JVC 55/65U - needs anamorphic lens or no? - Page 3

My skepticism comes from that there are no valid scientific explanations IMHO to why a lens should improve the image in this case. Physics says that it cant'. Well, besides the brightness advantage, but before recommending a guy to buy a lens to get additional brightness it would be prudent to ask about his screen size, gain and viewing preferential's to see if he really needs the extra lumens or not.

I find it much more likely that people prefer the lens due to either a slight brightness advantage, or the placebo effect, than some unexplainable effect magically improving the image. (Yes I know about the pixel size, but I don't think it applies in this case as the e-shifts overlaps the pixels rendering them invisible.)

Even though your eyes react in the log scale it still very easy to see a difference when doing an A/B comparison. High/low lamp will typically differ 20-30% and that is very easily seen. Maybe not if going out and coming back a few min later, but in a direct comparison it is. Brightness is very seductive and gives the impression of better picture quality, better/more vivid colors, more clarity and punch. Hence I'm not surprised if people pick the lens if it gives 10-15% extra brightness.

Smaller vertical pixels does it in the same way you're saying that e-shift does. Seems simple and valid wouldn't you say?


Well 'physics' says that we can resolve certain things from certain distances, and smaller pixels will be less resolvable than larger ones, so when using 1080 vertical pixels over 817 zoomed larger then it seems quite obvious why a lens works. It's not actually rocket science.

As for what is prudent, usually a demo of both modes is a good idea, or better still, prolonged use. You still ignore all the real world testimony we've given based on your thoughts rather than on what people really see. Not everyone buys a lens for the brightness - I certainly didn't. As I you told before, many buy them because pixel visibility is a real issue at closer seating distances without one. How is that magic?


There's no magic in using 1080 pixels over 817 zoomed to the same height.

As I told you, one JVC owner found that when measuring the lumens of a zoomed image to an A lens, there was no real difference in his set up (long throw) which surprised him, but he preferred the lens to the zoomed image. In his case brightness played no part in what he saw. You keep ignoring that and keep saying it's down to a brightness advantage. It isn't.

In another thread here when someone else mentioned that it may be the end for A lenses, I concurred that it might, but I did say that even though the e-shift removes pixel edges, it's still 1080 pixels being zoomed by 33% for scope. That's the physics of it, and I can understand why Rapallo prefers the image using the lens. I can also understand that some people are quite happy to zoom - 1080 pjs do it so much beter than 720 pjs did.

Some people may like the idea of extra brightness with a lens, but that isn't always going to happen unless they know the affect the zoom of their pj has in real terms lumen wise, how much zooming smaller will reduce it by, and by how much they will then gain (if any) by adding a lens.

By your reckoning, people here only judge an image by brightness or placebo.

You will find the 16:9 image is brighter because it is a smaller image, and by your logic, that should be the preferred image by people because it is brighter - they will not like the CIH scope image. In that case they should prefer CIW because the scope image within it will be brighter than the 77% larger image with the lens which will be comparatively dimmer.

Placebo suggests people have no clue and are buying something based on hype. Again, on this forum there are many that know a thing or two. As I said before, e-shift could be the new A lens since neither produce more source resolution. Pick your poison.

When I compare zooming, I see pixels get larger and the image tales on a more 'chunky' look compared to when I used an A lens. I also tend to make sure I have a reflectance level where DVD looks acceptable and artefact free. For me to much brightness produces a noisier image which takes me out of the movie so I deliberately keep reflectance down to more cinematic levels. You may think brighter is better but there examples where it isn't.


To the uninformed viewer, that may be the case and hence why tvs are glaringly bright in the show room, but people here who have a bit of a clue about image quality, don't use just a single criteria when judging an image. Not everyone uses high lamp because the image is better which is what you're suggesting they would do.

When you consider the APL of an average scene is around 20% of full field white then the 10% brightness becomes even less visible during normal viewing.

You're ignoring all those with first hand experience and think you know better, yet you've not seen what they're seeing.

You clearly have no experience of lenses, ignore those with experience and keep falling back to the same assumption. And you tell us you don't have an agenda

Gary

Gary, that's a misleading description of what the JVC projector is doing. While the projector only has 1080 native pixels, the point is at the end of it's E-shift process, you get the same, or similar, benefits to actually reducing pixel size, increasing pixel count, per image inch, as you do with an A-lens combined with re-scaling.

The pixels grid is moved and flashed sequentially creating over-laps, which as Cine54home points out, results in an effective 3840x2160 virtual pixels. The pixel structure is removed, this way so you don't see enlarged pixels, as you would with merely zooming 1080 pixels. The combination of the two shifted pixel grids combining for perceptually more, smaller pixels, allows the upscaling to re-process the information by taking advantage of the added pixel count.

