or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Sharp XV-Z30000 3D DLP
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sharp XV-Z30000 3D DLP - Page 19

post #541 of 1582
(through the glasses) to me means through the glasses. If that's not what was meant then the "chart" should be changed. Going off the pre D65 calibrated lumens zombies numbers indicate 642 lumens, not through the glasses. 642/1118=.5742 saying 642 is 57.4% as bright as 1118. Which equals 100%-57.4% = 42.7% drop in brightness, not through the glasses. And the glasses drops it another 24.7%? Taking it to a non-calibrated 82% drop? Or is that calibrated 82%? I'm sorry but my eyes, of course not being light meters, are not seeing an 82% drop, are they?

What light meters are both Zombie and Tom using? I may have to get one just to calibrate my eyes if nothing else.
post #542 of 1582
Yeah, unfortunately the drop is typically this much. This is a very well known problem with current shutter glasses. The only way to alleviate some of the issues with that much light loss is to have an extremely bright projector or one that at least has a much brighter in 3D mode OR companies need to make some headway with active 3D glasses technology. They just happen to be opaque for too much time allowing very little light to pass through them. As I mentioned earlier Mitsubishi's new glasses that shipped with the HC7800D allowed more light to pass through them. I'm assuming they've moved this technology to this years DLP projectors they're offering. I think their glasses allowed for faster switching (ie less opaque time) to achieve this.
post #543 of 1582
Nice a hole coment true to toe form. smile.gif

Man 950lumens vs 559 lumens is near the 40 percent drop I got with my light meter.
post #544 of 1582
Ok, I'm a slow typist and/or I need to refresh more often. Some questions have been answered.

Tradewinds is right though measurements need to be taken at a given size, say 100", as well as the same gain say 1.0. to really be meaningful as a comparison. Then let everyone extrapolate from there?
post #545 of 1582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walternate View Post

(through the glasses) to me means through the glasses. If that's not what was meant then the "chart" should be changed. Going off the pre D65 calibrated lumens zombies numbers indicate 642 lumens, not through the glasses. 642/1118=.5742 saying 642 is 57.4% as bright as 1118. Which equals 100%-57.4% = 42.7% drop in brightness, not through the glasses. And the glasses drops it another 24.7%? Taking it to a non-calibrated 82% drop? Or is that calibrated 82%? I'm sorry but my eyes, of course not being light meters, are not seeing an 82% drop, are they?

What light meters are both Zombie and Tom using? I may have to get one just to calibrate my eyes if nothing else.

I'm using an accurate one confirmed by the many reviews Greg Rodgers did at widescreen review. The drop is just 40 percent on my z17000 projector.
post #546 of 1582
Quote:
Originally Posted by guitarman View Post

Nice a hole coment true to toe form. smile.gif

Man 950lumens vs 559 lumens is near the 40 percent drop I got with my light meter.


Except you were claiming a 40% drop with glasses as in this post...........
Quote:
Originally Posted by guitarman View Post

Nice lay down, looks like my 40% light drop using the glasses was right on.


So again I ask, how in the world did you get a 40% through the glasses light loss when 80% is typical?
post #547 of 1582
Quote:
Originally Posted by guitarman View Post

I'm using an accurate one confirmed by the many reviews Greg Rodgers did at widescreen review. The drop is just 40 percent on my z17000 projector.

40% drop going from no glasses to glasses on?
post #548 of 1582
Tom, I don't think your reading close enough to the information that I provided.

I was clear to state that the 3D lumens are without the glasses and that the color charts were with the glasses. The drop in Y value is consistent with the drop of the light meter behind the glasses.

Your 40% measurement is for the lumen drop going from 2D to 3D mode. This does not account for the active shutter glasses.


How are you measuring 100% IRE in 3D mode? I use a custom made 3D BD ISO with the 3D patterns 30, 80 & 100 IRE. The projector is in frame packed 3D mode during these measurements.

  • Run 100% IRE screen in 3D frame packed mode, measure the Lux at the center of the screen.

  • Activate the shutter glasses and place them in front of the meter. What does it read?
post #549 of 1582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

40% drop going from no glasses to glasses on?

