or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sony VPL-vw1000 - Page 212

post #6331 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiovideoholic View Post

Thanks Mark. That's what I figured but wasn't positive. What would your feelings toward a dual vw1000 setup for 2D and 3D entale? Here's where I'm going. Have 13' wide Stewart 1.5 micro perf but would rather have a screen without the amount texture/perfs/etc... I am sensitive to it I guess since I'm the only person I've read that notices the perfs from longer distances. I know just going with a smaller 1.0 flat screen would be best but have to stay with AT fabric. This option of duals also presents a problem with headroom at its current throw of 18ish' and would make the second unit hang too low and obstruct the view from the third row. Is side by side completely out? I'd guess moving the mounting back to the third row would be optimal but then I'd lose how much light by going with 25-26' throw?

Maybe its not a good idea at all and can sum it up like that 😉
Another option is to go with dual screens, rather than dual projectors, using a motorized screen.
The 2.4 screen samples I looked at looked GREAT for 3D, but they were too much for 2D.
Wouldn't work for AT, though.
post #6332 of 9684
To be clear, you need to stay with an AT screen but are considering going to a lower gain? Not clear from your post

Re stacking, can be one on top or side by side. You need to use lens shift and there is more available with one on top. In side by side, each projector lens would be about 9 inches off of center. I'll look at the drawings and edit this post to make the offset more accurate. But this is only a small amount off of center and I think the lens shift can handle it. Its just that the chip is 1.89 wider than it is tall, yet the lens is round. But the Sony lens is real good and I doubt you would see much loss of sharpness or CA by shifting the images over, one left and one right. the only real issue is laying each and every one of those 8 million plus small pixels over each other. The lens shift controls are not really accurate enough to do this, you would need REALLY small steps. So you would need some sort of micrometer platform adjustments used for table mounting stacks. Certainly doable, just suspend a shelf. I have looked to see what type of mounts are available for horizontal stacks. but no matter what you do, you will never ever be able to obtain precise overlap. Way to many build, heat, alignment issues. But as long as you are sitting not to close and its only light you need, it would do the job. I remember a show where Sony stacked 3 Qualia 004s to light up their big screen. But no one was real close to the screen

You could also do a side by side edge blend using a blend box.
post #6333 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post

Due to the need for different registration tuning to keep 4k sharp, either a fixed lens would be needed, or you would have to accept that the registration drifts a bit when the lens slides away. On mine, I'm talking about a fraction of a pixel.
Sorry, I was talking about color registration, not geometry, and how the vw1000 doesn't have color registration presets.

I was testing at a 26' throw, so the geometry differences were really minor. It would be interesting to see the geometry at the "g spot." According to that spreadsheet, that's also good territory for Seymour's 40' radius. If I were to use the lens, it would be to match the Center Stage XD screen, so that much is good.

For, it's a tough decision between:
1) Carada BW flat and no lens, normal aspect mode - best overall picture, but not AT
2) Center Stage XD, curved and lens, v stretch aspect mode - more expense and more headaches - but AT and cool curved screen.
3) Center Stage XD flat and no lens - either using 2.35 or normal aspect mode - tough call between brightness and sharpness

Thanks for using my suggested terminology. smile.gif
post #6334 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Mike G. If you are at long throw, have a good quality A lens, tilt it appropriately, you will get only a small but visible amount of pin cushioning. Normally, one after balancing it out, top and bottom, overscans it so that most of the pin cushioning is no longer visible. A curved screen of the appropriate radius, most are not the exact curve needed, will pretty much eliminate all the pin cushioning but there still will be some. Curved screens are cool. The wider the screen, the more cool the curve. Hell with a really big screen you can sit inside the curve. Lots of people use curved screens but don't use an A lens. Will there be some geometric distortion because of the curve? Yes. but one won't notice it because its mainly in the peripheral field. Pin cushioning is top and bottom center. Hard not to be aware of it but possible depending on what one is drinking or smoking, Distortion caused by a curved screen without a A lens, hard to notice even when wide awake and cold sober

Yep. I know the calculations and can determine the amount of pincushion, along with what radius curve is needed to pretty much eliminate it. smile.gif
I was just pointing out that those that have a curved screen and eliminate the A-lens to go to the zoom method are trading one issue for another. Yes it is a smaller issue, but it is still a factor to consider along with the reduced brightness. The shorter the throw, the larger a factor it is. Then again, too short a throw and/or a deeply recessed lens and an A-lens will not work.
Reply
Reply
post #6335 of 9684
Early on I remember Wolfgang tried stacking 2 VW1000s and it didn't work. I don't remember why but it it in one of the VW1000 threads.
post #6336 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by KRGM1 View Post

Early on I remember Wolfgang tried stacking 2 VW1000s and it didn't work. I don't remember why but it it in one of the VW1000 threads.

