Sony VPL-vw1000 - Page 22

Oh come on, don't tell me the Sony spreadsheet is wrong for this projector. I'm at a critical point for this, and my tolerances for my room are very tight.

[quote=AV Science Sales 5;21497994]
Very good. I'm certainly interested in knowing whether the min throw ratio is still 1.27 (i.e., min lens-screen distance = 1.27*screen width).

The longer throw would be really nice for me.

No, I am a little bit away from there. I used to live in Raleigh and I decided to visit my some of my best friends. Actually I really needed some dental work and I only trust my friend to work on my teeth. If you need a dentist, then check out Charles Ferzli.

The calculator. Only any screen size of a screen aspect ratio equal or greater than 1.8888 (call it1.9, the calculator does), there are simply no issues. The closest you can set the machine up at is 1.27 times your wide screen width, treating that width as if it were a huge 1.78 inch screen with the top and bottom viewing areas cut off because it is a 2.35 or 2.4 screen. Then you simply zoom in, making the image smaller filling the whole height but causing unlit screen on either side and black bars inside the 1.8888 frame. Remember. When you feed projector a 1.78 frame (regardless of the aspect of the active video within that 1.78 frame (calling any blavk bars within the 1.78 source frame inactive (black bars) the Sony simply doubles the 1920 x 1080 frame making it 3840 x 2160. Since the 1.888 chip is 4096 x 2160, there will be small side blasck bars filling the inactive pixels between the 1.888 width and the 1.7777 width. There is no need to zoom smaller because for aspect ratios on the doubled 1920 x 2160 source frame, the height will remain constant but the side black bars will get larger. You of course can start at further than closest throw but the limit you can place the projector at longer throw is where there is enough longer throw range to decrease the aspect on the screen to 1.9, the chips' aspect ratio having unlit screen and side black bars because with any 1.7777 source frame, the side bars will always occupy 7% of the chips horizontal pixels. Thus you would still need a 1.33 zoom ratio for any 1.7777 source image that has top and bottom black bars and an active aspect of 2.35 or there abouts (2.37,2.38, 2.39, 2.40). Zoom ratios would change once we have true 2K or 4K souce material, because the source aspects would be 1.8888 and all 4096 x 2160 pixels would be used with side black bars on the for active aspects beloew 1.8888 and tiop and bottom black bars for aspects above 1.888. In such a case, the zoom for a 2.35 or slightly higher would be 1.2445 or so and a anamorphic of horizontal stretch 1.2445 would be required if not zooming. The Sony provides vertical stretches (scalling) or 1.24 and 1.32 future profing should we ever get true 2K or 4K sources. remember 2K is 2048 x 1080 and not the 1980 x 1080 we presently get.

Samalmoe and me. If one doesnt have a wide screen but a 1.78 screen, you must treat your screenas if it was a 1.9 screen and base your throw on a screen width of width or 1.78/1.9 times your actyal screen width. You would then displaying a 1.78 aspect source have unlit screen above and below and black bars on the side. You would then zoom larger going to a lower throw number (wider anle) to fill the screen full height and throwing the black side bars off the screen. As the source aspect gets larger, say 1.85 and up to 1,9, you would zoom out (less wide because the black side bars would be decreasing in width and the active image on the 1.9 chips would be wider than wa 1.78 source on the 1.9 chips. At 1.9 you would not make the image any less wide but would get black top and botom bars for aspects above 1.9. With a 1.78 screen, you simply can not get rid of the bars, all you could do is mask them.

If your screen is a 1.9 aspect screen, you simply fill the screen with the full chip image. You never rezoom, you have constant height with side black bars from 1.33 to 1.9 source aspects and then you have constant width from that point with decreasing height at higher aspects.

In other words constant height from 1.33 to 1.9 source aspects with increasing widths (smaller black side bars) and then above 1.9 source aspects, you have constant width, with increasding size top and bottom bars which one could mask or with an electric screen, decrease the screen height to throw the top and bottom bars off screen.