I think the better question is; does the xv-z17000 use the same glasses as the xv-z30000? Otherwise the measurements are moot and don't add to this specific conversation.
post #550 of 1582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

I think the better question is; does the xv-z17000 use the same glasses as the xv-z30000? Otherwise the measurements are moot and don't add to this specific conversation.

Its moot anyway as he is using a different projector. I still would like to know how he came to his conclusions as he has clearly made an error along the way if he truly did measure it.
post #551 of 1582
Quote:
Originally Posted by tradewinds View Post

This is all very entertaining, however can both sides do these measurements with the same size screen size. Make it an even 100" size and measure the lux. This is NOT a projector for a large screen and that has been stated several times.

It's difficult to find a baseline of what's acceptable because everyone has a different idea of how bright 3D should be. When I saw avatar a few times in the theater, I thought it was too dark. When I saw it on my HP screen, I thought 'this is more like it'.

I've had some projectors on the HP that can torch it with 1400+ lumens * 2.8HP which can cause squinting even with the glasses on.

The Sharp 30k is near center axis and I'm getting close to maximum gain. It can still light up the 142" 16:9 with decent brightness once my eyes get adjusted. I watched several 3D movies recently and they all looked good after the 3D color cal.

I almost want to buy the projector so I can use the Sharp G20 glasses. All other companies should clone these glasses... one of my favorites and I've seen a ton of 3D glasses.
post #552 of 1582
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

Tom, I don't think your reading close enough to the information that I provided.

I was clear to state that the 3D lumens are without the glasses and that the color charts were with the glasses. The drop in Y value is consistent with the drop of the light meter behind the glasses.

Your 40% measurement is for the lumen drop going from 2D to 3D mode. This does not account for the active shutter glasses.


How are you measuring 100% IRE in 3D mode? I use a custom made 3D BD ISO with the 3D patterns 30, 80 & 100 IRE. The projector is in frame packed 3D mode during these measurements.

  • Run 100% IRE screen in 3D frame packed mode, measure the Lux at the center of the screen.

  • Activate the shutter glasses and place them in front of the meter. What does it read?

All I did was simple, I ran my dynamic gamma which I watch 3D movies showing a 100ire pattern going. Then I put the light meter behind the tinted glasses and read the difference. There's no other way to find the light measured difference. Like I said it was just 40 percent lower which I'm happy with.

3DG10 are the glasses that come with the z17000.
Edited by guitarman - 4/22/13 at 9:19pm
post #553 of 1582
Which 3D movie has a 100% ire pattern?

Can you please post the pre/post glasses Lux readings when you get a chance. I'd like to see how they compare to the 30k.

My pre-reading is 100 lux, the post reading is 20 lux for both sets of Sharp glasses.
post #554 of 1582
It doesn't have to be a 3D movie, you just look at the mode choice you use for 3D using a tuning disc's 100IRE pattern then throw the glasses over the meter for the light difference.

I use the american version good old Ft-candles. I didn't write them down but mentioned them way back in the thread. It was like 43 ft candles in dynamic for my 106" diag screen which gave me near 1300 lumens.

I got 180hrs on my projector now I'll do the same test. But one thing when it goes to dynamic mode all the brightness stops are on, bright lamp and bright boost which add a significant amount of light.
Edited by guitarman - 4/22/13 at 9:49pm
post #555 of 1582
The projector must be in 3D frame packed mode to accurately measure the lumen output in 3D mode. if you're suggesting otherwise, there's not much point in continuing the comparison.
post #556 of 1582
I dissagree, it's just the darkness added by the glasses that needs to measured. If 3D mode is my dynamic bright setting the brightness doesn't change whether I'm watch a 3D movie or 2D movie accept for the fact I have the glasses on when watching 3D. That's the light difference.
post #557 of 1582
"3D frame packed mode "

What's that surposed to mean? Are you saying the glasses toggling doubles the darkness? Yes I just measured one side of the glasses. If what you're saying is true it's time to give up on 3D. Although the movies looked pretty bright to me at the 1300 lumens start I viewed at.

