or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sony VPL-vw1000 - Page 143

post #4261 of 9699
The 1000ES will play 4K sources now up to 30FPS. The input chips will not handle higher and an input board replacement when the new chips come out will be required to handle 4K at 48 and 60.
Edited by mark haflich - 4/19/13 at 4:08pm
post #4262 of 9699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Jones View Post

More is known about the HDMI 2.0 schedule and features than you state. The head of the the HDMI organization said at CES in January 2013 that the next generation standard will be completed in the first half of 2013, thus by the end of June (so hopefully that answers "when" the new HDMI standard will be completed/published). The technical working group, which as formed about 1.5 years ago to development the new HDMI standard was given some specfic tasking including that it must be backward compatible with HDMI 1.4b hardware and that the goal is it will support 4K at higher refresh rates including 60 Hz. Also known is it will have increased bandwidth with a total data througput of 18 Gbps. One chip manufacturer present at CES 2013 seemed to be indicating they will be sampling HDMI 2.0 chipsets around the first of next year with production quantities by mid-2014. This probably assumes the new spec. gets completed and published on schedule. From one source I have recently heard the new spec. may be released perhaps as early as next month. Bottom line is 4K UHD TVs, Projectors, AVRs and source devices sporting the new HDMI inputs/outputs are not expected until mid-2014. However, it might be possible for some manufacture to offer a product with a partial HDMI 2.0 implementation before that date. This is what Sony did with the PS3 which intially offered only very minimal partial support for HDMI 1.3 but was subsequently upgraded through just firmware updates to more fully support not only the essential HDMI 1.3 video and audio functions, but also the essential HDMI 1.4 functions (i.e., 3D support). This was possible with the PS3 since it implemented some of the HDMI functions in software running on it cell processor rather than using the hardware-only solution that is used on most devices. It will be interesting to see what the capabilities of the PS4 will be when it ships late this year.




.

Ron, I think you're forgetting some of the history here...


If you remember, the new HDMI spec was supposed to be released by the end of last year. Then, they said Q1 2013. Now, they're saying Q2-Q3. So, while I fully appreciate the June timeframe, take that with a huge grain of salt. The reality is, no one knows when it's coming out.
Edited by BrianMundt - 4/18/13 at 3:38pm
post #4263 of 9699
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianMundt View Post

Ron, I think you're forgetting some of the history here...


If you remember, the new HDMI spec was supposed to be released by the end of last year. Then, they said Q1 2013. Now, they're saying Q2-Q3. So, while I fully appreciate the June timeframe, take that with a huge grain of salt. The reality is, no one knows when it's coming out.

I realize the original timetable, as of late 2011, was to complete the next generation HDMI spec. by the end of 2012 and announce it at CES 2013, but the latest official word I have heard is 1st half of 2012. Having myself been involved in developing international standards, I know such efforts usually take longer than expected, but since the companies that will be manufacturing the HDMI chips are actively engaged in the technical working group that is developing the new spec. I would except that preliminary work is already underway toward the chip design.

Silicon Image, the largest supplier of HDMI chipsets, last month released the following statement:

Silicon Image, Inc. Announces Availability of HDMI 2.0 spec with support for 4K

Mar 8 13

Silicon Image, Inc. announced that the long-awaited HDMI 2.0 spec with support for 4K video at 60 Hz likely will be available by mid-year, with the first 2.0-compliant chips expected to reach volume production in 2014. The new HDMI spec had been expected to be released by CES, but with Apple, a long-time DisplayPort supporter, joining the HDMI Forum, the complexion of the negotiations changed.

Note that the HDMI specs. are not normally made publically available. Rather they are available only to paying members of the HDMI Forum and those manufacturers that license the use of HDMI. As a result. these members may very well have the complete HDMI 2.0 spec. for some time before it is officially announced via an official press release.



.
Edited by Ron Jones - 4/20/13 at 7:17am
post #4264 of 9699
And when the HDMI version 2.0 chips is out, and when the company´s have implanted them in their new products............THEN we can play all the great movies, that have been recorded/filmed in 48P,50P and 60P.( wink.gif )................and in 4K AND 3D............rolleyes.gif....................IMO there are going to run a relative long time before we have a decent amount off films at 48,50,60 frames pr second ( for now there is NONE ) and then all the "purists" will say : " I dont like it, it looks natural / video like, I want the 24P ( stutter) film look biggrin.gifwink.gif "

It´s fine that there are coming new 2.0 HDMI standard and ITU2020 ASO , but it is going to take time ( years IMO) to get widespread and we have no movies made in it at all for now !