If I remember correctly, he said it worked okay for 3D, but not for 2D.
Reply
Reply
post #6337 of 9684
With 3D and the glasses, imprecise alignment is lets call it masked. With 2D, the alignment of the pixels is much more critical. Still as long as one sits a little away, it should work to solve I need more brightness.
post #6338 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Thanks for using my suggested terminology. smile.gif
Now, it just needs to catch on, and you'll be immortalized.
post #6339 of 9684
Considering all the a-lens headaches, stacking has to be worse.

A higher gain screen seems much more practical, unless you must have AT.

(The same argument holds for a-lenses, of course.)
post #6340 of 9684
What is Wolfgang's *sign on name? I am trying to research and find his posts on stacking. No luck so far.


Mike I know you know as much as I do. We both can calculate all these things. the problem with calculating a radius is the one you need is not available, choices being restricted to one or two stock.


You raised the issue about already owning a curved screen and then not using you A lens when switching to a 4K projector and having geometry issues. My point is the issue is negligible because it is way off to the sides and is not usually visible at all when viewing content. I would love a deep curved screen about 12 ft wide for my 1000ES with some gain, say 1.5. But I would have to have a motorized 1.0 gain screen in fron of that for my feel like you are at the game viewing.
post #6341 of 9684
W.Mayer is his login name.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1346057/world-premiere-4k-3d-dlp-passive-stack

coolest. home. theater. ever.
post #6342 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

What is Wolfgang's *sign on name? I am trying to research and find his posts on stacking. No luck so far.


Mike I know you know as much as I do. We both can calculate all these things. the problem with calculating a radius is the one you need is not available, choices being restricted to one or two stock.


You raised the issue about already owning a curved screen and then not using you A lens when switching to a 4K projector and having geometry issues. My point is the issue is negligible because it is way off to the sides and is not usually visible at all when viewing content. I would love a deep curved screen about 12 ft wide for my 1000ES with some gain, say 1.5. But I would have to have a motorized 1.0 gain screen in fron of that for my feel like you are at the game viewing.

Here is the pic, where he stacked them: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1389225/4k-sony-vw-1000-first-short-test/30#post_21546344

While looking for this, I came across a post by M.Mayer from January 2012:
"so far i know the new hdmi 2.0 standard will support 4096x2160 till to 60p
and this will be at the market in about one year.

may guess is that this new inputboard will comes when the chips for the
hmdi 2.0 are ready."

Thought I would give a little credit, since he hit it on the head.

Mark, here is the thread: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1389225/4k-sony-vw-1000-first-short-test
Reply
Reply
post #6343 of 9684
Zombie10k and Mike G. Thanks so much. I tried finding stuff about the stack not working for 2D but gave up. I read lots of pages. keep reading this guy AV Science Sales 4 with no name identifier. Some really god posts that guy made and then I realized it was me. Actually, I learned a lot by reading them. Go figure. smile.gif

In one post (not by me) Zombie10K was typoed and called Zomie. I kind of liked that name, Zomie Has a nice friendly ring to it. smile.gif
post #6344 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Zombie10k and Mike G. Thanks so much. I tried finding stuff about the stack not working for 2D but gave up. I read lots of pages. keep reading this guy AV Science Sales 4 with no name identifier. Some really god posts that guy made and then I realized it was me. Actually, I learned a lot by reading them. Go figure. smile.gif

In one post (not by me) Zombie10K was typoed and called Zomie. I kind of liked that name, Zomie Has a nice friendly ring to it. smile.gif

How did you like that Mayer prediction in the post above yours. Not bad since he said it 22 months ago. smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #6345 of 9684
Definitely on the money. Interesting how he trashed the Isco 1.33 lens in favor of the Isco 4K 1.25 lens. A cool $17,400 MSRP. Sounds like a power buy opportunity for those insisting on doing an A lens with the Sony. If the 4K Isco is so much better than the 2K Isco, image the improvement over a U480. Sort of like using a pin hole lens vs a Leica.
post #6346 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Definitely on the money. Interesting how he trashed the Isco 1.33 lens in favor of the Isco 4K 1.25 lens. A cool $17,400 MSRP. Sounds like a power buy opportunity for those insisting on doing an A lens with the Sony. If the 4K Isco is so much better than the 2K Isco, image the improvement over a U480. Sort of like using a pin hole lens vs a Leica.