Now after that ? I'm wondering how you grayscale tuned 3D. I would just put the glasses in front of the meter and tune with the only 2D DVE blue ray, what did you do?
Edited by guitarman - 4/22/13 at 10:24pm
post #558 of 1582
If you aren't using a 3D mode like frame-packing, the glasses aren't going from translucent to opaque and thus your measurements aren't going to be correct. You're only measuring through the glasses when they are in their most translucent state the way you have it set up.
post #559 of 1582
Well like you said what 100ire 3D pattern can you use to get the measurement?
post #560 of 1582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

If you aren't using a 3D mode like frame-packing, the glasses aren't going from translucent to opaque and thus your measurements aren't going to be correct. You're only measuring through the glasses when they are in their most translucent state the way you have it set up.

correct. That's why I use a 3D BD ISO which has the 30,80,100 patterns on it. It's being played back in full 1080 24FP mode which engages the internal changes for 3D mode (1st lumen drop). It also activate the glasses which engages the 2nd light drop of the active shutter glasses.

If it was truly at 40-50% transmission rate, it would be a blessing.
post #561 of 1582
I guess there's some extra light added because the lenses are flickering.
post #562 of 1582
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

It's difficult to find a baseline of what's acceptable because everyone has a different idea of how bright 3D should be. When I saw avatar a few times in the theater, I thought it was too dark. When I saw it on my HP screen, I thought 'this is more like it'.

I've had some projectors on the HP that can torch it with 1400+ lumens * 2.8HP which can cause squinting even with the glasses on.

The Sharp 30k is near center axis and I'm getting close to maximum gain. It can still light up the 142" 16:9 with decent brightness once my eyes get adjusted. I watched several 3D movies recently and they all looked good after the 3D color cal.

I almost want to buy the projector so I can use the Sharp G20 glasses. All other companies should clone these glasses... one of my favorites and I've seen a ton of 3D glasses.

WOW! There is so much to learn about 3D.
I never appreciated just how much thought you guys put into analyzing this stuff, until reading the last few pages.
It seems that there is a consensus on a few points. The Z30000 has a beautiful 3D picture, but not as bright as some current models. The Sharp glasses are some of the best.
Zombie touched on a key, from my perspective, High Power screens. If it looks good on his 142" screen, then there you go...Our 110 " HP is almost too bright in "Stage" mode.
My $.02:
High gain screens are a good solution until they get the technology figured out. My argument for not spending a fortune on the latest/greatest projector is that we are in a state of flux at the moment.
4k is on the horizon and 3D is going through growing pains. In a few years, who knows...maybe no glasses needed.

The bottom line is that the Z30000 is DLP. It represents a cost effective compromise between sharp (little humor), vibrant 2D and sharp 3D.
Next year, who knows...
rolleyes.gif
post #563 of 1582
Quote:
Originally Posted by humbland View Post

WOW! There is so much to learn about 3D.


High gain screens are a good solution until they get the technology figured out. My argument for not spending a fortune on the latest/greatest projector is that we are in a state of flux at the moment.
4k is on the horizon and 3D is going through growing pains. In a few years, who knows...maybe no glasses needed.

The bottom line is that the Z30000 is DLP. It represents a cost effective compromise between sharp (little humor), vibrant 2D and sharp 3D.
Next year, who knows...
rolleyes.gif

+1 on this. The more I read, the more I think this whole thing will flush out more and more over the coming couple of years. Makes me more sure than ever that I need an interim solution.

So, here's a question to Zombie and others:

Is the bottom line of what we are saying here is that if I read a review on PJC or one of Art's reviews and they state they measured 1000 lumens in 3D mode on a projector (but not measured on 3D material through the glasses), does that mean that effectively I would see +/- 200 lumens with my eyes on a 3d 100 ire pattern using "most" 3D active shutter glasses?
post #564 of 1582
We've always been in a state of flux in projectors really.

Late 1990's to Early 2000's, not a good time to buy a projector because people were moving slowly from CRT to DIGITAL
Mid-2000's = Most moved to Digital but now some 1080p projectors are starting to slowly get affordable (1080p in 2004 was like $5000, whereas 720p was like $1500)
Late-2000's to Early 2010's = It's not a good time to buy because now we have 3D and CFI and other techs they added, so if the PJ you want doesn't have 3D, bad time to buy?

