4K Sony VW 1000 first short Test - Page 24

I think the 1.25 lens is a great idea if you can afford it and you need the extra light. The big advantage in light output is only when you are near the shortest throw. I'm at the long throw of the projector and I wonder how much better the 1.25 would be than the 1.33 lens when projecting a smaller image through the lens?

Other considerations for using an A lens is ANSI CR. Doesn't it lower your ANSI and somewhat the light output when adding lenses to the light path?

As usual great information Wolfgang! The lens costing as much as the projector makes it a bit much for most if not all of our installations. We are installing our first VPL VW1000ES this afternoon. Our client has an existing VPL VW100 "Ruby" and a 54" by 96" (110") Stewart 1.3 Microperf screen. For the time being we are going to "drop in" the 1000ES and upgrade screen and other equipment later.Hopefully our client will be able to enjoy 4K video over the weekend.

Can be.

But Schneider still lists the CINE DIGITAR ANAMORPH 1.25X XL as a stocked item here.

https://www.schneideroptics.com/ecom...ID=91&IID=6382

I attached the drawings in the earlier post for both as I expected it may raise some questions as to the differences. As you can see the physical dimensions are very close or identical in some cases for the two lens. It makes me think they are more the same than different and both carry the TI DLP approved logo.

I would not expect to pay the list price. But even with a good discount they are not cheap.

I have an ISCO IIIL and I too am wondering what the difference would be with the ISCO 1.25x. I'm wondering if the light beam size from the VPL-VW1000ES needs the increased diameter of the ISCO 1.25x?

Thanks Herr Mayer.

Curious to know what you're changing about the screen, as the ST130 is already a nice model. Are you going larger?

many thanks for this info. i've been wondering about whether my ISCO III was likely to hold back the Sony 1000ES, and knowing that the 1:25 is clearly better than the 1:33 ISCO III tells me that i should simply zoom for 2:35, sell the ISCO III and then someday spring for the 1:25. 'tighter focus' to me indicates that something is lost in resolution with the 1:33 ISCO with the Sony 1000ES. and if 4k sources appear, this 'loss' will likely be more significant than with reality creation. i just don't want to lose the startling resolution of the naked Sony lens.

i wonder if you compared zooming without a lens....to.....'scope'ing' with either (or even better both) lens? that was actually my specific question.

Hopefully your client has a HTPC with 4K ATI outputting card and something to pass it through that's 4K compliant like an Integra 80.3, that's if they want sound with their 4K clips. I won't have the 80.3 till later this month as the dist is out of stock, so my 4K test viewing is on hold currently. Don't know how much a negative the microperf finish may be to the 1.3, but my standard Studiotek 130 110" diag resolves a heck of a good image. My room sizing will prob only permit me to step up to the next screen size in the Stewart range at the most I'd say. Only issue is ordering another from the US again, since I refuse to deal with the 'middleman' local distrib, who badly price loads already premium screens(which is an even bigger insult with 12 month exchange rate steadily several cents over the USD). Just quite a process ordering as no stores are ebaying anything larger than a 110" at the moment and that's how it got my current one. I was nearly entertaining one of the small local screen makers whose been touting a 1.25 gain '4K' screen material. But I'm not willing to put a toe in the water for $2500+ to find out if the performance beats Stewart's.

We are probably going to put in a 54" by 127" 2.35 Stewart 130 with masking. Going to have to modify the cabinets to make this work, so we thought firing the 1000ES up on the current screen would wet the appetite for further enhancements.

I tried both and with the Isco 3 I would probably have had to think harder about using an anamorphic lens although I strongly prefer the anamorphic lens method for practical reasons.

With the Isco 1.25 there is no quesion for me what to use as the 1.25 looks basically transparent.

Of course you cannot get better MTF with an added lens in the picture but with a lens that is good enough the drop will be far outweighed by its benefits if you perceive them as that.

I always considered lenses a more elegant solution with multiple formats plus you get even or close enough to even color temperature, light output and pixel density for all your content

Mayer

Es sieht wunderbar aus!

( its looking wonderfull - and very cool )


dj


BTW what screen material do you have ?

Wunderbar!

Good to hear your measurement Wolfgang. Funnily enough, I thinking since last early last week when my lamp time was about 60hrs(there for at least 20 more by now without checking), when might some brightness drop off as certainly nothing has as yet to the human eye at least. I'm going to check my lamp time again tonight.

I can see that requirement for dual GFX cards. You would be pushing the heck out of one 79XX series AMD to get dual 4K. I am a little concerned even that once my 4K pass-through is in place via new Integra, that the 7950 will handle video well enough at 4K, given the brief but slightly off-putting direct to proj test I tried with just the online 4K clips.

Very, Very cool Wolfgang. The computer side with dual cards is the easier part. But the dual VW1000's running 3D is quite incredible! I can only imagine how much brighter the 3D pic is on your significantly large screen.

I have decided, pretty much based on your recs and my own experiences so far that I will nudge my screen up to the next size Stewart ST130, being the 106" wide 16:9. That will get me get me enough under my current dead-on 1.5 viewing distance to achieve the right balance for me in being able to appreciate the image and still integrate properly into the room.

I would go with a screen wider than 106" & than see how wide you can go then mask at the widest point for your right balance preference.

