or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sony VPL-vw1000 - Page 24

post #691 of 9734
are you going to see it first to make sure you like it?
post #692 of 9734
He will see it on my humongus 96 inch x 54 inch, 1.3 gain screen. I hope it might be bright enough.

I will be doing a bunch of in house and out house demos with our demo machine.
post #693 of 9734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

Why not use the high density foam used for protecting photographic equipment?

It will form fit.

Good suggestion; thanks. I just want to make the result small enough that I can take it on the plane as carry-on baggage.
post #694 of 9734
Quote:
Originally Posted by samalmoe View Post

are you going to see it first to make sure you like it?

Yes. (Oops, saw that Mark already replied to this.)
post #695 of 9734
Quote:
Originally Posted by samalmoe View Post

are you going to see it first to make sure you like it?

Where would be the fun in that?
post #696 of 9734
Quote:
Originally Posted by pteittinen View Post

Where would be the fun in that?

Don't know your definition of 'fun', but it certainly makes me more comfortable in plunking down.

PS Obviously I don't know how to place an icon!
post #697 of 9734
i will be getting mine from mark sight unseen..how bad can it be? gulp!!
post #698 of 9734
Quote:
Originally Posted by samalmoe View Post

i will be getting mine from mark sight unseen..how bad can it be? gulp!!

I think that this product is such a high profile item for Sony that they will get it right, or 'make' it right if necessary.
post #699 of 9734
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4 View Post

He will see it on my humongus 96 inch x 54 inch, 1.3 gain screen. I hope it might be bright enough.

I will be doing a bunch of in house and out house demos with our demo machine.

Mark,

How many homes with out houses can afford the VPL-VW1000?
post #700 of 9734
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveN View Post

Mark,

How many homes with out houses can afford the VPL-VW1000?

I knew one 20 years ago that could have bought a 100 VW1000's. Left all of his land to Billy Graham when he died.
Reply
Reply
post #701 of 9734
Samalmoe. But others including me will see it for you.
post #702 of 9734
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4 View Post

For 1920 x 1080 sources, both display the same number of pixels, 3840 x 2160.

This is wrong. 4K picture should have 4 times pixels of full-HD. But JVC uses full-HD panel just twice to create their "4K-ish" picture.
post #703 of 9734
Actually true 4K is not 4 times HD or 4 times (1920 x 1080). True 4K would be four times the number of pixels in 2k or 4 times (2048 x 1080). Both the Sony and the JVC put 3840 x 2160 (four times the number of pixels in HD) on the screen for an HD frame (1920 x 1080). The Sony puts up all the pixels seperately all at once, of course scaled from the original frame. JVC flashes two different 1920 x 1080 frames created from the original 1920 x 1080 frame sequentially with the second frame shifted one half pixel over and and down. The sequence is repeated once. Because of the size of the pixels they partially overlap and the overlap creates another 2 times (1920 x 1080) pixels. Its just a question of how they are created and how they get on the screen. Your eyes see 3940 x 2160 pixels when either machine is displaying a 1920 x 1080 source. I am not saying that one is better than the other but it might seem intuitive at first that flashing 3840 x 2160 all at one time without overlap would be better but I think it all would boil down to the scaling employed by both. Scaling is scaling and there are a variety of ways to scale and certainly scaling and overlap could be employed to get a resultant number of pixels.
post #704 of 9734
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4 View Post

Both the Sony and the JVC put 3840 x 2160 (four times the number of pixels in HD) on the screen for an HD frame (1920 x 1080).

Wrong again. Sony has 4096 x 2160 as NATIVE resolution and it's your choice how to use this canvas. VW1000ES has Picture Position control with which you can maximize picture for 16:9, 1.85:1, 2.35:1.

I would say JVC has, at its best, 2715 x 1527 pixels as 1920 x 1080 multiplied by square root.
post #705 of 9734
By the way, VW1000ES has 4096 x 2160 pixels panel with 1:1 pixel aspect ratio which makes its native screen ratio 17:9.

If you look at 16:9 material, you choose to shoot it into 16:9 screen as 3840 x 2160 and outside of screen up to 4096 in black as well.
post #706 of 9734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bremenfx1 View Post

By the way, VW1000ES has 4096 x 2160 pixels panel with 1:1 pixel aspect ratio which makes its native screen ratio 17:9.

If you look at 16:9 material, you choose to shoot it into 16:9 screen as 3840 x 2160 and outside of screen up to 4096 in black as well.

Do you have one you are looking at now ? What is the light output ? How does HD look ?

Art
post #707 of 9734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

Curious.......planning on making a tight fitting case for it?


Drop Bremenfx1 a PM

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post21469072

I followed your advice, and Bremenfx1 kindly responded: in case anyone else is interested, the circumference of the Sony1000 about its 'waist' is 125cm ~ 49.2".
post #708 of 9734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Do you have one you are looking at now ? What is the light output ? How does HD look ?

Art

I have mine with 70H under the belt. With proper color manageent, it's impressive with its microscopic sharpness and ability to draw 3D-like spatial picture from 2D source.

