4K Sony VW 1000 first short Test - Page 11

Wolfgang, thankyou for the above information.
My throw distance is 5.2m with the 16:9 screen 3m wide. One of the figures quoted for the internal anamorphic mode to work is having a throw ratio of 1.68 for the scope image, is this correct? My scope image being 3.6 m wide, if the 1.68 throw ratio is correct, then i will not have sufficent throw distance to make this work

Hi all,

Great info for the new guys like myself coming into the projector world for the first time. My question for those out there with experience; in a light controlled room that is NOT a bat cave (no outside light but only moderately dark furnishings and paint)....will this thing perform well on a 10.5 ft wide screen 16:9 screen? I am sports fanatic (go PATRIOTS) so I will be using a hd feed from directv as well as watch bluray movies. I need to decide which way to go soon and my budget is a big factor going forward. I know there is limited data but I'd love to hear your educated guesses. Thanks in advance. Have a great day everyone.

My VW1000 just arrived. Will setup tonight!

Thanks for measurements, feedback and the motivation Wolfgang.

I have no real world experience, I have a 1000ES on order but I probably won't have it setup for weeks. I do know I've run the numbers on a AT 160" screen that is only 1.0 gain if I'm lucky and I am good from a short throw distance. I see no reason why you would have issues at the lumens this PJ is supposed to have, although you really haven't listed all the possible variables of your screen and environment.

Thanks Matt.

Here is some more info: the screen has not been purchased yet but I'm leaning towards a Stewart firehawk or the sudiotek 130. The room with have the windows blacked out totally. My main concern will be the output of the projector itself on a 10.5 ft wide 16:9 screen with the walls and ceiling painted in a medium dark paint (the wife will veto a black wall and ceiling room). The room itself will be 25.5x17x9 and will be a dedicated space for HT. Even with the 2000 lumens, will it have some punch to it on this rather large screen or will it simply have "just enough" light for an ok image?

Another member here was kind enough to demo his amazing projector but it might be just slightly out of reach financially. The picture quality was stunning. With the sony, if I can get even close to that picture quality I'd be a happy man. A plus is that it also has the new 4K. The reduced cost of the Sony also keeps the overall budget in order for other parts of the project. I'm going back and forth in my mind largely based on what I'm reading here and hearing from other well informed members. Any advice will be helpful.

On a side note, has anyone blown up a DirecTV hd sports event on something like a 10.5 ft wide 16:9 screen? Does it look any good? I have my concerns.

Thanks to anyone who might have some well informed opinions.

What projector did you demo? Obviosly there are more expensive projectors than this vw1000, but I dont think "reduced cost" has come up in its description many times :-).

My 16x9 pic is 128x72 (just slightly larger than yours) and I can attest that sports looks great on my RS20, viewing from ~ 1 SW. I'm looking forward to it looking even better with a VW1000.

Hi wolfgang what i am asking is my scope screen is 3.6m wide, and the projector will be 5.2m from the screen. Will the projectors internal anamorphic mode work from this distance?

I do not wish to use an anamorphic lens-just the projectors internal anamorphic mode.

If I can relieve the burdon from Wolfgang, the answer is yes. You are going to zoom between low aspect ratios and higher ones. According to the Sony throw chart for the projector which of course is not needed if one has the minimum and maximum throw multipliers throw to start with, you are beyond the minimum throw required for that screen size (a good thing because that means you will be able to fill your screen for aspect ratios 2.35 and higher) and within the longest zoom that will enable you to shrink the image down enough when its aspect ratio is less than 2.35 (also a good thing). You are golden here. If I can help you in any other way do not hesitate to call me.

To translate. Wolfgang is saying that the internal vertical stretch capabilty of the Sony (which he calls the internal anamorphic mode) requires the use of an external anamorphic lens to do the horizontal stretching. You are not going to be doing that, you are going to use the zoom method for filling your screen for higher aspect ratios.

Thankyou Wolfgang and Mark. I was under the impression there was an alternate anamorphic mode-other than the vertical stretch. I owned upto earlier this week a schneider m anamorphic lens and a jvc rs20. I would like to go for the sony as an upgrade but really want to make sure its the right choice as opposed to say a 3 chip sim2.

Mark, id love to call you, but i live in England! so i could still call you if you like regardless, i appreciate the help you guys are giving so thankyou again

Just to follow up on what Billybobjimbob was asking - as I'm also interested in the answer to this ;

The throw ratio of 1.68 is mentioned several times online - but not 100% sure what that is actually referring to, as Sony's explanation is a bit garbled.