Now in 2013 = Not a good time to buy because 4k is around the corner.

It's never a good time to buy!

After 4k, they will come up with something else to give us another reason NOT to buy a new projector until X tech gets more affordable smile.gif
post #565 of 1582
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

We've always been in a state of flux in projectors really.

Late 1990's to Early 2000's, not a good time to buy a projector because people were moving slowly from CRT to DIGITAL
Mid-2000's = Most moved to Digital but now some 1080p projectors are starting to slowly get affordable (1080p in 2004 was like $5000, whereas 720p was like $1500)
Late-2000's to Early 2010's = It's not a good time to buy because now we have 3D and CFI and other techs they added, so if the PJ you want doesn't have 3D, bad time to buy?

Now in 2013 = Not a good time to buy because 4k is around the corner.

It's never a good time to buy!

After 4k, they will come up with something else to give us another reason NOT to buy a new projector until X tech gets more affordable smile.gif

I agree, but I am not talking 4K, I am more concerned with getting more brightness out of 3D. Right now, the drop off in lumens makes it almost necessary to have two screens or to make some other compromises for 3D viewing.
post #566 of 1582
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrimore View Post

+1 on this. The more I read, the more I think this whole thing will flush out more and more over the coming couple of years. Makes me more sure than ever that I need an interim solution.

So, here's a question to Zombie and others:

Is the bottom line of what we are saying here is that if I read a review on PJC or one of Art's reviews and they state they measured 1000 lumens in 3D mode on a projector (but not measured on 3D material through the glasses), does that mean that effectively I would see +/- 200 lumens with my eyes on a 3d 100 ire pattern using "most" 3D active shutter glasses?

Basically, take the 3d lumen measurment, multiply it by your true screen gain then reduce this number by 80% and that is what you will get in lumens with 3d glasses on. All this is why so many of us are fans of a screen like the HP as it can significantly boost your brightness if you have a setup that can take advantage of it.

This is also why it is important to get all the facts on various models as the low light output of this Sharp vs the competition demonstrates.The difference between starting out with 600 3d lumens vs some competing models at 1100-1400 is worth mentioning obviously.
Edited by Toe - 4/23/13 at 7:54am
post #567 of 1582
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

We've always been in a state of flux in projectors really.

Late 1990's to Early 2000's, not a good time to buy a projector because people were moving slowly from CRT to DIGITAL
Mid-2000's = Most moved to Digital but now some 1080p projectors are starting to slowly get affordable (1080p in 2004 was like $5000, whereas 720p was like $1500)
Late-2000's to Early 2010's = It's not a good time to buy because now we have 3D and CFI and other techs they added, so if the PJ you want doesn't have 3D, bad time to buy?

Now in 2013 = Not a good time to buy because 4k is around the corner.

It's never a good time to buy!

After 4k, they will come up with something else to give us another reason NOT to buy a new projector until X tech gets more affordable smile.gif

Well said!
To me, it's a little like cars. The auto business is a "mature" industry. You can not build a bad car and survive. It's just a question of how many bells and whistles you want or how much leather trim or soundproofing.
1080p 2D projectors are approaching this part of the curve. They all offer different flavors of ice cream, but it's all pretty tasty. INMO, the significant issue is not brightness/blackness (any longer). It's sharpness. If you are watching HD close to the screen, then you want something that at least gets close to a good Plasma. DLP has the best native sharpness. Within the DLP universe, the most significant cost to benefit is the optics. Good lenses are expensive...So, if you buy a "Lexus" DLP, then you get great optics and state of the art sharpness. Our old Benq PE8720 was almost $8k MSRP new. The sharpness was like a good NIkon camera.
The Z30000 is like having "Toyota Camry" optics. Still very good, but not state of the art.
The other technologies, variations of LCD, have native sharpness issues related to convergence. They are tricking the eye with the new RC software to try and rival DLP. They are all very good.

