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 20

post #571 of 1581
Quote:
Originally Posted by humbland View Post

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!

Is the HP screen suitable for use in a living room environment (tan/brown walls and white ceiling) ? Does it cut out ambient light from the ceiling and walls like BD and Supernova ?
post #572 of 1581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger View Post

Is the HP screen suitable for use in a living room environment (tan/brown walls and white ceiling) ? Does it cut out ambient light from the ceiling and walls like BD and Supernova ?

The HP does a good job rejecting ambient light as long you can control the light directly facing the screen.
post #573 of 1581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

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.

no doubt 3D throws a monkey wrench into the traditional process of measuring light output and calibration with our color meters.

The reason I choose to do it with the shutter glasses activated is because I can see a distinct change in color tint when the glasses are activated. The Sony glasses color tint looks completely different in the on/off states. I'd prefer the meter compensate for the color change which is why I use the 30/80/100 patterns in 3D mode. The D3 pro seems to be able to handle this well, I don't see erratic fluctuations in readings while calibrating.

I use several non-animated 3D movies where I'm familiar with the overall color to check the results. IMO, there is a noticeable difference between / after, depending on how far off it is. Usually I have to pull back blue / green to bring back in the red that is lost in the color tint of the glasses.
post #574 of 1581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

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.


You have some valid points. However, calibration is one thing and light output is another. If the state of the shutter glasses (on/off) changes the colors in any way, I would think that you would want to calibrate at least one mode for that. If it does not change anything but light output I would agree with you.

As for light output readings, this is a different ball of wax altogether. I would certainly want an approximation of exactly what my eye was going to see and would want to make a decision based on that. Otherwise, what if Sharp's PJ had some of the best light output (let's say double the competition) but the only glasses you could use with it cut the light output by 50% of those of the competition's? Now there is no benefit to the Sharp over the competition at all. I would want to know that.
post #575 of 1581
I've done A/B comparisons with a number of the popular projectors this year and last. The perceived light drop from the active shutter glasses is relatively consistent between the various models. I haven't seen 1 combo yet where I thought 'Wow, look how bright it looks in 3D' compared to another model with similar 3D lumen output.

very few, if any reviews will post the 3D lumen output of the projector (not including the glasses, simply the 3D lumen output). I include this information in the shoot-out threads so folks can get a basic idea of the light output when making a purchasing decision.
post #576 of 1581
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

no doubt 3D throws a monkey wrench into the traditional process of measuring light output and calibration with our color meters.

The reason I choose to do it with the shutter glasses activated is because I can see a distinct change in color tint when the glasses are activated. The Sony glasses color tint looks completely different in the on/off states. I'd prefer the meter compensate for the color change which is why I use the 30/80/100 patterns in 3D mode. The D3 pro seems to be able to handle this well, I don't see erratic fluctuations in readings while calibrating.

I use several non-animated 3D movies where I'm familiar with the overall color to check the results. IMO, there is a noticeable difference between / after, depending on how far off it is. Usually I have to pull back blue / green to bring back in the red that is lost in the color tint of the glasses.

The tint would have to look different if they were on, you're seeing the shutter opening and closing, which will make the appearance of the glasses look different. But the fluctuation of the shutter is supposed to be fast enough that it is imperceivable to the eye (we still see some light flickering though). The glasses are designed so that the only time you truly are seeing anything is with the shutter completely open, hence there should be no reason why you can't measure for light or calibration with them on (glasses off achieves the same thing). The meter doesn't work like our eyes do, so again I worry about averages taken with the shutters closed, which would skew results. The appearance of the glasses while on from the outside really has no bearing on what you're seeing thru them. But you will see a significant tint shift from the outside because you're eye is seeing the mix of on/off, which will make the glasses appear darker.
Quote:
As for light output readings, this is a different ball of wax altogether. I would certainly want an approximation of exactly what my eye was going to see and would want to make a decision based on that. Otherwise, what if Sharp's PJ had some of the best light output (let's say double the competition) but the only glasses you could use with it cut the light output by 50% of those of the competition's? Now there is no benefit to the Sharp over the competition at all. I would want to know that.