I'm already pushing size by going one up stewart size (to actually I meant 107" wide, not 106"). There is no way I can see jumping to the next which is 118". If you see the room config in the pic(please ignore the full light conditions, crookedness, but that's the best way to capture the wall area I'm dealing with and left side image fault is in the transmission, not the pic alignment), you'll quick see the space constraints I've got. The front speakers for example, the left has only got about 2.5 feet before it hits an equipment rack. Then even when I finally get the proper and lower factory stand for the centre speaker, there isn't much room to bring the screen down, which I also need to do, as I don't want it move up it as I already have a mild keystoning issue I'd like to correct rather than have to start buying new a new chief adjustable mount pole to moving closer to the ceiling on the projector end.

And in a nutshell there is the secret of the stunning picture presented by the 1000ES. Particularly on a err normal size screen.

A tremendous number of pixels filling the screen with color, over 4 times to what to us is the normal.

A lens capable of fully resolving those 8 million plus pixels. Without having test results to back this statement up, I suspect the Sony lens far exceeds the quality of the T1 and T2 lenses almost universally used by the higher end consumer machines and of course the lesser lenses used by lesser projectors.

An extremely high ANSI CR rivaling the best DLPs out there

Decent on/off native CR and perhaps the best implementations possible for a DI. Without starting a flame war, I believe that overall believability that you are there instead of watching video is dependent more on obtaining increases in ANSI CR to the the near 500 level than in obtaining on/off CRS above 40,000 or 50,000. In other words I am saying that an increase in ANSI a say 30 TO 40 % increase in ANSI from the levels normally experienced by the HT is much much more significant than such an increase in on/off given an off staring in the 50000 range.

And having more than 1000 lumens to fill a modest sized neutral gain screen. Yes screen texture is important in presenting realistic video. I fully understand why some want excessively bright screens and why some must go to the HP screen to obtain even realistic light levels for their chosen light machine and screen size, I recently experienced how much going to a textureless unity gain screen improved my picture on my 36 sq ft screen lit by a 1000ES, something that would not have been possible with a standard 1000 lumen advertised machine. And a fact that makes a HP necessary for the best possible 3D watching on my size screen with the Sony.

Mark and his three letter words.

I know this is going to start something with my good friend Lawguy, but do you mean four letter words such as "lens", not three letter words. If not, what three letter word or word are you referring to? I know I am an engineer so I can count and was a lawyer so I can write but I know you can count, one billable hour, two billable hours, three billable hours . . . .

I guess you forget but I was just mocking myself for having screwed that up during one of our conversations.

Yea. Yea. I remember. Self deprecation. Interesting that no one is responding to my observations.

Wich magazine is that ?

TIA

dj

OK, I'll bite. I concur with pretty much everything you said Mark. it matches my observtions over the years. Sounds like a great projector !

You are on the right track here, IMO. I would not even consider the ST100. It will look almost identical to the ST130, but a little dimmer.

What you may not know is that the human visual system does not perceive increases in image brightness the same as a light meter, which essentially counts the number of photons. If you double the image brightness, as measured by a meter, you would perceive a much smaller increase than a doubling. I don't remember the exact figures any more, but you might perceive a 25% or 30% increase. I'm sure someone will look up the exact figure and post it to correct my figure, but the principle will be the same.

The point is that you should not give away any image brightness without getting something very substantial in return. You are proposing a very large screen. 3-D causes a huge penalty in image brightness. Your bulbs output will drop by 50% during its projected lifetime. It is easy to make the image dimmer (though you would likely never choose to do that), not so to make it brighter. Your concerns are well founded.

At 2000 lumens from the VW-1000, you should get acceptably bright 3-D especially when the bulb is new. You are wise to be thinking down the road. I would project that near the end of your bulb's life, your 3-D image will be looking too dim, even with a 1.3 gain screen.

Years ago I measured a variety of screen materials. The ST130 is color accurate. When measured from a variety of angles the color and image brightness shift so subtly as to be unnoticable in any practical sense. Stewart's specs on the material are accurate, which can't be said for most of its competitors.

Most screen materials with a gain above 1.3 create a greater compromise when it comes to color and brightness uniformity, and in off-angle performance (standing off the the side of the screen and viewing it from a 45 degree angle). However, even those compromises are worth it if that is what it takes to get a bright enough image.

When I plan an install, I plan to achieve at least 14-15 foot-lamberts (after calibration) at the screen center with a 100 IRE (white) window. More is better. That allows you to get the projected life out of the bulb, at which point the image would be at 7 foot-lamberts. Below this point most people begin to subjectively feel the image is getting dim, in my experience. All the above is for 2-D content in an ideal theater. When you consider 3-D, you should plan on at least doubling the initial image brightness needed because 3-D is going to reduce image brightness by at least half, generally speaking.

As far as other screen materials:

The High-Power is excellent, but only if the PJ is shelf mounted at the same height as the center of the screen.

The Silverstar is super high gain, but some people perceive a sort of "texture"
to it that is objectionable. I don't, personally, but I know people who do.

There was one other higher gain screen material that tested out very well, but I can't remember what it was. I think it was a Vutec material and it measured out at 1.6 gain, with uniformity measurements similar to the ST130. I remember that at a 45 degree angle it still measured out at 1.3 gain. If you were to do a search on my past posts, you would come across those screen measurements from several years ago. All the other high gain materials that I measured caused compromises that would be detectable. Not a deal breaker though, if that is what it takes to get acceptable image brightness for a customer who refuses to accept a smaller screen. Stewart failed to provide me screen samples, when I did these tests, so the only Stewarts I measured where the ST100 and ST130.

Just as a side note, another screen that was almost perfect was the Carada Bright White material. It measured 1.1 gain (it is rated at 1.4 gain). This was the most accurate and uniform of all the screen materials. The frame was high quality and it was easy to mount.

Good luck,
Glenn

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. This may be my all-time favorite home theater pic, period. That is awesome.