So relax and enjoy your 1000ES, its still a wonderfull piece off a projector, even without a 2.0 HDMI board ( for now ) smile.gif

My 2 cent tongue.gif

dj
post #4265 of 9699
They joined the "HDMI Forum"? Is that the right name?
post #4266 of 9699
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

They joined the "HDMI Forum"? Is that the right name?

Mark - The HDMI Forum is the correct term. Specifically:

"The HDMI Forum, Inc, is a nonprofit, mutual benefit corporation established by the HDMI Founders whose purpose is to foster broader industry participation in the development of future versions of the HDMI Specification. "

While the HDMI Forum is developing the next generation HDMI spec. there is a sister organization (i.e., HDMI Licensing, LLC ) that licenses the HDMI patents to the companies that want to manufacture products that support HDMI.
post #4267 of 9699
Thanks.
post #4268 of 9699
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

I agree that the 1000ES would not be bright enough for a 1.0 screen of my size. I find the HP2.4 (which make the large size possible) to give an exceptionally smooth and refined surface, and calibration with ChromaPure (and a RadianceMini) takes care of any minor color shift.

Mark keeps telling me that the Stewart Snomat100 is even better, so I'm really looking forward to seeing his week after next. (Even if it is, though, I wouldn't give up the size I have.)

Thanks for your earlier reply................

Maybe this comment fore-mentioned is why I hesitate to go 12' in width............I'm vacillating between 132'' wide and 144'' wide. I prefer a bright picture and worry a 12 footer might be too much for the machine. I've seen the projector in person on a 106'' wide 2.40 screen and loved it! Sold me on the spot.........but going to 132" wide concerns me.......more so to 144''. Your comment above confirms my worries...............

A hi-power will not work for me due to speakers being placed behind screen..........I'm down to Seymour XD or Screen Excellence Enk 4k material- I'm leaning the latter at 132". I'd like to use a perf-ed Studio Tek 130, but then again........I'm limited with space behind screen and have been told about seeing the perfs at my viewing distance.
post #4269 of 9699
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublewing11 View Post

Thanks for your earlier reply................

Maybe this comment fore-mentioned is why I hesitate to go 12' in width............I'm vacillating between 132'' wide and 144'' wide. I prefer a bright picture and worry a 12 footer might be too much for the machine. I've seen the projector in person on a 106'' wide 2.40 screen and loved it! Sold me on the spot.........but going to 132" wide concerns me.......more so to 144''. Your comment above confirms my worries...............

A hi-power will not work for me due to speakers being placed behind screen..........I'm down to Seymour XD or Screen Excellence Enk 4k material- I'm leaning the latter at 132". I'd like to use a perf-ed Studio Tek 130, but then again........I'm limited with space behind screen and have been told about seeing the perfs at my viewing distance.

Keep in mind, when Bill says he likes a bright picture, he means a super bright picture. Much brighter than than most people.
Reply
Reply
post #4270 of 9699
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

Keep in mind, when Bill says he likes a bright picture, he means a super bright picture. Much brighter than than most people.

Yes, I do like the dynamism of a very bright pic, but I'm far from alone in this regard. Many on the 'big boy' > $20K forum express their preference for 40 or more ftL off the screen.

With 1000 lumens from the pj, and my HP 2.4 screen (and a setup to use it optimally) I have ~ 35 ftL for a 136x72 HDTV pic, or ~ 30 ftL for a 144" wide 2.35 pic (zoomed). Once one sees the dynamic look of this, it's hard to go back. Of course even the 1000ES doesn't put out 1000 lumens in low lamp after it's aged a bit, so with my previous lamp I did go to high lamp mode in its later lifetime. With its replacement , now with ~ 900 hrs on it, I'm still in low lamp mode.
post #4271 of 9699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Jones View Post

I realize the original timetable, as of late 2011, was to complete the next generation HDMI spec. by the end of 2012 and announce it at CES 2013, but the latest official word I have heard is 1st half of 2012. Having myself been involved in developing international standards, I know such efforts usually take longer than expected, but since the companies that will be manufacturing the HDMI chips are actively engaged in the technical working group that is developing the new spec. I would except that preliminary work is already underway toward the chip design.

Silicon Image, the largest supplier of HDMI chipsets, last month released the following statement:

Silicon Image, Inc. Announces Availability of HDMI 2.0 spec with support for 4K

Mar 8 13

Silicon Image, Inc. announced that the long-awaited HDMI 2.0 spec with support for 4K video at 60 Hz likely will be available by mid-year, with the first 2.0-compliant chips expected to reach volume production in 2014. The new HDMI spec had been expected to be released by CES, but with Apple, a long-time DisplayPort supporter, joining the HDMI Forum, the complexion of the negotiations changed.

