green color shift that occurs when you tilt your head left or right.

I also read somewhere on AVS that certain aftermarket glasses are better for this so I purchased the XPand X104LX2 glasses, which someone endorsed for this very reason. Of course, these fared no better in the color shift department.

So here's my question - does EVERY pair of glasses have this color shift inherent to the active technology (is it because it's linearly polarized?) or is there a pair out there that nips this issue in the bud? The Monsters maybe?

I really appreciate any and all advice that is based on actual experience with the product. Having reputable people to turn to is what makes this forum truly as excellent as it is.

Cheers,
Nick
post #3374 of 9659
If you have glasses with no polarizers, as the standard Sony flat panel glasses, then you need to add polarizers to those glasses, but they are by no means additional polarizers. I just use the glasses that came with the Sony ES and they have the polarizers built in, no clip ons are needed. I have never noticed the color shifting but I will look to see if those glassses shift the colors with head movement. Glasses with circular polarizers I think would be called universal glasses but I don't know. No color shifting would occcur with circular polarizers.
Edited by mark haflich - 10/31/12 at 7:55pm
post #3375 of 9659

Using the Oppo with DirecTV sending in 4kX2K at 30. Image after the last update looks pretty good. smile.gif
post #3376 of 9659
That's true - I apologize for my mis-statement there. I forgot that Sony builds their polarizers into their 3D TV screens and so their glasses do not include them. Circular polarizer glasses are typically passive glasses (such as the disposable Real D ones you get in the theater). They are used to ensure that you get the full stereoscopic effect regardless of head position (I met with the president of technology at Real D once and he told me that if you couldn't take a date to the theater and have her put her head on your shoulder then you didn't have a viable product for the cinema. Unfortunately this just isn't true of the Sony glasses).

I don't know of any circular polarized active glasses at present but I also don't have all the info on every pair.

My best guess is that the color shift in these active glasses actually has to do with the Liquid Crystals being used and not the polarization aspects but again, that's just a guess. I'd love to minimize this effect or nip it in the bud completely if possible.
post #3377 of 9659
Hi,
Just an FYI,
Best Buy out here had a closeout on Playstation PS3 3D glasses, at about 1/3 of regular price.
They seem to work just fine. Can't tell any difference between them and the Sony glasses that come with the 1000.
So check with your local BB if you need another pair.
post #3378 of 9659
Hi Joe,
Yes, I got the download the other day.
When will you have your review up on the 103?
post #3379 of 9659
I can't wade through the Darby threads thousand posts so I ask for help here. Is it worth sending the Darby in for a firmware upgrade to fix the YCbCr 442/422 issue with the original firmware?
I'm using a Lumagen XD.

Thanks,
Dave
post #3380 of 9659
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOBCAT View Post

Hi Joe,
Yes, I got the download the other day.
When will you have your review up on the 103?

I been checking back and forth for your review of the oppo 103 too. Can't wait to read it
post #3381 of 9659
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

I been checking back and forth for your review of the oppo 103 too. Can't wait to read it

Same here. I've been checking for a while now. JoeRod has great reviews and I'm looking forward to his comparison of the Oppo 103 and the Sony S790. Are you getting close Joe? smile.gif
post #3382 of 9659
Quote:
Originally Posted by SED <--- Rules View Post

Same here. I've been checking for a while now. JoeRod has great reviews and I'm looking forward to his comparison of the Oppo 103 and the Sony S790. Are you getting close Joe? smile.gif

Thanks. I appreciate it. smile.gif

I will ask them when I can get it out. Hopefully soon. It is 98% finished now.
post #3383 of 9659
Hey Joe. Will you post a notice when you put it on your site. I know you like as many hits as you can get but I like to waste my time posting here rather than frequently checking your site to see if the review is up. I luv you anyway as we all do. smile.gif
post #3384 of 9659
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveN View Post

I can't wade through the Darby threads thousand posts so I ask for help here. Is it worth sending the Darby in for a firmware upgrade to fix the YCbCr 442/422 issue with the original firmware?
I'm using a Lumagen XD.
Thanks,
Dave

I really don't think so as long as your projector accepts the present output which it does. However, it costs only a few bucks to send it back. They return it quickly and your projector willl give you a great picture while you wait to get it back and make it better. Point is you certainly won't suffer much while its gone. You willl see a little less detail, that's all.
post #3385 of 9659
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Hey Joe. Will you post a notice when you put it on your site. I know you like as many hits as you can get but I like to waste my time posting here rather than frequently checking your site to see if the review is up. I luv you anyway as we all do. smile.gif

I sure will. Oh and I used to keep track of the hits to my site but honestly I don't really check on them anymore. smile.gif
post #3386 of 9659
The more hits, the more one can charge for ads. Income? Ads? Forums? smile.gif Forums can provide substantial benefits for the owner(s). You just have to get enough hits.
post #3387 of 9659
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

The more hits, the more one can charge for ads. Income? Ads? Forums? smile.gif Forums can provide substantial benefits for the owner(s). You just have to get enough hits.

Does that mean the number of hits I gave up in my college days I could receive more discretionary income via. ads, forums. etc? smile.gif
post #3388 of 9659
If only you mastered the curve ball. But this forum is a good place to learn. smile.gif
Edited by mark haflich - 10/31/12 at 7:57pm
post #3389 of 9659
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

Has anybody tried an ISCO or Prismasonic with there 1000. I seem to remember one guy was going to, but I think he sold the lens before he got the 1000. I know you should use a 4K rated A-lens, but I am curious how it would actually compare using current A-lens?

I have an ISCO III cineslide(1.33) I used with my Marantz but I've never felt the need to use it with the Sony. W. Mayer was using the 1.25 ISCO with the Sony but it is even more expensive than the 1.33. He posted quite a bit about the lens earlier in one of the Sony 1000 threads.
post #3390 of 9659
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

If only you mastered the curve ball. but this forum is a good place to learn. smile.gif

Well that is great advise............only problem................. more that thirty years too late! smile.gif

Should have dumped the slider and old school palmball............
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home