Sim2 Worlds first Active 3D LED projector. - Page 2

No...120Hz

But that math doesn't work. If the projector is doing two flashes per eye, that's four total flashes per frame. 24 x 4 is 96.

If it's doing 120 as you say, it has to either convert from 24 to 30 and then do two flashes per eye, or do what I said earlier and do LRLRL/RLRLR

If you know for sure that it's doing 120Hz for 24p, I'd really like to know what it's doing!

All Blue-ray 3D material is 60Hz, and is rendered 60fps per eye by SIM2 3D projectors (72fps on the SOLO).

I don't believe that's correct. I'm not a format expert, but all the info I can find indicates that 3D Blu-ray is 1080p/24, 720p/50 or 720p/60. So, 144Hz makes sense for the 3D Solo: 3 flashes per eye or six flashes per frame -- 6 x 24 = 144, or 72Hz per eye.

The JVC machines do 96Hz for 3D Blu-ray: 2 flashes per eye or four flashes per frame -- 4 x 24 = 96, or 48 Hz per eye.

There's no even division of 24p that gives 120Hz overall or 60Hz per eye without either 3:2 pull down or some kind of alternating cadence like LRLRL/RLRLR.

This is why I really want to understand Sim2's 120Hz figure.

Correction...3D BD output can be 1080/24 or 1080/60 but 1080/60 is often the default for 3D BD players. You raise a good question re: methodology for achieving 120fps when the output is 1080/24. I'll ask my SIM2 dealer about this.

If the player is outputting 1080p/60, that would mean that it's doing the 3:2 pull down from the 24p material on the disc, since the disc itself can't have 60p 3D on it. That's fine -- I've seen very good 60p output from 24p Blu-rays -- but it can introduce judder that theoretically shouldn't show up with 24p playback on a display that can do an even multiple of 24.

It's a trade off between judder from the 3:2 and flicker from the 48Hz refresh to each eye. Maybe with the very vast switching on the M.150 the flicker won't be prominent.

The 3D Solo is awesome at 144Hz -- no judder or flicker! -- and I was honestly really sorry that the Triple Flash wasn't brought to the M.150, as that would have made it a total slam dunk purchase.

I'll be really interested to hear what your dealer says, thanks! So far there's not an M.150 to see here in the Bay Area, but I *really* hope that happens soon!!

Mike,
I'm told that SIM2 multiplies the 48Hz frame rate by 2.5 to achieve 120. Not as good as triple flash, but better than double flash.

Huh. I think Sim2 needs to do a white paper on how this works. Anyway, thanks for making the inquiry. I hope I can see one of these before I have to buy a projector...

I was told during the demo it was double flash on the mico 150.

Blanking time is also something the M.150 is supposed to excel at. As I understand it, during the switching process from left eye image view to right eye image view there is a blanking period to prevent losses or crosstalk between the two views. On the M.150 this blanking period is said to be just .9ms as compared to 2ms for 480Hz LCD displays (4.1ms for 240Hz LCD displays)...over an 8.3ms frame period. Their assertion is that faster blanking eliminates ghosting and results in a smoother image with more 3D depth and realism.

Yes, I've heard that, and I've heard 120Hz quoted. Those two don't make much sense together in the context of Blu-ray, which is why I really think Sim2 needs to publish specifically what they're doing.

Do you know how that compares to the blanking on the 3D Solo? That's still the best looking 3D projection I've seen.

I'm not sure, but wouldn't the blanking on the M.150 have something to do with the fast switching speed of DLP and LEDs? I've seen both the SOLO and the NERO and the SOLO certainly had more pop...brighter and punchier. But the NERO's 3D at 2.5 frame rate seemed no less smooth than the SOLO at triple flash. So I'm hoping that the M.150 is at least as smooth and artifact free as the NERO. That along with all the other benefits of LED would make it quite desirable to me. I'm about to pull the trigger on the M.150, so I guess I'll be the guinea pig.

Can't wait to hear what you think! Spent about two hours today watching a C3X1080 on the same screen I ordered (Screen Research ClearPix2) and I just loved the picture. It was calibrated by one of the best in the business to 14.5ftL and I thought it was stunning in a dedicated room.

I played tons of dark scene content (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Super 8, Star Trek) and I really found nothing to dislike in terms of black levels. Maybe the JVC and Sony can do blacker blacks, but the shadow details and image punch were superb on this setup and if I can match them I will be delighted.

If the M.150 doesn't produce visible color separation artifacts for me, I would hope for comparable results and maybe a bit sharper given the advantage of a single chip versus a 3-chip.

Regarding the speed of the DLP and LEDs, I would think that the Solo would offer the same speed, since it is DLP based and it has no color wheel to worry about since it is a 3-chip. I keep reading that DLP has the advantage for low 3D crosstalk compared to the LCoS machines, so I really have high hopes for the M.150!

Good luck with the purchase and please be sure to start an owner's thread and link to it from here! :-)

I did it...M150 due to land at my dealer's showroom next Tuesday. I'm hoping my wife will be accepting of this surprise Valentine gift. Maybe I should get her a new set of metric socket wrenches to sweeten the deal. Anyway, I'll report back as to this projector's virtues and deficiencies (if any) after we get it set up. I'm really excited!