From what you're saying if I understand correctly, the 1.68 throw is only relevant if you have an external anamorphic lens - and Sony's term of 'lensless anamorphic mode' actually refers to that?

In other words, the correct method of showing 2.35 material on a 2.35 screen is simply to zoom up by using the picture memories as per normal?

Could you measure how close it is to rec 709? No one has provided that yet.

The 1.68 number is indeed confusing. If one is zooming the projector must be set up at a throw that will fill the screen and then will enable a zoom out to bring the image size down for loweer aspect ratios. For example the machine could be set up at its closest throw to fill the 2.35 screen size. That would be 1.25 times the 2.35 screen width. You would then have more than enough zoom left to zoom the size down for your smallest aspect ratio. Once we start moving away from closest throw to fill the 2.35 screen we start using up zoom range for zooming from there to smaller. But there is really no problem in moving away from closest zoom as long as you don'y go so far as to not have enough zoom range left. Ta da. That magic point is a throw multiplier of 2.2. Set up closer if you want but don't go farther away than 2.2. At that pouint you will enough left over to zoom the picture smaller. Go farther and you won't have enough left. Hope this helps.

Now what with the 1.68 number? The longest throw is about 2.74 and the smallest is about 1.25. Dividing the larger by the smaller one gets a throw ratio of 2.192. But you lose part of this range because of the limit of the close throw that will fill the screen. Instead of a 2.192 you only have a 1.68. That number bu itself doesn't tell you much. Just us the published interactiver zoom chart we have linked from Sony in various 1000ES threads. Set the 2.35 width to 100 and all the throw numbers are there just move the decimaklpoint two places to the left. Once you understand, then just plug in your actuasl screen width and the mins amnd maxs for you for zooming come up.

What is the physical size/weight of this projector and how noisy is it?

It's about 20x25 inches. Haven't fired up yet though. Still putting the mount together in the equipment room.

AVS4,
thanks for that explanation about the throw ; I think it all starts to make more sense now. My zoom at 2.35 will be fairly near to closest throw (1.44) - so seems that should all work well when zooming downward.

I'll have a look for the interactive chart on the threads as well - I seem to have missed that somehow.

Thanks!

He looked at my Sim2 HT5000E, on an 11.5' Stewart 2.37 FH w/Isco III-L lens. I've still not brought anything into my place that has bested that PJ, but I'm always looking. (I'm getting about 2500 calibrated lumens on a 550 hour lamp, with CR slightly above 8K, and looks great to my eyes). I've had just about all the JVC's in here, including two of the latest, a couple of earlier Sony's, including the 95, a PD Titan, and most of the Sim2 models above $15K. While measurements showed some with better numbers in a couple of areas (never lumens), none actually bested the 5K in overall visual impact, IMO, and in the opinion of most others viewing units in a side-by-side setting. There were, as expected, some units that very close and one in particular we thought was it's equal, but overall that 5K was exceptional.

Like most everyone here, I like measurements, and they are certainly relevant and tell us a lot about a unit, but at the end of the day what matters to me is the image I'm actually seeing in front of me. That overall sense of satisfaction from a great image is all I care about (and perfect convergence).

(Next up, the Sony 1000, due in here Tuesday/Wednesday.)


Jim

Nice! Thanks WG.

BTW, if there is anyone in Honolulu that would like to see the Sony 1K this week, PM me. The only request I have is that if you decide to buy one, please contact Mark Haflich here at AVS.


Jim

As much as I would like to see this PJ in action, I think that if I were to make it to Honolulu, I would not be coming to watch video .

Ha!

(It is a beautiful place, but there's always time for HT!!)


Jim

Or college football!

From my experience............"Domers" have been great "rivalry" fans!

That sound like it should work out to ~50ftL?

A little less in actuality, but I learned awhile ago that I preferred a lot of light. For years I went with 12 to 18ftl numbers in several rooms, and believed the conventional wisdom that too much light was a bad thing (eye strain, CR issues in a poor room, etc.), until I opted to bring in a brighter unit (2000+) and found I preferred that look. I waited, but the eye strain never came, not for me, or anyone else that's sat through a number of movies back-to-back. I always heard the same comments "Wow."

I no longer believe I'd be happy at less than 25ftl, but hey, that's just me (although I think a bunch of new Sony owner's will soon get to experience this for themselves).



Jim