So it's really NOT the same or as simple as "it's zooming 1080 pixels anyway."

I doubt that the subjective preference by some for CIH with an A-lens is the only enigma that cannot be explained with pure and totally proper science. Or maybe it is somewhat like psychoacoustics; there are humans involved, each with their own unique variations of visual acuity, depth perception, color perception, and other factors yet unknown, unmeasurable, and unpredictable...none of which make their conclusion or decision any less valid....IMHO.

I can't tell you why as a cinemtographer for 2+ decades that I have always been fascinated by anamorphic cinematography and loved working in it (albeit harder work). Cameron and others hate it and will only shoot spherical for anamorphic release. A lot of us love it. It's inexplicable, but no different at home. Some things you just can't force to conform to scientific convention. Call it "the human element," like in the chemical company TV commercials.

If you do CIH with the JVC you'll still be zooming won't you, albeit with an e-shifted 1080 panel. I know what's happening underneath, what I don't know is what I'll be seeing when I zoom the image (other than the obvious 33% enlargement - will it be visible to any degree, and therefore make an A lens still viable).

Gary

An a-lens can never give you more detail or better color or what not.

What an a-lens can do is:

1) increase brightness
2) reduce the vertical pixel size by 33%.

However, as Rich Harkness pointed out - with an RS55/65 you really do get 3840x2160 pixels. You would have to sit VERY close to actually benefit from higher than 3840x2160 resolution. About 8 ft from a 120'' diagonal screen according to this chart. Further out and you wouldn't be able to physically see any reduction in pixel size. If you're not sitting closer than that then there is only one theoretical benefit left for the lens - increased brightness.

Edit: I can add that the e-shift also removes pixel edges so the pixel grid completely disappears. Since movies don't contain any sharp high contrast transitions at the pixel level you would actually have to sit even closer still to see any benefit. Looking at the screen shot comparisons that I have seen I would seriously doubt that you can make out pixels in a movie even if you stand right next to the screen. Maybe an RS55/65 owner can help us out and fill us in?

I really do believe people think they are getting better images. But I won't take anybody's word for it until they do a blind test where the images have equal brightness and the viewers do not know if they are looking at a zoomed or anamorphically expanded image.

Why is that? Because there shouldn't be any theoretical difference and I know how easy it is to fool yourself. Even though you are an expert and believe you are completely sincere you are unknowingly biased. This will have an effect on the result - for sure! The only way to avoid this is to do a blind test where you cant tell which of the images is which.

Just look at the examples with the wine experts. ALL of them rated the more expensive labelled bottle as being superior even though it was the same wine. You expect to see a better image with the lens so you do. Add the brightness difference into the mixture and I am not at all surprised that people "see" image improvements with the lens.

You have made your point repeatedly, and well. Is it okay with you if those who like using and A-lens just use it anyway...just because they like it? It's okay to make a case for science; after all, it is avS. I'm just saying that science can come off as dogma, and that is not necessarily helpful in an arena where subjective perception is so influential. Certainly A-lens CIH proponents can have a strong opinion about their preference, but I haven't seen them be dogmatic. You either love it or don't...and in the end, that trumps everything.

You mentioned something in an earlier post that I think is huge in this discussion. There can be so many variables in system to system and room to room, that brightness may or may not be able to be beneficial with an A-lens. Those variables can't possibly be covered conclusively here. Those have to be design issues and decisions in each room.

And there are benefits that are strictly convenient with the use of an A-lens, especially if it is fixed. Yes, we know the compromises with that, but it's just another variable in the decisions to use an A-lens.

Specifically reagarding the RS55, I spent a day with one and an associate who is a JVC engineer last week. The RS55 had a UH480 anamorphic that I could move in and out as part of the evaluation. We were able to toggle e-Shift off and on with only about one second of black between the two.

E-Shift very visably works, but I wouldn't call it monumental. What it does is a real benefit, but I would call it another cummulative benefit that continues to contribute to the overall quality of the JVCs we've seen over the years. If you sit inside 1.75 screen heights, you will definately benefit. If you sit farther than that, then the E-shift benefits are just a smaller contribution to the whole. How tangible that may be is tough to quantify.

The benefits of E-Shift are a bit tough to see since there is almost always movement. But here is something that is very easy to see. Put up a freeze frame of a good sharp closeup where there is a definate point of "sparkle" of a reflection in the eyes. Step up close and look at that point on the screen with e-Shift off. You will easily notice that it is a very jagged/ragged shape. Turn e-Shift on, and the point of light becomes a sphere.

When up close you can also very easily see that the pixel gap pattern is completely gone. There may be the slightest remaining "texture" where it was, but it is so slight as to be easily confused with other fine detail such as film grain, etc. in a freeze frame.
The photos in the attachment demonstrate this well. My JVC engineer friend took these three photos. The two bottom ones are not enlargements of the larger photo. They are full-resolution separate photos.