Was this with a 4K input or unconverted 1080P?
Reply
Reply
post #6347 of 9684
Yes. AT is a must that's why I don't use the 2 screen option.

So it was a no go, correct? I remember seeing the pics of them stacked. I will just have to wait out a new screen technology lol.
post #6348 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

Was this with a 4K input or unconverted 1080P?
I don't know. He was using a computer to feed 4K 3D.

The A lens really wouldn't perform differently either way, The projector would be shooting UHD or 4K through the lens though I suppose he could have sent UHD at 1.78 through the lens using 1,78 and the 1,33 lens and 4k through the 1.25 4K lens using the full panel. I got the feeling he was using 4k 1.89 to test both lenses but I don't know.
post #6349 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiovideoholic View Post

Yes. AT is a must that's why I don't use the 2 screen option.

So it was a no go, correct? I remember seeing the pics of them stacked. I will just have to wait out a new screen technology lol.

Large active screens are coming in a roll down format of course then you wouldn't need the projector
post #6350 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

I don't know. He was using a computer to feed 4K 3D.

The A lens really wouldn't perform differently either way, The projector would be shooting UHD or 4K through the lens though I suppose he could have sent UHD at 1.78 through the lens using 1,78 and the 1,33 lens and 4k through the 1.25 4K lens using the full panel. I got the feeling he was using 4k 1.89 to test both lenses but I don't know.

That is why I asked. Also if doing 4K, he had to be using an HTPC for the vertical stretch, since nothing else could do it.
Reply
Reply
post #6351 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post

Any news on whether the 1100 upgrade will add 4k A-lens support?

Bad news. Mike G asked Sony and neither the 500/600 or 1100 will stretch with 4K or UHD native.
post #6352 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Bad news. Mike G asked Sony and neither the 500/600 or 1100 will stretch with 4K or UHD native.
Lumagen lives another day!
post #6353 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by armstrr View Post

Lumagen lives another day!

And HTPCs!
post #6354 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Bad news. Mike G asked Sony and neither the 500/600 or 1100 will stretch with 4K or UHD native.

Requires too much processing power to do so. Yes the Lumagen will be a must have device for several people.
Reply
Reply
post #6355 of 9684
So they should have put in a more powefulis r processing chip. Also the 1100ES should have been engineered to provide a 4K CMS, they did it for the 500/600ES.

Likewise they should hold up production for the wider bandwidth (faster) HDMI 2.0 chips. Because they didn't, my guess they will force the coming 4K Bluray standard to be 8 bits at 4K 60 instead of 10 or 12 bits. And then there is providing for only an increased color space of xyYcc or x.v. color instead of ITU2020. Cumulatively, each decision will have bad repercussions for on the future of 4K which needs to be more than a modest increase in color space and increased resolution given that most UHD displays will be flat panels no more than 60 inches D.

I find all this very depressing.
post #6356 of 9684
wink.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

A word of sage advice given you got that comment. Don't put on a porn movie!

Diesn't it almost make you feel like you are at the game watching from a good seat?

St. Louis Post columnist Joe Strauss must have had it right about bitterness of Washington Nationals Fans.........................................







I suspect Mark.................you're a Nationals Fan. wink.gif
post #6357 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

Requires too much processing power to do so. Yes the Lumagen will be a must have device for several people.

If I'm using a lens (in my case, the Isco IIIL) I assume I can still feed the Sony a 1080p image, and let the Sony do both the 4K upconversion as well as the anamorphic stretch? Or is that "too much processing power" too?
post #6358 of 9684
Quote:
Originally Posted by aligborat View Post

If I'm using a lens (in my case, the Isco IIIL) I assume I can still feed the Sony a 1080p image, and let the Sony do both the 4K upconversion as well as the anamorphic stretch? Or is that "too much processing power" too?

Yes Sony has no problem with that.
Reply
Reply
post #6359 of 9684
I wonder if Sony is using a third party chip to perform the stretch at 1080p and to my knowledge there are presently no third party chips that will do a 4K stretch. Of course, a large gate scale array chip could be programmed to do it.
post #6360 of 9684
As the processing needs go up, it seems like it would make sense for projectors to start using GPUs.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home