or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sony VPL-vw1000 - Page 219

post #6541 of 9644
Re: cheap light meter
Thanks!
post #6542 of 9644
Is it worth an extra $200 to have a Sony 1000 sent overnight vs ground shipping ($280 vs $85)? I am worried about damage that isn't easily seen, but could be the result of undoubted 3-5 foot drops of the box by UPS that wouldn't be apparent as box damage. I would say panel alignment is my biggest worry here. If it were a single chip projector it wouldn't be a thought. I figure the less its in their hands the less the likelihood of damage. Of course if its too bad and clearly noticeable damage it could be returned or exchanged. One of those cases where if it gets damaged, I would hope it gets mutilated. smile.gif Thoughts?
Edited by hifiaudio2 - 10/28/13 at 2:53pm
post #6543 of 9644
Where is it being shipped from and to where? Without knowing the specifics I would say ground is fine. the unit is well packed and the inside box is well styrofoamed in isolation from the external box to deal with drops. I would not spend the extra $200.
post #6544 of 9644
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Where is it being shipped from and to where? Without knowing the specifics I would say ground is fine. the unit is well packed and the inside box is well styrofoamed in isolation from the external box to deal with drops. I would not spend the extra $200.

Rochester NY to Nashville. TN.
Reply
Reply
post #6545 of 9644
So has anyone been able to try one of the new Lumagen 4K VPs, to test the Lumagen 4K upscaling vs the Sony's internal scaling?
post #6546 of 9644
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifiaudio2 View Post

Is it worth an extra $200 to have a Sony 1000 sent overnight vs ground shipping ($280 vs $85)? I am worried about damage that isn't easily seen, but could be the result of undoubted 3-5 foot drops of the box by UPS that wouldn't be apparent as box damage. I would say panel alignment is my biggest worry here. If it were a single chip projector it wouldn't be a thought. I figure the less its in their hands the less the likelihood of damage. Of course if its too bad and clearly noticeable damage it could be returned or exchanged. One of those cases where if it gets damaged, I would hope it gets mutilated. smile.gif Thoughts?

You bought another one? I thought you were selling yours...
post #6547 of 9644
Yep I am. Lol. Getting a b stock. Nothing else piqued my interest from cedia...except the DPI cine LED. Going to get that too and do a shootout. Each should have some clear strengths.
post #6548 of 9644
Gee. Then next year you could sell both before Cedia and buy another one of one of them after Cedia. Mike and Craig should both take you to dinner next Cedia.

The shipping distance is about 800 miles total. That means you will get it 3 days after shipment. I would just ship it ground.
post #6549 of 9644
Yeah mike! Dinner on you per Mark! smile.gif
post #6550 of 9644
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifiaudio2 View Post

Yeah mike! Dinner on you per Mark! smile.gif

Thanks Mark.:roll eyes: May have to make a trip down to Nashville to see your theater. smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #6551 of 9644
OK, after the post by RCohen (and Mark Haflich's many posts) about the higher quality pic that one gets with RC for HDTV by using 'Normal' AR (16x9) rather than '2.35Zoom' (17x9), I have switched to 'Normal'. And I think I do agree that it is better. So I'm now with a 128x72 pic, rather than a 136x72 one (with appropriate masking), but I've moved my seat up a bit so that I'm still viewing at ~1.0 SW.

Question: with a 2.35 BD, and using the 'zoom method', do you still recommend using 'Normal' AR (and zooming the pic appropriately), or do you go with '2.35 Zoom' in this case?
post #6552 of 9644
Thought some of you might be interested in seeing some details on the theater I'm about to have built, which will feature a Sony 1000:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1496987/yet-another-build-thread-14-seats-12-wide-screen-sony-4k-projector-procella-speakers
post #6553 of 9644
Like I mentioned, I'm talking about really subtle stuff, just for the sake of being obsessive. You can see it most clearly with test patterns. In real images, you mainly see that high detail textures are slightly sharper, if you look close. Like skin pores in Oblivion.

This applies to 2.35 1080p source, including Bluray.

What do you mean about a 128x72 pic?
post #6554 of 9644
Quote:
Originally Posted by aligborat View Post

Thought some of you might be interested in seeing some details on the theater I'm about to have built, which will feature a Sony 1000:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1496987/yet-another-build-thread-14-seats-12-wide-screen-sony-4k-projector-procella-speakers
Wow...their home theater portfolio sure is impressive!
post #6555 of 9644
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post

Like I mentioned, I'm talking about really subtle stuff, just for the sake of being obsessive. You can see it most clearly with test patterns. In real images, you mainly see that high detail textures are slightly sharper, if you look close. Like skin pores in Oblivion.

This applies to 2.35 1080p source, including Bluray.

What do you mean about a 128x72 pic?

Yes, I noticed it mostly on detailed textures being sharper. 128"x72" is the size of my 16x9 pic.
post #6556 of 9644
Bill. One post should have been enough.wink.gif Have I ever steered you wrong? It is appropriate to question and experiment. It is inappropriate to resist when the experimental results verify the proposition.
post #6557 of 9644
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Bill. One post should have been enough.wink.gif Have I ever steered you wrong? It is appropriate to question and experiment. It is inappropriate to resist when the experimental results verify the proposition.

