Quote:
Originally Posted by kuebler 
I assume you mean 119" diagonal.
Right now in this moment I am experimenting with my new W7000 on my 165" HP screen using the ZD201s.
While in 2D, the W7000 easily lits my HP even in eco mode, there would IMHO be no way to have a satisfactorily lit picture with 119".
Right now I'm experimenting with smaller picture sizes, and with my new bulb I feel the picture to be well lit at a diagonal size of 90".
It is as cruel as it is...
Probably I will attach a second smaller HP screen to the ceiling at a smaller distance (in addition to the 165"), in order to get the same viewing angle as I have with the more distanced (165" as well) large screen in 2D.
And if I may make a recommendation: don't let yourself be fooled by thinking to allow for a much darker picture in 3D: you will be spoiled by the bright picture in 2D, and thus most certainly be very disappointed by the loss of light (not to 80%, but by 80% to a resulting 20%) in 3D.
EDIT Just for fun I did a calculation: the lux factor (brightness per square) between the 90" and the 165" taking into account the additional difference between full and eco mode results in exactly compensating a light loss of 77%. I was not aware of this before finding the 90" diagonal subjectively as satisfying in brightness terms as is the eco/165" setup with 2D. Funny...

I assume you mean 119" diagonal.
Right now in this moment I am experimenting with my new W7000 on my 165" HP screen using the ZD201s.
While in 2D, the W7000 easily lits my HP even in eco mode, there would IMHO be no way to have a satisfactorily lit picture with 119".
Right now I'm experimenting with smaller picture sizes, and with my new bulb I feel the picture to be well lit at a diagonal size of 90".
It is as cruel as it is...
Probably I will attach a second smaller HP screen to the ceiling at a smaller distance (in addition to the 165"), in order to get the same viewing angle as I have with the more distanced (165" as well) large screen in 2D.
And if I may make a recommendation: don't let yourself be fooled by thinking to allow for a much darker picture in 3D: you will be spoiled by the bright picture in 2D, and thus most certainly be very disappointed by the loss of light (not to 80%, but by 80% to a resulting 20%) in 3D.
EDIT Just for fun I did a calculation: the lux factor (brightness per square) between the 90" and the 165" taking into account the additional difference between full and eco mode results in exactly compensating a light loss of 77%. I was not aware of this before finding the 90" diagonal subjectively as satisfying in brightness terms as is the eco/165" setup with 2D. Funny...
I have used my HP screen with my RS40 and RS55, and it has been acceptable. I won't think I would be bothered too much by the brightness in 3D.