I could find no visible degradation to the image with the A-lens on. When I get the chance again, I want to study if the A-lens provides a benefit of smoothing that last hint of remaining texture left after E-shift.

 

e-Shift demo.pdf 220.3662109375k . file

Yes, I also feel it has been regurgitated a couple of times too much. However, from the responses I get I don't feel my points came across. That's why I continued.


Of course! But it's not OK in my book if a newbie comes in and asks if he will will need to buy a lens to get the most out of his RS55 and several people say yes. He might get some benefit from it depending on his setup, but they can't know that. Most likely he wouldn't.


I don't trust subjective perception when it goes against science (without blinded tests). But I think I made that statement several times already.


Absolutely!


Thanks for sharing!


It will be interesting to see, but I feel it's more of an academic point - how close can you comfortably view anyways?

Anamorphic lenses have pros and cons. First, yes, they allow one to watch scope movies while maintaining the full 1920x1080 resolution of the projector panel. This means taking advantage of more light from the projector, higher fill factor, etc...

However, there are downsides as well. Cost was mentioned, which is a good one. There are cheap lenses (relatively), but on an RS55/65 it would be like buying a BMW and going to KMart for tires... Sure it will work, but not recommended. Not saying you have to buy the best lens out there, but you would not want that to be a limiting factor on performance either. Also, remember that Bluray scope movies are NOT 1080p natively (yet at least). So basically the video processing is having to introduce FAKE information in order to fill the panel. Some pjs/VPs are better than others at this.

Again, pros and cons, so no right or wrong answer.

Very good.


The latter portion being extremely important...and possibly making 4K or e-shift somewhat academic.

But to the former point, I wonder if there is some point (the proverbial straw on the camel's back) that bits and pieces like this cummulatively do add up to something substantial on the whole. It's progress like the advance of the hands of a clock; you don't see it coming until...the image comes on one day and you go "Wow, that's better than I remember seeing that blu-ray in the past!" Hard to tell, but that was my first reaction when I walked into the room last week and a blu-ray was playing on the RS55 with e-shift. Of course, I also tried to factor variables in the room that may be effecting my perception...and it was not an ideal environment. So, I'm still leaning toward the possiblity that something is new in the JVC that is subtle yet siginificant. I cannot say for sure it is the e-shift, but I also cannot say that it is not.

Let me ask your opinion on this thought. I have a theory that the mild optical degradation to fine detail by even a good A-lens has served to smooth out/conceal a bit the appearance of the pixel gap pattern. If the A-lens and the installation and room are otherwise nominal to the A-lens performance, is it not possible that this could account for a subtle perceived improvement?

Even if my theory is correct, it brings us back full circle to what benefit the A-lens would be if e-shift has already accomplished this (as you have mentioned previously, I think). Now my post is getting rather "academic."

I agree.

If it is softening the pixel structure it is also softening the image detail which is IMO a negative.

What is a positive contributor other than brightness in A-Lens use is on/off Cr is maintained between a 16:9 image and a 2.35:1, where as in zooming the on/off CR will be degraded from 16:9 to the larger/wider 2.35:1 image. Is this degradation seen by the human eye.......?

Would you consider what E-shift is doing the same; a negative? Just curious what people think about this subject.

I have an X70 (RS55) and so far I've just projected it on a smooth light beige wall - my screen has not yet been delivered. But after zooming the picture to a 140" wide 2.40 aspect ratio and viewing at 1 screen width distance, I am, at this point, satisfied with the zoomed picture. Even with a light beige wall, the image was bright enough for me. Placing a sample of the 1.0 gain screen material on the wall showed the image to be significantly brighter. With the E-shift, I couldn't see any pixels at 1 SW viewing distance.

I realize the image will dim with bulb aging, and at this point, I think I'll spring for new bulbs as needed to keep the picture satisfactorily bright. It will take several bulbs before it would add up to the cost of an anamorphic lens. By the time I go through that many bulbs, with my viewing habits, we'll probably have laser 4K projectors available at the same price as my current PJ.

My suggestion to the OP is to hold off buying an A-lens, try zooming, and if his image is as pleasing as mine, maybe what you don't know can't hurt you.

Good insight, did you try subtitles, how is the projector dealing with subtitles when zooming?

I have an OPPO blu-ray player that shifts the subtitles for me.

I have a solution for subtitles for those without the necessary Bluray. Going on the same basic premise as the E-Shift, you pay me to stand next to your projector. During the movie I rapidly move the whole unit up and down such that it appears the titles are in the image.

You only have to sit back, and coordinate your eyes to blink in staggering sequence during each movement. I only charge $150 and hour and I need a bedroom to stay in. I do clean up after myself, though and I can cook and bake. Any takers?