I owe you much, Mark! So, for 2.35 BD's do you also use 'Normal' AR with the 'zoom method'?
post #6558 of 9644
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

I owe you much, Mark! So, for 2.35 BD's do you also use 'Normal' AR with the 'zoom method'?

If you can't answer this question for yourself, it doesn't matter.smile.gif
post #6559 of 9644
In engineering school, when one asked a simplistic question the most everyone one else in the class would know the answer to, the professor would say in this case, Mr. Miller, the answer to that question is intuitively obvious to the most casual of observers. However, even to a studied student, occasionally a cow flies by the window and the obvious becomes non obvious for a fleeting second. And we don't make fun of in such an instance, the art of HT education being a collegial effort regardless of the mix of collegians and any learning disabilities they might have.

Ahem, will this Haflich guy ever get to the point and cease his stream of needless babble?

OK. If things are sharper using the panel as a 1.7777 panel instead of a 1.88888 panel and the objective is to maintain or at least maximize such sharpness, and maintenance of sharpness with respect to aging humans is indeed hard to do (he just can't help himself babble wise, he thinks he must be Coderguy), then one should zoom from 1.777 panel size to fill a 2.35 screen with active image and black bars disappearing into a protostar if possible void above and below the screen.
Edited by mark haflich - 10/29/13 at 6:59am
post #6560 of 9644
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

In engineering school, when one asked a simplistic question the most everyone one else in the class would know the answer to, the professor would say in this case, Mr. Miller, the answer to that question is intuitively obvious to the most casual of observers. However, even to a studied student, occasionally a cow flies by the window and the obvious becomes non obvious for a fleeting second. And we don't make fun of in such an instance, the art of HT education being a collegial effort regardless of the mix of collegians and any learning disabilities they might have.

Ahem, will this Haflich guy ever get to the point and cease his stream of needless babble?

OK. If things are sharper using the panel as a 1.7777 panel instead of a 1.88888 panel and the objective is to maintain or at least maximize such sharpness, and maintenance of sharpness with respect to aging humans is indeed hard to do (he just can't help himself babble wise, he thinks he must be Coderguy), then one should zoom from 1.777 panel size to fill a 2.35 screen with active image and black bars disappearing into a protostar if possible void above and below the screen.

I think I discern the answer to my question, Mark (I'm a slow learner). Thx for the analysis.
post #6561 of 9644
I have a 135" diagonal 2.35:1 screen and will sell my A-lens and use zoom method when my B-stock shows up within the next week. I'll experiment with use of 17:9 vs. 16:9 chip image and make the choice between more panel/light vs. sharpness trade-offs based on my observations in my own theater seat. I use test patterns to calibrate, but don't watch them, so my decision will be based on watching the same scenes in 2D and 3D movies and making up my own damn mind. I suspect that sharpness will be more important at my close seating distance, but that could change as the lamp dims or for 3D viewing.
post #6562 of 9644
Sounds like a Declaration of Independence. But you also need a Bill of Rights. smile.gif
post #6563 of 9644
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Sounds like a Declaration of Independence. But you also need a Bill of Rights. smile.gif

The changes in one vs another are relatively small and I think any conclusion by anybody would be more subjective and biased rather than objective knowing that it is not as sharp at 1.88 and that the brightness percentage increase (11/178) is very minor.
post #6564 of 9644
Alas, Mark, I tried zooming for 2.35 tonight with 'Normal' AR and find that I can't zoom the image to fill my 144" width with the projector as far back as I can (conveniently) get it in my room. (Would have to put it back inside a closet, and that is more hassle than it's worth.)

So I'm using '2.35 Zoom' AR when zooming for 2.35 BD's. And to keep life simple, I'm going to keep the '235 Zoom' AR also for HDTV, i.e., having a 17x9 pic (and thus back to 136"x72" for HDTV). I played extensively with a good HDTV source, switching between 'Normal' and '2.35 Zoom' AR, and find it very hard to see any difference. May be my eyes.

So sorry, Mark, i've regressed! As we all know, HT is a compromise between many constraints of our individual situations.
post #6565 of 9644
Bill that is unacceptable. You are out of the sharpness club.
post #6566 of 9644
Ah. Its like owning 4 fine autos and only having a 3 car garage. There are solutions but they are too many hassles. BUT you don't really need that closet while your projector does.
post #6567 of 9644
Come on, guys; if I can't really see a sharpness diff between 'Normal' and '2.35 Zoom' AR, ..... (If a tree falls in the forest, ... .)
post #6568 of 9644
So today you just will be a little less sharper than you were yesterday. I certainly understand. smile.gif
post #6569 of 9644
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

Come on, guys; if I can't really see a sharpness diff between 'Normal' and '2.35 Zoom' AR, ..... (If a tree falls in the forest, ... .)

I keep mine on 2.35 zoom. Normal is a slight bit sharper, but I'd rather have a wider pic.
post #6570 of 9644
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

So today you just will be a little less sharper than you were yesterday. I certainly understand. smile.gif

With the number of brain cells that die every day, we can all say that. smile.gif
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home