You would want to measure with whatever glasses you wanted to test with the projector you want to test it with. This should still give you the max brightness achievable thru the glasses though perception of light will probably change with different tints or lenght of shutter open time. The only way to reliably test this is probably with your eye since the meter is still limited by the max reading the glasses will allow through the lens (which can be tested with the glasses off). It still seems that overall brightness with 3D playback is more complicated than this since the image ALWAYS seems brighter than it truly is thru the glasses. There is absolutely no way on earth I could watch a 2D movie with a peak brightness of around 4 fL in my room but it actually looks pretty bright in 3D.
post #577 of 1581
we'll have to take this discussion to another thread. David Mackenzie @ HDTV UK is also using the same technique as I am.

Putting the measurements aside, I know the results of this method are clearly better than the out of the box settings. Skin tones in 3D look more natural without a doubt.
post #578 of 1581
Skin tones look spectacular when I calibrate thru the glasses (with the glasses off) in my setup as well. I use the full 125-point cube calibration of my lumagen with the meter running thru the glasses. I also use the zoom method I talked about before for this to give the meter as much light as possible for lower light readings. This makes a big difference with gamma and grayscale (I do 11 point and calibrate to BT1886).
post #579 of 1581
" The glasses are designed so that the only time you truly are seeing anything is with the shutter completely open, hence there should be no reason why you can't measure for light or calibration with them on (glasses off achieves the same thing). "

Ok then we're back to my initial test for brightness behind shutters off glasses which was a 40% light drop. I knew it couldn't be 80% the image looked too bright to be 1/5th the brightness.
post #580 of 1581
Interesting points and I have some comments that I'll withhold until we have a proper thread for this discussion (I have measured both glasses on and off but not on the projector being discussed in this thread).

Chad B. would be a great addition to this topic since he has been doing 3D calibrations for some time.

Please post a link here once we have an on topic thread. wink.gif

Thanks,
Jason
post #581 of 1581
This disscusion was good here. Now owners don't have to fear they're only seeing 1/5th of the light while watching 3D. I was about to give up on it thinking it just will never be bright enough.
post #582 of 1581
you're ignoring the fact that there is a substantial drop in lumens just going into 3D mode, plus additional loss of light from the shutter glasses.

If you actually put your projector in 3D mode to measure a 100% ire screen when in frame packed mode (pre-glasses, direct screen measurement), you will not find 1300 lumens in 3D stage / dynamic mode.

try it and let us know the results. No 3D projector I've measured can maintain the same lumen output in 3D mode as when it's in 2D mode.


http://www.hometheater.com/content/sharp-xv-z30000-3d-dlp-video-projector-page-2

"3D Performance
Sharp claims this projector produces a bright, punchy 3D image, and in a relative sense that’s true. But also true is the fact that there is a dramatic loss of brightness from 2D levels, even in the Dynamic Picture Mode. In that respect, the XV-Z30000 is little different from most 3D displays we’ve tested. "
post #583 of 1581
Quote:
Originally Posted by guitarman View Post

This disscusion was good here. Now owners don't have to fear they're only seeing 1/5th of the light while watching 3D. I was about to give up on it thinking it just will never be bright enough.

You can't say that. You're talking about a completely different projector with completely different 3D glasses. The fact remains that most projectors, including this one, have a substantial loss of light through the glasses.
post #584 of 1581
I have to believe what Kris said. I think you should re do the light drop just through the off glasses like I did. Numbers should be allot higher.

I don't know if I can force the sharp with a blu ray 2D pattern, I'll try.
post #585 of 1581
Quote:
Originally Posted by guitarman View Post

I have to believe what Kris said. I think you should re do the light drop just through the off glasses like I did. Numbers should be allot higher.

I don't know if I can force the sharp with a blu ray 2D pattern, I'll try.