Note that the HDMI specs. are not normally made publically available. Rather they are available only to paying members of the HDMI Forum and those manufacturers that license the use of HDMI. As a result. these members may very well have the complete HDMI 2.0 spec. for some time before it is officially announced via an official press release.



.

Thanks for that. Good news. I hope it comes sooner rather than later!
post #4272 of 9699
I am strongly considering acquiring this PJ. My main concern is if it will be able to give me 14FtL on a 15'x6' 2.40 1.0 gain screen (panamorph lens).

This setup is going to be calibrated to p3 color space and used in a 4K color grading suite.

Any insight guys?

Thanks

-Frank Cueto
post #4273 of 9699
Quote:
Originally Posted by reaktorpost View Post

I am strongly considering acquiring this PJ. My main concern is if it will be able to give me 14FtL on a 15'x6' 2.40 1.0 gain screen (panamorph lens).

This setup is going to be calibrated to p3 color space and used in a 4K color grading suite.

Any insight guys?

Thanks

-Frank Cueto

You would need to get 1260 lumens from the projector for this (assuming you use an anamorphic lens); if you use the zoom method you would need ~ 1770 lumens. I doubt that you can count on the 1000ES producing this output after some initial dimming.
post #4274 of 9699
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

Yes, I do like the dynamism of a very bright pic, but I'm far from alone in this regard. Many on the 'big boy' > $20K forum express their preference for 40 or more ftL off the screen.

With 1000 lumens from the pj, and my HP 2.4 screen (and a setup to use it optimally) I have ~ 35 ftL for a 136x72 HDTV pic, or ~ 30 ftL for a 144" wide 2.35 pic (zoomed). Once one sees the dynamic look of this, it's hard to go back. Of course even the 1000ES doesn't put out 1000 lumens in low lamp after it's aged a bit, so with my previous lamp I did go to high lamp mode in its later lifetime. With its replacement , now with ~ 900 hrs on it, I'm still in low lamp mode.

Thank you for clarifying my point. The standard is 12 to 16FL and I knew that you liked it much brighter than that. Yes, there are others that like it that bright, but there are also a lot of people that do not like it that bright. It just comes down to personal preference.
Reply
Reply
post #4275 of 9699
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

Thank you for clarifying my point. The standard is 12 to 16FL and I knew that you liked it much brighter than that. Yes, there are others that like it that bright, but there are also a lot of people that do not like it that bright. It just comes down to personal preference.

I certainly agree, Mike, that it is indeed personal preference. However I would like to hear from persons who have viewed 12- 16 ftL, and then 25 ftL, to see what they prefer, even in a 'black hole' (as my room is). 'Standards' were agreed upon when that was all that was possible.
post #4276 of 9699
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

I certainly agree, Mike, that it is indeed personal preference. However I would like to hear from persons who have viewed 12- 16 ftL, and then 25 ftL, to see what they prefer, even in a 'black hole' (as my room is). 'Standards' were agreed upon when that was all that was possible.

I have two systems in my house. One system uses a Marantz and a 2.8 gain HP screen. On the set up with the HP screen, I can get 25 FL with a new lamp, using high lamp on the Marantz. In my dedicated room, I use a low gain 0.85 material (Screen Excellence EN4K) with a JVC projector. If I am going to watch a movie, I go to the dedicated room every time. I like the image better on the low gain screen and with it being AT, I like the sound anchoring to the screen much better. Currently the dedicated room has a much larger screen, but at one time, they were the same size and I still preferred the low gain AT screen. smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #4277 of 9699
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

I have two systems in my house. One system uses a Marantz and a 2.8 gain HP screen. On the set up with the HP screen, I can get 25 FL with a new lamp, using high lamp on the Marantz. In my dedicated room, I use a low gain 0.85 material (Screen Excellence EN4K) with a JVC projector. If I am going to watch a movie, I go to the dedicated room every time. I like the image better on the low gain screen and with it being AT, I like the sound anchoring to the screen much better. Currently the dedicated room has a much larger screen, but at one time, they were the same size and I still preferred the low gain AT screen. smile.gif

Thanks, Mike; sounds like a very nice arrangement! I'll be visiting Mark Haflich for a few days this next weekend, and am looking forward to seeing his 1.0 gain Steward screen.
post #4278 of 9699
I am interested in what you think, after seeing Mark's system.
Reply
Reply
post #4279 of 9699
Millerwill,

Do you think the projector will be able to stay above 1250 lumens after calibration for over 1,000 hours?

I dont plan to use the zoom method for our scope projects, and most of the time we are most likely going to be at 16x9 so the screen are will be reduced some more.