Does all this make sense.? Correct me if I am wrong. If one doesn't have room for a 2.35, the simplest option is to go with a 1.9 aspect screen (actually 1.88888888 aspect)..

Rather than quote people asking Sony questions etc about the chart and suggesting after reading the below that they don't or correcting those posting that the chart is erroneous, I will attempt to briefly explain the Sony throw chart and why it is indeed accurate. Pleased be advised that the actual formulas used to precisely calculate throws for various size screens at the three screen aspects covered by the chart are complex though the numbers shown in the chart are very close but do vary a bit at the extremes. Sony specs the throw range as being 1.27 to 2.73 but the extremes actually vary a small bit based on the various screen sizes at the respective screen aspect. The throw numbers calculated by the chart are all accurate to within plus or minus two inches.

OK. The 1.27 to 2.73 range in the product spec sheet is for a 17/9 (1.888888) or higher aspect ratio screen The chart uses throws between 1.25 and 2.75 or a slightly wider range than the 1.27 to 2.73 given in product spec sheet. This is due to the actual construction of the lens and how it optically operates and the damn complex formulas one must use for absolute precision. The general spec range provides some installation fudge to ensure that one has enough zoom. Good installation practice means staying a small bit away from zoom extremes due to measurement errors and lens variances so a spec of 1.27 to 2.73, a slightly less wide range, is better and safer to use. The chart operates for 16/9, 17/9 and 2.35 screens and the portions of the chart covering 17/9 and 2.35 verify the 1.25 to 2.75 theoretical range.

Things get much more complex for calculating throws for a 1.78 screen and exactly what that throw will do with respect to the full 1.9 chip image. It will throw the portion of the chip image between 1.7777 and 1.888 off the screen. The chart uses a minimum throw of 1.34 and a miaximum throw of 2.92 for a 1.78 screen. Remember a 1.78 source image on a 1.9 chip will not fill the width side to side with an active image. There will be inactive side black bars together totalling approximately 6% of the 17/9 chip width or about 7% more than a 16/9 chip. One must expand this 16/9 image on a 17/9 chip horizontally to fill a 16/9 screen by, you guessed it, 7% and thus by a 7% longer minimum and maximum throw. Multiply the 1.25 to 2.75 range by 1.07 and ta da, you get the 1.34 to 2.92 range used in the chart for a 1.78 screen. Cabish? When your active image exceeds 1,78 on that 1.9 chip, you just zoom longer and shrink that image down a bit so its width fits the 1.78 screen.

I want to thank the forum members for making me think about how to explain all this and for increasing my billable hours to Sony for furnishing them with this explanation for installer trainings.

BTW. The chart for 2.35 presumes one will be using zooming to fill the screen when an aspect between 2.35 and 2.4 is displayed on the 1.9 chips from a 1.78 source frame. In this case the zoom is between 1.9 and your screen aspect and is not as large a zoom as one would need to increase a 1.78 width to a say 2.35.For a 1.78 chiop machine, the zoom increase would be 2.35/1.78 or about
1.33, while for a 1.9 chip, the zoom would be 2.35/1.9 or about 1.24. The zooms get a little large for a 2.4 screen. The chart limits your max lkong throw to where one who still have enough longer throw to decrease the image size back to the 1.9 chip size.

Now if you are not going to use the zoom method but will use an anamorphic, because the approximate horizontal zoom the lens would do is 1.3333 which is too much because the zoom increase you need is only 1.24 or so, you will have to zoom the image down slightly by the projector, so the anamorphic lens's fixed zoom of 1.33 won't overstrech the image.

Tulls. If you follow this you can relax. The machine will work for your application and the chart proves it.

Damn. Its three AM. Sony better pay me overtime.

Did the event that was supposed to occur in Germany on the 14th and 15th not happen? I see no updates on the Cine4home site.

Don't know. The Sony automated ordering and shipping site is showing a ship to dealers date of Jan 28. Dates on that site do change from time to time.