Just because you think they should be higher doesn't make that the case. This ~80% light loss isn't some figure that Zombie created. It's something that has been reported on most 3D projector reviews. So unless your projector/glasses are some kind of an anomaly, this figure should still stand. Some glasses do fair a little better, but I've never seen any professional review report only 40% (or anywhere close to that) light loss.
post #586 of 1581
I know it's the last model but they should be pretty close, allot is the same. We have to get the correct info out to buyers. The way to test the lumens behind the glasses was all wrong. Zombie shoud re do all his calcuations. You guys don't want the lowest numbers do you?

It's getting rediculous.
post #587 of 1581
If you actually put your projector in 3D mode to measure a 100% ire screen when in frame packed mode (pre-glasses, direct screen measurement), you will not find 1300 lumens in 3D stage / dynamic mode.

Since I don't think I can test that what is the difference measured between them, what's the number?
post #588 of 1581
There is nothing "wrong" with the way Zombie has made his measurements. Kris has offered his opinion on the matter and I don't really agree with what he's said. I know that when I first turn on my glasses, it's quite easy to see the glasses go from an on/off state. After a few minutes my eyes get used to the "flickering" and my eyes ignore it. This means they aren't as fast as he is proposing. I've seen this on a few models with their respective glasses. If they were on on or off when they were supposed to be (but this isn't always the case) then I suppose you could measure through them with the glasses off. But because the sync and speed of the glasses is less than ideal it seems that the appropriate way to measure light loss should be with them on to get a more realistic figure.
post #589 of 1581
Excuse me I have to go over to Ebay to cance my z17000 sale. I thought the best I could get is 200 lumens with a new lamp. So wrong info can be serious. Gotta be careful
post #590 of 1581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

Just because you think they should be higher doesn't make that the case. This ~80% light loss isn't some figure that Zombie created. It's something that has been reported on most 3D projector reviews. So unless your projector/glasses are some kind of an anomaly, this figure should still stand. Some glasses do fair a little better, but I've never seen any professional review report only 40% (or anywhere close to that) light loss.

This has been a painful discussion on this topic since Tom chooses to read between the lines and hand pick which data supports his theory. Ironically, he isn't even engaging 3D mode on his Sharp 17k and convinced that his 3D mode is cranking out 1300 lumens. (it's not).

There is only 1 way to measure 3D Lumen output (pre-glasses). The projector must be in 3D mode, this is not subject for debate. Some projectors that have simulated 3D mode can use a regular 2D calibration disk, but the Sharp projectors do not support this. Therefore, a 3D bluray with 30/80/100 patterns is the ideal scenario for measuring 3D lumens.

Tom, you are so confused on many levels, I beg of you to not follow this conversation to the next thread on this topic.

Please remember this is the Sharp 30K thread, not the Sharp 17K. You have already confused a number of members with your comments when you do not own this model...
post #591 of 1581
Here is a article from Specrcal on basic 3D calibration that may be of interest to some of you that are not into the hobby or display calibrations.
http://www.spectracal.com/downloads/files/Website/Website%20Articles/3D%20HDTV%20Calibration%20Basics.pdf
post #592 of 1581
No wait you're just going to insist your method is correct after Kris explained why light level should be tested with the glasses off?

I assume there's a huge difference between the two methods.
post #593 of 1581
The meter readings in Zombie's method concur with the A/B of two projectors, one 80% dimmer than the other, brighter PJ with glasses over one eye and dimmer PJ without glasses over other eye.

This is testable with a screen and an older projector with a worn lamp, take a projector on an old lamp (many of us have 4+ projectors) and get the lumens very low to match the same lumens that is expected to give after the glasses loss. You can do this by placing the PJ off to the side of the screen or "cutting the screen in half with the dimmer projector". Put the glasses over one eye and with the other eye look at the screen of the other projector. You should see no divider in brightness between the PJ giving the same reading lumens as was measured with the glasses.
Our eyes are not perfect, but it's definitely ballpark with a direct view you would normally see a small gradiated difference.

BTW my PJ calculator uses 70% as the loss number, but keep in mind this 70% is purely from the glasses (the PJ calc is expecting the 3D mode to be pre-dimmed).
My PJ calc is outdated (yah yah I know), new version I'm working on.