Another option would be a 1.3Gain screen, but I havent seen one in a color critical environment, plus I am afraid of the subtle changes in the off-viewing angles.

I will be putting the PJ as close as possible to the screen and that should help with the brightness as well.
post #4280 of 9699
Bill has seen my system several times before. the only change is the switch out from Studiotec 130 to Snomat 100.. With a little work we can A/B the two. The increase in realism, making the screen vanish so to speak, was dramatic. Its a trade off like most everything else. I really don't like exceeding say 20 ft lamberts but I suppose one van get use to it and many I suspect might prefer it. To me, I wouldn't trade off the realism for extra brightness and remember my screen is only 54 x 96 at maximum opening of the masks.
post #4281 of 9699
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

Yes, I do like the dynamism of a very bright pic, but I'm far from alone in this regard. Many on the 'big boy' > $20K forum express their preference for 40 or more ftL off the screen.

With 1000 lumens from the pj, and my HP 2.4 screen (and a setup to use it optimally) I have ~ 35 ftL for a 136x72 HDTV pic, or ~ 30 ftL for a 144" wide 2.35 pic (zoomed). Once one sees the dynamic look of this, it's hard to go back. Of course even the 1000ES doesn't put out 1000 lumens in low lamp after it's aged a bit, so with my previous lamp I did go to high lamp mode in its later lifetime. With its replacement , now with ~ 900 hrs on it, I'm still in low lamp mode.

Thanks for the clarification.....................

Being from the Northwest............I'm used to dim..........as in lack of sun. Maybe I can get away with a 12ft screen. smile.gif
post #4282 of 9699
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

I have two systems in my house. One system uses a Marantz and a 2.8 gain HP screen. On the set up with the HP screen, I can get 25 FL with a new lamp, using high lamp on the Marantz. In my dedicated room, I use a low gain 0.85 material (Screen Excellence EN4K) with a JVC projector. If I am going to watch a movie, I go to the dedicated room every time. I like the image better on the low gain screen and with it being AT, I like the sound anchoring to the screen much better. Currently the dedicated room has a much larger screen, but at one time, they were the same size and I still preferred the low gain AT screen. smile.gif

Yeah I have the same screen material on 160" wide... I get about 10ftL at 100IRE, which sounds low, but all my buddies, including those that frequent this forum, think its plenty bright....so my conclusion is that "adequate" brightness REALLY is a very subjective thing. Now, my screen is too dim for 3d at that size, but 2d is just fine right now.
Edited by hifiaudio2 - 7/11/13 at 7:52am
post #4283 of 9699
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublewing11 View Post

Thanks for the clarification.....................

Being from the Northwest............I'm used to dim..........as in lack of sun. Maybe I can get away with a 12ft screen. smile.gif

Why agonize so much over the difference between a 11 footer or a 12 footer? Why don't you use some masking tape and outline the borders of the two screen sizes when viewed from whatever your sweet spot seat will be? If one has doubts, choose the smaller. Its cheaper and will provide some margin for extra brightness
post #4284 of 9699
I disagree with that. If you have doubts, go larger. You can mask it if you just don't want it that big after buying it. Cant go bigger though once you make the decision.

To my, home theater is about a large scale cinematic experience. Sure you need adequate brightness, but I don't know anyone that has gone with a bigger choice and wished they had not.
post #4285 of 9699
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifiaudio2 View Post

I disagree with that. If you have doubts, go larger. You can mask it if you just don't want it that big after buying it. Cant go bigger though once you make the decision.

To my, home theater is about a large scale cinematic experience. Sure you need adequate brightness, but I don't know anyone that has gone with a bigger choice and wished they had not.

So true: I read/heard many comment that they wish they had gone with a larger screen, but never the other way around.

I agree that I'm not as cinematically pure as many persons here. Having seen the giant Panasonic plasmas at CES, I would go for this if it were practical (physically and financially). An HP screen gets one close to this dynamic, giant plasma look.
post #4286 of 9699
If you go larger and want smaller, you need a 4 way mask and you have spent more. Many think larger is something desirable but your screen should fit your room and your seating distance and the light output of your projector. Plus if you need to go to a high gain screen in order to hit some mythical degree of brightness above say 16 to 18 ft lamberts then you will lose the considerable PQ improvements that a unity gain screen can bring you. The answer isn't cram in the biggest you can fit.
Edited by mark haflich - 4/22/13 at 5:30am
post #4287 of 9699
I think the "I always want bigger" comes from those of us who use our HT's too much, we no longer watch a TV hardly at all (there are a few). What happens is when you watch the projector so much, you get TOO used to the large size and want bigger and bigger as to go EWW AHH WOW again. If you use your projector more occasionally, then when you walk into the HT room it will probably feel pretty big.

