Sony VPL-vw1000 - Page 115

Nice review Joe!
I really like mine.
I better sell the 93 quick before the 103's floods the market!

Hey thanks.

Well, I have not doubt that the Oppo103 a superb product.   I had an Oppo83 and loved it, but sold it for an almost even cost for a Sony790 in order to have something that can do 3d (which I really don't care for!) and also networking capabilities.   I'm sure the Oppo 103 is a finer product than the Sony790, but the 4k upconversion to the Sony1000 is irrelevant, since the 1000 beasts them both.     

 

So I'm just going to stand pat with the BD player I now have (Sony790) until we have 4k BD's.    If it's an Oppo, that would be nice!

I use the ISCO lll and love it. I use the CineSlide sled, I can switch between lens in /out in just over a second.

JoeRod... Nice to see you finally used my advice and paint the front screen wall area all black... I love the new look. And I'm sure you do too. Great job on the black out curtains and the black ceiling as well.

Thanks. I spent a couple days working hard down there. Listened to Painted Black while I did it. And you were absolutely right. It looks amazing now. I am contemplating selling my red chairs soon (for cheap) and going black. Thanks for the suggestion.

Hi Mike. i don't understand how one could visually measure or observe image loss using such a set up or for that matter visually measure or observe loss or gain over switching to zoom. Aa better question would be to request the poster to do an A/B using both methods and to report the differences. I doubt with the Sony 1000ES there would be any to the casual observer. Obviously, the ISCO set up would use all the pixels and therefor would be a brighter picture if without it you couldn't get enough brightness. The ISCO is not a 4K lens but I doubt most would observe it to be defficient perhaps unless they were to do very careful A/B for detail sharpness. The problem with an A/B would also be inadvertant bias, liking what you have invested in over concluding that it might be better without all the extra stuff. In any event I am reasonably sure with or without great results would be achieved, that there are pluses and ,minuses to both and I am sure that careful observation will reveal some negatives to PQ using the ISCO, namely some loss of detail sharpness when using the Sony, a minor loss in ANSI contrast, and some geometric distortion, pincushioning, one can get rid of by overscaning slightly BUT by definition overscan results in a loss of picture.

I would be amazed in the net gain in using the ISCO set up, if there were a net gain over using zoom, would justify the substantial investment required. nOf course if one could validly conclude a net beneit, then one could chase improvement by spending if one has it to spend.

i think it more likely that a 1000ES owner already has the ISCO set up and then the question becomes why not use it. To me that would require a very very careful A/B.
Edited by mark haflich - 11/4/12 at 4:43pm

Joe, great review on the 103! I can now see the benefits of new deeper feature set diffs from the 93. I think I am going to have to invest in one for sure.

In other news, I've officially jumped ship from my Integra 80.3 this weekend to a Denon 4520. 4K passthrough to my VW1000 is now functional via 4520 (well slightly glitchy possibly related to the cable run to projector) from my HTPC and I've finally solved HDMI intermittent audio dropouts from HTPC, which may have even been thanks to a registry tweak as I was still getting them in a less pronounced form, exacerbated whenever the PC wasn't playing in 'fullscreen' mode with the 4520. Sonically the XT32 sounds pretty much identical. They share the same model Audessey mic - even used my already tripod mounted one from the 80.3 to save time.

Thanks. I have had a lot of fun playing with it. The Cowboys/Falcons game looks terrific and their helmets are really popping.

The 4520 looks to build upon Denon's success of the 4311. I am very happy with the 5010 (Onkyo) but would love to do a comparison. I am planning to Review the new Marantz 8000 Series pre amp. Should have much of the same anyway and I have never had a Marantz product here so I figured why not.

I noticed that even remarkably via your screen shots, the helmets stood out a lot visually. Seems the 103's are good to go, so I found a source on the 'bay for one with the multiregion ready to go.

Went home at lunchtime and in doing some quick research, realised the 4K stability issues were simply back to the fact I'd recently swapped out, quite foolishly, my Audioquest cable from the HTPC output end. soon as I reconnected it with the AQ Carbon, I was able to switch straight into rock solid 3840 X 2160 - all my AQ is conveniently 4K compliant. All issues with 4K signal stability done and dusted, phew. Tonight I'll do some more comprehensive 4K full A/V testing. Impressions so far of the Denon is that if you want an A/V receiver with very quick HDMI switching (low delay) and clean pass through, it's up to the job. A much better experience when switching sources than the 80.3, very little delay and signal locking time comparatively. Sonically as a pure processor into existing amps, it's hard to pick apart from Integra/Onyko. It's Audessey XT32 sounds identical, as I guess as it should.

Checked my own bulb timer. I'm up to 1038. Me thinks time to order spare. I'd be one cranky hombre if I was caught out in the middle of watching something.

Joe, I was just researching bulb/lamp housing replacements. I see it's possible to buy the lamp minus housing. Which way did you do it with yours and has she fired back up yet since your last post about it? I am bit concerned about the fiddliness of trying to dissemble the housing and re use it with a new bulb, especially on a unit of the VW1000's ilk. I've never attempted that method. I am approaching my contact at Sony to see what the best price for a full lamp housing assembly would be, given their $699 rrp.