On the other hand, I can only speak about Japanese spec, but it is poor in calibration and color management parameter for this price, which is really disappointing.
post #709 of 9734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bremenfx1 View Post

I have mine with 70H under the belt. With proper color manageent, it's impressive with its microscopic sharpness and ability to draw 3D-like spatial picture from 2D source.

On the other hand, I can only speak about Japanese spec, but it is poor in calibration and color management parameter for this price, which is really disappointing.

Thanks ! I'm asking since the stated calibrated spec is 2000 lumens which would be adequate for my screen size but folks are thinking more like 1400 which would be too low for me.

Too bad about the color management.

Art
post #710 of 9734
And I understand about when feeding the Sony a 1920 x 1080 the side bars will be black for the 7% width not used.

I think for gray scale calibration and color management a 1080p video processor outside the Sony could be used to perform those functions. I think many who might buy the Sony would already have one. I plan on using my Lumagen Radiance XS with the Sony.
post #711 of 9734
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4 View Post

And I understand about when feeding the Sony a 1920 x 1080 the side bars will be black for the 7% width not used.

I think for gray scale calibration and color management a 1080p video processor outside the Sony could be used to perform those functions. I think many who might buy the Sony would already have one. I plan on using my Lumagen Radiance XS with the Sony.

So you would recommend outboard processing for this projector, do you have a real world lumen number for it ?

Art
post #712 of 9734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Thanks ! I'm asking since the stated calibrated spec is 2000 lumens which would be adequate for my screen size but folks are thinking more like 1400 which would be too low for me.

Too bad about the color management.

Art

I believe the 1400 calibrated lumen figure came from cine4home' preview of a prototype. It was reported by several people, though, that Sony has since then made some major upgrades to the light engine that substantially increase it. Haven't heard any reports of the 'production' models yet, though, to verify this.
post #713 of 9734
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

I believe the 1400 calibrated lumen figure came from cine4home' preview of a prototype. It was reported by several people, though, that Sony has since then made some major upgrades to the light engine that substantially increase it. Haven't heard any reports of the 'production' models yet, though, to verify this.

Thanks ! It looks like Wolfgang has a production unit now and is going to give us a report shortly.

Art
post #714 of 9734
Here is a link to the other thread with the measured results. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1389225 Looks like Sony knocked it out of the park with this one.
Reply
Reply
post #715 of 9734
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4 View Post

I am at a loss to understand your calculation of the number of pixels your eyes will see on the JVC per original source frame is the number of pixels in the source frame multiplied by the square root of that number.

You only have 1920 x 1080 x 2 pixels from JVC e-shift, which is just over 4 million pixels. Make it in 16:9 form, you'll get approximately 2715 x 1527 pixels.
post #716 of 9734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bremenfx1 View Post

You only have 1920 x 1080 x 2 pixels from JVC e-shift, which is just over 4 million pixels. Make it in 16:9 form, you'll get approximately 2715 x 1527 pixels.

But it is essentially superimposing two different sets of pixels, each 1920 x 1080, from a 4 times HD frame, but the second set of pixels is shifted one half over and one half pixel down up. With a very very minor variance of one half pixel over and down, the aspect would still be 16/9. Because the pixel spacing on the JVC panel (1920 x 1080) is so tight, the shift and flash has to partially overlap the first flashed pixels and the overlap doubles the total number of pixels presenting as 3840 x 2160 to your eyes.
post #717 of 9734
Quote:
Originally Posted by domingos1965 View Post

$30000
still want one?

MSRP ONLY $25,000. That's a HUGE difference And yes, you'll still want one.

Wolfie
post #718 of 9734
Question re the 1.88888 vs 1.78888 AR, i.e., 4096x2160 vs 3840x2160:

I have a hybrid (2.0) screen, 72"H x 144"W. So now when having a 16x9 pic, it is displayed as 72"H x128"W (I have masking panels on the side). Now if the 1000 scales a 16x9 pic to 1.88888 AR, would I then be able to display this as 72"H x 136"? But is the pic 'stretched', or is it distorted?
post #719 of 9734
If you scaled a 1.7777 to a 1.8888, then yes it would be stretched. Since the panel is wider than 1.7777 the outer rows of pixels are turned off for 16x9 leaving black bars on either side. These bars should fall on top of your masking and not be seen.
post #720 of 9734
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

Question re the 1.88888 vs 1.78888 AR, i.e., 4096x2160 vs 3840x2160:

I have a hybrid (2.0) screen, 72"H x 144"W. So now when having a 16x9 pic, it is displayed as 72"H x128"W (I have masking panels on the side). Now if the 1000 scales a 16x9 pic to 1.88888 AR, would I then be able to display this as 72"H x 136"? But is the pic 'stretched', or is it distorted?

I would hope one can display 16:9/1.78:1 as 3840 x 2160

and 2.35:1 as 4096 x 1743 along with true 4k(1.89:1) at 4096 x 2160?

Zoom in/out to fit the width and mask the top/bottom of the screen if required

Don't like the idea of having to alter the original AR, which means cropping or distorting the original image.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home