So, you pay your money and take your chances. There will always be something better next year.
When we are immersed in the movie, all this stuff never comes to mind...

smile.gif
post #568 of 1582
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrimore View Post


So, here's a question to Zombie and others:

Is the bottom line of what we are saying here is that if I read a review on PJC or one of Art's reviews and they state they measured 1000 lumens in 3D mode on a projector (but not measured on 3D material through the glasses), does that mean that effectively I would see +/- 200 lumens with my eyes on a 3d 100 ire pattern using "most" 3D active shutter glasses?

Yes, this is correct. It's been well established that the active shutter glasses cause a significant amount of light loss once activated. Our eyes / brain will adapt to a certain degree, but there is a point where is simply becomes too dark for me to enjoy depending on the setup.

Some Sony VW1000 owners are considering a 2nd screen for 3D use. The irony of this expensive model is that while it's quite bright in 2D mode to light up a large 1.0 gain AT screen, the 3D lumen output is not sufficient to properly light that same screen in 3D mode. It has ~1000 lumens in 3D which is similar to the 3K HW50.

The HP is often brought up in discussions of 3D brightness because it's such a good match for those looking for maximum brightness in 3D (or larger screens like I have).

The Sharp 30K is unique in that it's designed to be center mounted on the screen with it's lens shift. Most 3D DLP's require an above the screen mount which nullifies the major benefit of the HP screen. The projector must be close to eye level for maximum gain. The Sharp 30k and BenQ W7000 are the only 2 3D DLP's in this price category that are a perfect match to the HP screen.
post #569 of 1582
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

Yes, this is correct. It's been well established that the active shutter glasses cause a significant amount of light loss once activated. Our eyes / brain will adapt to a certain degree, but there is a point where is simply becomes too dark for me to enjoy depending on the setup.

Some Sony VW1000 owners are considering a 2nd screen for 3D use. The irony of this expensive model is that while it's quite bright in 2D mode to light up a large 1.0 gain AT screen, the 3D lumen output is not sufficient to properly light that same screen in 3D mode. It has ~1000 lumens in 3D which is similar to the 3K HW50.

The HP is often brought up in discussions of 3D brightness because it's such a good match for those looking for maximum brightness in 3D (or larger screens like I have).

The Sharp 30K is unique in that it's designed to be center mounted on the screen with it's lens shift. Most 3D DLP's require an above the screen mount which nullifies the major benefit of the HP screen. The projector must be close to eye level for maximum gain. The Sharp 30k and BenQ W7000 are the only 2 3D DLP's in this price category that are a perfect match to the HP screen.

I have experimented with the HP screen set up. As Zombie says, the optimum placement is at eye level. However, it's just not practical in most rooms.
The Z30000 lens center needs to be placed inside the top edge of the screen. In order to achieve this we needed a long drop tube and stable ceiling mount. However, even with this less than optimum High Power screen alignment, the gain on the screen is probably 1.4 or so. This is still enough boost on a 110 inch HP to get a bright 2D and 3D picture. If we did not have the HP screen, then I'm not sure this Z30000 would be for us...
On the other hand, if we had an optimum "eye level" placement, then the 2.8 gain would be almost too bright and wash out the picture. (In reality, we could probably turn the projector down some, but the current set up seems fine.)

DaLite High Power fan boy!
post #570 of 1582
I don't know if I agree with the statement that you should measure for brightness with the glasses on. Shutter glasses aren't limiting the brightness by changing their state, they are simply on or off to allow each eye to see something. Because they are constantly shifting though you don't want the meter to be averaging the black frames associated with the gate. You're eye isn't doing this (which is why even saying that your 3D projector is only delivering 4 fL may be mistating it a bit, take a 2D image to 4 fL and tell me if it looks even remotely as bright as a 4 fL 3D image). I would measure with the glasses off to see how much light output drops, this is also what I do for calibration since my biggest concern is the color shift thru the glasses. The last thing I want is the black frames to be averaged into the data. I'm sure we could go round and round on this but honestly I don't think there is a single way to do this without some sort of compromise. I would rather take the closed frames out of the equation. I've also found for calibration that I have better results with the image zoomed as small as possible on my screen to deliver the most light possible for the meter. This gives you far better readings on the lower end.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Sharp XV-Z30000 3D DLP