I for one kept moving my seating closer and closer to my TEENY TINY 106" screen. My eyes are just a couple inches over 8 feet from a 106" screen, that's 1.0x seating distance to screen width, hence too close for many. In the past when I was newer to projectors, this would have been WAY too close for me. I will admit that sitting this close has its disadvantages, poorer sources look like the cat coughed up another hair ball. That said, there is some inherent human nature at work always wanting a bigger screen, wanting the peripheral vision areas to be completely encompassed (even at 8 feet from 106", that's not happening). Since I have a 16:9 screen, I find 2.35 movies are about the right size at this distance, but 16:9 movies are a bit large. So overall I think I prefer 1.1x to 1.2x SW seating distance more for 16:9 movies.

I am temporarily sitting this close for a different reason sort of, because my HTPC text is easier to read without zooming or adjusting Windows settings too much, and I'm doing some ACTUAL computer work from my couch, which is a bit odd. Oh that and I've been doing all my online shopping on my HTPC.
Edited by coderguy - 4/21/13 at 10:56pm
post #4288 of 9699
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

I think the "I always want bigger" comes from those of us who use our HT's too much, we no longer watch a TV hardly at all (there are a few). What happens is when you watch the projector so much, you get TOO used to the large size and want bigger and bigger as to go EWW AHH WOW again. If you use your projector more occasionally, then when you walk into the HT room it will probably feel pretty big.

That's generally what I think as well.

When I first started planning my home theater and borrowed a projector, a projected image of about 90" diagonal 16:9 seemed huge compared to the 42" plasma I'd been watching for years. I thought that was plenty cinematic for me. And it allowed me to keep my high-end audio configuration at that time. But the more time I spent planning, the more I spent watching movies projected on my wall, and gradually the images size (via zooming) kept creeping up and up..."Hey, this is even MORE like the movies..."

So in the end I simply put as large a screen in as would fit on my wall: 130" wide by 67" tall screen surface area. Seen here:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1254505/rich-hs-variable-image-size-home-theater-build-thread-completed#post_18735542

And I just use masking to vary the image size to my desire. But I do not find myself watching the largest image size too often. Most of the time it's some variation of a smaller image, depending on the movie, source quality etc. And the fact is that projecting a smaller image has it's pluses in terms of image quality - the contrast and density of the image improve. The constant varying of image size has really helped preserve the "wow" factor when I choose larger image sizes. I still get that *holy sh*t" moment when I open up the masking really large, like suddenly installing a new, bigger screen again. It's just how our perception works, we get used to things, and this happens to be my strategy for keeping a sense of fresh thrill in the system.
post #4289 of 9699
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

I think the "I always want bigger" comes from those of us who use our HT's too much, we no longer watch a TV hardly at all (there are a few). What happens is when you watch the projector so much, you get TOO used to the large size and want bigger and bigger as to go EWW AHH WOW again. If you use your projector more occasionally, then when you walk into the HT room it will probably feel pretty big.

I for one kept moving my seating closer and closer to my TEENY TINY 106" screen. My eyes are just a couple inches over 8 feet from a 106" screen, that's 1.0x seating distance to screen width, hence too close for many. In the past when I was newer to projectors, this would have been WAY too close for me. I will admit that sitting this close has its disadvantages, poorer sources look like the cat coughed up another hair ball. That said, there is some inherent human nature at work always wanting a bigger screen, wanting the peripheral vision areas to be completely encompassed (even at 8 feet from 106", that's not happening). Since I have a 16:9 screen, I find 2.35 movies are about the right size at this distance, but 16:9 movies are a bit large. So overall I think I prefer 1.1x to 1.2x SW seating distance more for 16:9 movies.

I agree with this.... the one case where larger isn't always better is with 16:9 screens. The height of the image can become distracting. But I have yet to find a 2:35 - 2:40 screen that bothered me at all, no matter the size. I suppose we are "built" to be able to enjoy wider images more than taller ones. My eyes are 12'4" back (on front row) from a 13.3 ft wide scope screen, and its perfect. Guests love it too. All prefer the front row. To me, a 16:9 ratio just feels like TV anyway, the shape of the scope screen, even when nothing is showing, just makes the room feel more like a cinema.
post #4290 of 9699
Like the three of you above, my appetite for a large pic escalated gradually (starting in 2004 with a 60" rptv), until at 144" W I have now run out of available wall space! Also sit at ~ 1.0 SW for 2.35. Interesting how similar my path has been to yours.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home