I would love to send in up converted 4K (as long as it looked better than the 1000 doing it) but the Darblet won't pass it. I wonder if you could get away with using the Darblet before your htpc? Then do the conversion after? Hmmm

Some of us here have done just the bulb replacement with our VW200s. Someone even made a step by step complete with pics. Not sure how much a bulb is by itself so depending on that cost versus getting the housing...

There is an ebay seller that has just the lamp bulb, item number 170819385263.
They are out of Hong Kong, but they offer free shipping.
In the question and answer part of the auction, a buyer ask about the brand of lamp. The seller said that it is a generic bulb, but for $7 more, they will provide an original Philips lamp that Sony uses.
If you buy one of these, be sure that you handle it with cotton gloves as if you put one finger print on the lamp, it will fail in a very short time.

Not sure how long it has been supported, but:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/3dtv-play-system-requirements.html

As of version 310.33 (beta), VPL-VW1000ES is supported! The way that website reads, it might have been supported previously. I haven't checked in at least a couple of months, and I guess nobody here has posted about it lately.

Has anybody tried it? I don't have the 3DTV Play software yet.
Edited by turls - 11/5/12 at 1:50pm

Looks like these are $30 multiple places. I almost pulled the trigger yesterday but I just find it hard to be true. Has anybody else tried this? I would think you would at least need the film mentioned earlier in the thread to go over the lenses, and it is a rip-off and only available from Sony.

Ok......my phone bill is becoming like our National debt..........it continues to GROW!!!

So.....need to find screen size for this projector and I'm thinking 140" wide 2.40 screen using S-SE 4k material and would like to incorporate masking panels either side or top/bottom. Have even thought about going constant area, but then I might be getting in over my head with the unusual native ratio.

Intend to talk to Chris at S-SE and Mike here at AVS and figure this screen conundrum out...........................

Anyone have ideas for masking as I hate viewing black bars...............I want the picture to float. Still thinking I might go TAM2 route if all else fails.
Edited by doublewing11 - 11/7/12 at 9:32pm

I have a 2.35:1 screen and use manual side masks. Works out well, side masks are on most of the time and it definitely floats. I love the dramatic expanding when a widescreenovie plays though!

I have a 141" wide 1.89:1 ST130 - microperf. It matches the 4K resolution of the projector, so it is a nice split between 2.35 and 1.78. I wrestled with the screen decision for months. It was the decision I struggled and struggled with the most. Mike Garrett can attest to this. I bought the screen from and bugged him. I believe going with a scoped screen with this projector is a huge mistake. The 16X9 and 1:85 images on a 2.35:1 screen is just way way too small. Just think about how the IMAX scenes in the Dark Knight movies, the 1.85:1 Avengers; 1:85 Avatar, many 3D movies, many animated movies, IMAX documentaries, all TV (think super bowl), etc will look on the such a short screen. Piddly. The 2.35 screen would be only 60" tall, versus 74.4" tall. Plus, 1.78 content would only be 106.8" wide insteasd of 141". 1.85 content would only be 111" wide. These differences are huge. Basically, you get close to 60% more image area for all non-scoped movies, and you lose NOTHING for scoped movies. Do want a piddly sized picture on a $20K - 4K projector?? Do yourself a favor, at least shine the projector on a light colored, prefereably white wall and try it out. Audio Advice has a scoped 141 or so inch wide screen with the sony in Raleigh, and it looks so short in comparision to the 1.89 version. The big issue is how small non-scoped movies will look. You'll be surprised. Also, the black level is so good and the picure is big, that I really don't mind the bars. I thought that I would, but I don't. Imax doesn't use masking - I don't here any one complaining. Regardless of the masking, which is understandably very subjective, go big, don't lose resolution, wow your friends. This will be the future of screen picks. You can thank me later.

Mookie, if you had the theater to do all over, wouldn't you rather have the biggest images for each format. The masking is cool to watch, but when you pop in a 1.85:1 movie, wouldn't you want it appear almost 60% bigger with no degredation in resolution? I'm coming to the belief that with true 4K (high res plus a 1.896:1 AR), anamorphic lenses will be unnecesary and undesirable for the vast, vast majority of home theaters and that the only reasons to have a 2.35:1 screen is if you plan on using an anamorphic lens or don't have the height for the width of screen you want.
Edited by Ben Withrow - 11/8/12 at 12:29pm

Get an electric screen for 16:9 and roll it up for scope. Paint the wall behind the screen black so you don,t see the bars. Use the projector auto move to position the image..easy...yes..bigger is way better

My solution to screen size is similar to Ben Withrow's.    I wanted a wider screen for 2.35 than the largest 16:9 screen that would fit my wall.    So I also went with a 'hybrid' size, 2.0 in my case (144x72) since this is the widest that would fit my wall and the highest that I could digest for 16x9 (actually 17x9 for the 1000).   