Thanks Pete. Really looking forward to your sharing the information.

Looking forward to your evaluation! Even though I'm pleased with my MICO 50, I just might upgrade depending on your report.

Which will be the screen size and gain?

Congrats!! Can't wait to hear your thoughts.

100" 1.3 gain. This was conservative for the MICO 50 I had (I could have gone a few sizes bigger). It depends on how diminished the M150's light output is in 3D. As an experiment, I plan on overscanning my screen in 3D until the picture becomes too dim, then I'll back off to a watchable level and measure the overscanned image size. I will do it in 2D as well.

It would be very helpfull!! I have a 3,30 AT screen gain 1.0
and don't know whether it's too big for the M 150..

Congrats, very interested to hear any impressions, comparisons with other models or measurements. I am particularly interested to see how it copes with ambient light. Its one thing to make the case for a 5 figure projector with my other half but to swing it as a Valentine's gift? I take my hat off to you sir

Will the Mico 150 projector be bright enough for 2d and 3d on a 141" wide 2:35:1 2.4 gain high power screen? With the Sony 1000 issues and lower lumens starting to show (1400) I am starting to reconsider this projector. Are there any reports of the 150's calibrated ansi lumens.

The 150's uncalibrated lumens are 1100, so it's unlikely to be brighter than the VW1000. That said, on your screen, assuming you are using an anamorphic lens, it would take only 350 lumens to make 14ftL for 2D. If we assume 70% light lost in 3D (that's just a guess), then if the MICO manages 800 calibrated lumens, that should look like about 10ftL which is better than a commercial cinema.

Ok, thanks Mike. Anyone know whats a good anamorphic lense for the Mico? Name and retail price would be helpful. Thanks

Not sure on the lens. I'm sure an ISCO-III would be great, but they're very much not cheap. Perhaps a Panamorph DC-1?

By the way, I did all my figures assuming a true screen gain of 2.4. I know sometimes screens don't actually meet their claimed gain numbers, so keep that in mind. I think you'd probably be in good shape for 2D on your screen with a 1.0 gain. The issue would be with 3D. That 3D number I quoted was also assuming that you'd run the projector at the D65 calibration, though. It seems like people often switch from a D65 mode to a "dynamic" sort of mode for 3D to get extra light.

I hope that Pete will be able to give us some good news on calibrated lumens soon! :-)

Unfortunately for me, even though my screen is much smaller than yours (110" diagonal 16:9), it's 0.95 gain, so the 150 would give me great 2D (probably over 20ftL so I'd be turning brightness down), in 3D I might only get about 4-5ftL if I didn't switch to a less calibrated mode.

A VW1000 on my screen could probably get me to about 12ftL in 3D, and I'd need an ND filter for 2D to keep from setting the screen on fire.

141" wide (2.35) equates to a 123 diag 16 x9 screen (both being 60" tall). Where your gain is 2.4, I don't think the M150 will have any problem lighting it up in 2D. You'd probably need to eliminate ambient light when watching in 3D.
As for your question about anamorphic lenses, the large ISCO or Medium Schneider would be the hi-performance (costlier choices). Panamorph or Prismasonic would be less-expensive options.

Don't forget, though, that for 141" 2.35, you're lighting up 58.75 square feet of screen when watching 2.35 content. If we assume for the sake of argument that the 150 makes 800 calibrated lumens, that would be 13.6ftL on a unity gain screen. With anything close to 2.4 gain, it will be really really bright and may need to be turned down.

As you say, for 3D, you'd definitely want good light control, since 3D is often said to cost 70-80% of the light output. Perhaps with the fast switching shutters Sim2 is using, they'll get closer to the 50% ideal.

So I'm getting interested now. I looked hard at the Mico 50 and DPI, but they were just too dim on my 120" wide, 16:9 screen. My screen is currently a microperfed Studiotek 130, which apparently drops the gain to about 1.1. I went with a DPI Highlite 260 3 chip, which gives a great picture when calibrated. But, I just read about the Stewart Reflections 170 , which has a gain of 1.7, dropping off somewhat off-axis. Since we sit 15 feet away, the gain should be fine for most viewers. I have excellent light control. What do you guys think about that combo?
David

If your screen is truly 1.1 gain, then to get 14ftL in 2D, you need 715 calibrated lumens. That sounds quite feasible with the 150 if it loses the usual amount of light to calibration.

With the 1.7 gain screen, is it available perf'd and if so what's the gain? If we assume 1.6 actual gain, and if we assume that the 150 yields 800 calibrated lumens, that's 22.75ftL for 2D -- you might be turning it down quite a bit unless you like a really bright image. (I find 14ftL great for movies.) If we assume the same light output for 3D and it loses 70% to the glasses, you'd be just shy of 7ftL, which is better than a movie theater.

Others have said that the low blanking on the Sim2 glasses yields better brightness than other machines, and maybe you could run in a "dynamic" mode for more lumens, too, so you might be able to gain a bit more brightness still.

So, to me it seems like you could get great 2D with your existing screen, and probably very good 3D with the 1.7 screen.

Also note that with the numbers above, you'd hit about 4.7ftL on your existing screen for 3D, which is comparable to a commercial theater. If 3D isn't a big deal for you, that might be good enough at least to start.