I'm learning a new game engine right now, and I want to rewrite the PJ calc with a game engine (long story)... I want to put you into the ROOM in my next version of my PJ calculator in 3D like a game smile.gif

It's going to take me a while, coding a calculator in this game engine is a pain in my you know what. It's my dream calculator however. Only some higher power knows is I shall find time to finish this, but hopefully so...
Edited by coderguy - 4/23/13 at 5:08pm
post #594 of 1581
Quote:
Originally Posted by guitarman View Post

" The glasses are designed so that the only time you truly are seeing anything is with the shutter completely open, hence there should be no reason why you can't measure for light or calibration with them on (glasses off achieves the same thing). "

Ok then we're back to my initial test for brightness behind shutters off glasses which was a 40% light drop. I knew it couldn't be 80% the image looked too bright to be 1/5th the brightness.

If this is the case, then a simple way to prove, or more likely disprove, this idea would be for Zombie to take a measurement with the glasses off. I'd like to see if this is actually a valid statement or not.
post #595 of 1581
Going purely by theory, the most valid reading if we were basing it on that we want the reading to simulate the end-result of WHAT the eyes see as the brightness, then this reading should pertain to what our eyes receive and not any certain method that might measure an anomaly the glasses are producing between flickering or shutter changes (I don't know that much about 3D so bare with me). The reading you want is what is closest to what the eye would perceive in the same 2D environment. I think for the most part, 65% to 85% is what that is going to look like.
post #596 of 1581
Quote:
Originally Posted by guitarman View Post

If you actually put your projector in 3D mode to measure a 100% ire screen when in frame packed mode (pre-glasses, direct screen measurement), you will not find 1300 lumens in 3D stage / dynamic mode.

Since I don't think I can test that what is the difference measured between them, what's the number?

I have given this information on several occasions which you immediately attacked without understanding that the projector MUST be in 3D mode to measure the 3D lumen output. It's not a debatable topic.

2D Stage mode, uncalibrated is 1118 lumens.

3D Stage mode, uncalibrated is 642 lumens.


That's more than 40% drop just going into 3D mode, removing the debate on how much the glasses drop the light output even further.

I guarantee that you're Sharp 17k is not putting out 1300 lumens in 3D mode which you have filled this thread with as a fact, not even knowing that you were measuring the 3D output wrong.
post #597 of 1581
Very interesting Zombie. I wonder if another way would be to put the PJ in 3D mode but leave the glasses off and measure thru that way?? Maybe if I get some time this week I can do some testing.
post #598 of 1581
1300 lumens is no glasses just dynamic choice testing a 100ire with the meter. When I put the meter behind the off glasses is when I got the 40% drop. I'd still like to know the light loss from just turning on 3D, this I can't test? Naturally I figured dynamic was dynamic 3D or no 3D. I don't want to be confrontational I just want to place a number on what I'm probably getting out of my projector.
post #599 of 1581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

Very interesting Zombie. I wonder if another way would be to put the PJ in 3D mode but leave the glasses off and measure thru that way?? Maybe if I get some time this week I can do some testing.

That's what I've been asking for. Is it 5% 10% or less than both. I'd like to keep my 3D projector. Plus I wouldn't tune with the glasses flickering it's like leaving the auto iris on or Ai on. It just dosen't work.
post #600 of 1581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

Very interesting Zombie. I wonder if another way would be to put the PJ in 3D mode but leave the glasses off and measure thru that way?? Maybe if I get some time this week I can do some testing.

Kris, Hi here is the info. Let me know what you find. I think I sent you the 3D Cal disk with 30/80/100 patterns a while back.

100 IRE, 3D mode, 100 Lux (no glasses)

100 IRE, 3D mode, 35 Lux (glasses = OFF)

100 IRE 3D Mode, 20 Lux (Glasses = ON)


The DLP glasses have a fast refresh rate, the light drop I see visually going from off -> on seems consistent with what the light meter is seeing.

Regardless of how we crunch the numbers, I think we can agree that activating 3D mode and putting the glasses on results in a noticeably dimmer image than folks are used to seeing in 2D mode. I use my 2.8 HP to counteract this process.

squinting during bright scenes in 3D mode puts a smile on my face for some reason. cool.gif
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