 

So for 2.35 I zoom to 144"W; the height of the pic is ~ 61", so I shift this down to the bottom edge of the screen and have a ~ 10" wide black bar at the top (where it's essentially ignorable).    For 17x9, I use the full height, 72", and the width of the pic is 136"; this is lens shifted to have a 8" wide black bar at the side, and I slip in a manual panel to mask it.     These two zooming and lens shifting configurations are stored and achieved with the push of one button.

 

This works great for me.   I think everybody has to think though all these issues for their own specific situation, and thus come to different setups that work best for them.

I think so. You'd need 4 way masking though and that's expensive....of course at the time I got my screen I had no idea I'd be crazy enough to spend as much as I did on the 1000, so maybe I'd do it differently if I had a blank canvas and no limitations from the room.

My room is height challenged though...I maximized the width. When watching 2.35:1 its 112", and I think its around 90" when watching 1.85:1....I'm using the 2.35:1 zoom so i get a little more width for my normal tv watching.

After looking at my own pic....I guess I could tear all that out and get a giant 2.0ish perforated screen and put the speakers and subs behind it....I need to mess with my zoom and see if its too big, first row is only 8.5 feet back and that why I went with this setup where my screen was back another 18 inches or so since my first row was so close...


Edited by mookie b - 11/8/12 at 3:47pm

Ya, the expense of a 4 way masking system is exactly why I bought 2 electric screens ( I can't use a fixed screen in my theater, otherwise I'd use 1 fixed and 1 electric ). That way you can have a wider 2.35:1 screen, and a still good sized narrower 16:9 screen. In fact, when I looked into buying an electric screen with masking, 2 screens was almost 1/2 the price.

You can have the best of both worlds !!

I'm putting together a new media room set up In the past we have always had a 16x9 110"diagonal screen and just lived with the black bars. In this family room I need an electric drop screen. I've been leaning toward going with a 2.0 screen and using a Lumagen Mini 3d to auto adapt everything to 2.0 using non linear stretch. You lose a small amount of picture at the edges, but you get a "big screen experience" with both formats. Stewart is making a 2.0 Screen and is marketing it as the "future". Opoma has a built in processor in their projectors to convert everything to 2.0. They call it "SuperWide".

The other option, is what Craig is doing (above). I already have the 16x9 electric drop. Just get the 2.35:1 electric drop and mount them next to each other...You need a projector with good powered lens controls to do it. The current crop of $4-5k PJs don't have it (except the Panasonic). I can't afford to play in the deep water ($20k) like you guys.

I would be interested in hearing from others using 2.0 screens (or in between ARs) or is there anyone else using two electric drop screens? Any "issues" with either solution?
Thanks

Ten years ago I purchased a 4 way masking Stewart fixed wall screen. Just recently I switched fabrics from Stydeotec 130 to snowmatt 100'

At this point I never use my side masking whose sole purpase was to mask the 1.78 screen down to 1.33. Nothing I watcg is in 1.33 anymore, it was for sports in those days, college etc, which was often 1.33. Today I just use the independent top and bottom masking to mask out the black bars when showing any aspect about 1.78.I simply do not have the width to go beyond 8 ft wide. So any other option is really not available to me.

My point, the method etc you chose is very dependent on your set up limitations and most of us have some. Budget also enters into the equation when it comes to electric masking and the use of anamorphics. In ann ideal world, I would use a 2.4o screen that when masked down would give me a 110 inch 1.78, the size I have now (54 x 96). I would then use the zoom features on my Sony 1000ES to zoom out to a 2.4 width. Of course with no budget constraints I would use variable side masking to perfectly mask whatever the damn aspect was. But i am very very happy with what I have now.

Yes, one can spend $4K or more on 4-way masking systems (provided you have the space to accommodate them), but with some ingenuity one can do quite well with much less.    I qualify my comments though:  my room is not a specially designed and built HT, with rows of seating, etc.   It is a former master BR in  ~90 yr old Berkeley house, but it is (now) fully light controlled, with black covering on most all walls.    I.e., it is close to the 'bat cave', but not with haute decor.

 

See my post a couple items above.     With 2.35, by shifting the pic to line up with the bottom of the screen (which is very desirable in general), the black bar is across the top.    The eye NEVER picks this up, so one can forget about masking it.    For 17x9 pics (which fills the full 72" height) I lens shift to line up the pic with the right side of the screen (since my main seat is slightly to the right of center), and there is an 8" wide black bar on the left side.     For this I bought a 1.5" thick styrofoam sheet at Home Depot (~$7 IIRC), cut a section 72''x8", and covered it with ProtoStar self adhesive material; it's the same black felt material on my screen frame.    It slips perfectly inside the screen frame (Dalite DaSnap, which protrudes 1.5" in front of the screen )and gives a result that looks exactly like my screen without a black bar.   Total cost < $50.

 

Again, one has to plan all of this--size, screen frame, screen material etc.--but by doing so one can often come up with a very satisfactory solution without being extravagant.

I would qualify that. Most males can. Most females can't.

Humbland, I find that all you need is power zoom. The screens are so close together that focus never needs to be adjusted.