That is true but the throw number multiplier one can use it is as close as 1.27 and as far as 2.19. The multiplier is for the 2.35 width and thus the actual distance is further away than for a less wide scren but the throw multipliers are the same from a screen with an aspect ratio of 1.9 or higher and the 1.9 and 2.35 screen throw calculator by Sony verifies this. One can not set up further back than 2.19 times the 2.35 width and still be able to make the image smaller enough for a 1.9 aspect. Smaller aspects fall within the 1.9 by the black side bars.

From reading through the manual could someone confirm that the aspect ratio e.g 2.35:1 zoom is saved for each individual lens memory setting? Also is blanking saved per aspect ratio and if so is there enough blanking to blank off the top and bottom of the picture when zoomed for 2.35:1. Thanks

I think I will plan the Thursday and Saturday before the Superbowl for a couple of my "Nerd Nights" and then maybe a couple days after the following week.

With a 1000?

"Nerd Nights?" Come on Joe, we are not nerds. But I will gladly accept that title and an invitation too

The chart I worked on for Sony was the new chart, I never even looked at the old so all my discussions on the chart were with respect to the new one.

The Superbowl is on Feb 5. The projectors are scheduled to ship on Jan 28th to dealers. So depending a few getting them in their hands by Feb 5 is possible. I could have one in my hands for demoing by the 5th but I want to watch the game and enjoy the party and not have videophiles say can we skip the game and watch a few scenes from the Fifth Element yada yada yad. that can wait until the 6th. Remember, from my end it will be the Ravens (40 minutes to their stadium from me) or the Patriots (from where I spent my youth till I was 26).

You should definitely wait until the 6th. You're lucky to still have two teams alive. My Saints lost last week (I love New Orleans), and the Bears were done when Cutler went down with a broken thumb. Enjoy the game and the party, and then get to work on the 6th.

That dealer delivery timing sounds ideal. Hope that timing is pretty much same for us in Oz - should be by what I was advised in Dec. I just last week paid the Sony invoice for my VW95 that I took delivery of in early Nov. Gotta love having 60-90 day payment terms ! No post xmas funding qualms any more for me! Bring on the VW1000's!

Among the more sensible questions are I have been asked, many ask questions I can't answer at this point, such as what will be the dimensions of the double box size, is will a Chief RMA mount hold this unit. The RPA mount is rated for 50lbs. The projector weighs 45 lbs. One would then have to add the weight of the interface plate which bolts on to the bottom of the projector and then quick connects to the mount. I assume the weight of the plate will be about that of the weight of the SLB281 plate that holld a JVC which weighs near the weight of the Sony So we need to find how much such plate weighs. I will find out tomorrow. As long as the total weight of the proctor plus plate is not much above 50 things should be fine. The mount specification of 50 certainly has excess capacity factor of probably something like 20 lbs and exceed ing 50 lbs by a pound or two should be perfectly fine.

Mark thanks for the info! That's def one subject I've been extremely interested in, having myself owned a chief mount system since last year. I kind of figured given the point adjustability in the chief and Sony's fairly uniform mounting point layouts in the VW series generally, perhaps things will swap over fairly smoothly. Good info on the load bearing of the RPA mounts too vs the VW1000 and plate. Sounds, fingers crossed, like a potentially smooth swap over when the 1000 arrives for those with the RPA mounts. Not that it ever crossed my mind, but I won't be trying to be a hero in a hurry and single-handedly do the proj swap by myself like I did with the VW95, which at 25lbs, could itself have gone pearshaped !

Of course!

It's Jaclyn's cute title for them. I accept the title too!

My wife Jill calls the forum "the nerd forum". But its ok with me too

At least your wives don't use more derogortory terms to describe the entity which takes so much time away from them. My wife uses terms which if I posted here would automatically get blanked out.

can someone pm me the pricing on this?

Thanks

Joerod. i am sending you a working miniture slide rule tie bar clip and my old calculator watch. Wear them with pride.

So what specifically model number wise should I be looking at in the Chief mounts for this beast? I know we need to wait for final verification of weight, but I just want to know what to start looking at.