Im not sure how you know its a "brighness advantage" when you are not in my HT to see the results???

The image is exactly the same brightness to my eyes, with and without the lens in place.

Im not making this up you know!

Well said!
I find when I use my lens it does smooth out the last bits that e-shift doesnt, it makes the image fantastic with the lens in place in conjuction with e-shift turned on.

Let me put it this way:
1. When I zoom the image up for scope, it is great but does take on a "video" look.

2. With the lens in place and e-shift its very smooth and looks much more like the 16:9 image "film"

Agreed. I think this is a less talked about advantage of using an A-lens. Essentially you are using a longer throw ratio which results in higher on/off contrast. So the combination of a little more brightness and a little higher on/off could be bringing out more detail compared to zooming.

That said, I'm really enjoying my zoomed RS55 sitting at 1.0xSW. The e-shift images are sharp, smooth and detailed enough that I'm not too worried about what I'm missing with an A-lens. In fact, I sometimes pull up a chair even closer for a more immersive experience. Sure you lose a little sharpness as you get closer, but resolving even more fine detail with no visible pixel structure is very cool.

Okay, I'm really gonna throw a Baby Ruth in the pool now. How about the same players...but also with an AT screen. What say you, professors?

Who ever said it could? Only you so far. And neither can e-shift.


As explained in detail earlier; brightness gain with a lens will vary with from set up to set up, and isn't always as big a factor as it could be. It might be nice to have, but isn't the main reason people choose a lens.

Another point which negates your claim of brightness being the reason people like A lenses fails again when you consider the set up I mentioned with 3 chip DLP - the owner can not sit in his front row without the lens because he sees pixels and has to move to the back row before the image becomes acceptable. With the A lens in place he can sit closer - by your reckoning the brighter image is all that attracts him, yet the pixels are now no longer as visible so he can sit in the front row. So clearly the reduction in pixel size is the real reason why he needs a lens.

Extra brightness increases SDE visibility, not reduces it.

You've also chosen to ignore my other points about image brightness meaning that according to you people should prefer the brighter 16:9 image in a CIH set up, and therefore would stick with CIW.


Your points came across but unfortunately you seemed to disregard the responses from people with plenty of experience and still say it's a brightness/placebo effect without actually doing any relevant testing yourself. How can you know better than they?

You seem to want a lens to be something that it isn't and will use any argument, real or otherwise to make your point.


How many people have said yes apart from the one who has actually done the testing?

In your book it seems that it's OK for you to 'give advice' based on no experience and plenty of assumption, but not for those people who have done plenty of testing and give advice based on (in some cases years of) experience.

You're also saying "they can't know that", but you can I suppose? The guy that has done the testing knows better than anyone but you say he's wrong - and you weren't even there!


You keep saying that things go against science yet earlier you've already admitted an A lens gives you more pixels per screen area which makes them harder to see, so you're contradicting yourself. That seems like a sound piece of science right there.


SMPTE closest is 2 x screen height which is around where 4K has a benefit. Vertical viewing angle is also an important consideration.



I've already given you a perfect example, but you choose to ignore it.


There is a very real practical difference - more pixels. It's not a theory! As for a blind test, when pixels or even SDE is visible from your preferred seating distance it's not hard to spot the difference between the two. Of course, some technologies benefit more than others, but in real terms smaller pixels are are harder to see.

You say I'm an expert, but if you believe that, why are you arguing about it, especially when you have no experience of A lenses?

As for being biased - I don't have a projector set up at the moment so I can make a choice, but when I do, I will go with what will give me the best image and viewing experience in my set up. From experience, I would tend to go for a lens set up and a scope screen from a preferred seating distance, but who knows what will be around next year.

I've seen good and bad lenses over the years, so I don't automatically expect to see an improvement. Test patterns are also a good guide to lens performance.


Again you're ignoring the facts that there are real visible differences because the pixels are smaller but keep to your same inaccurate assumptions. You're starting to sound like another troll tbh....

You also assume we're all idiots with no idea or experience and think you're telling us something we didn't know. Which is quite strange coming from someone who doesn't seem to understand what's happening in real terms and hasn't seen any A lenses in order to make an informed contribution other than guessing.

Gary

From a distance, contrast can give the perception of more sharpness, but from closer distances, the higher res will look sharper.

Not sure if the small amounts here would be that visible though (if extrapolated out it should be larger):

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...si+prismasonic

It would be interesting to see how much the on/off would be in real terms when measuring the likes of the JVCs. Probably a bit more than found in Ansis tests. Maybe we should ask him back for a retest?

Gary

Drexler is not ignoring such examples; the point is they do not meet the criteria Drexler keeps bringing up: Blind Testing.

Did that person do a blind (even better, double-blind) test of the lens? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you've said that this person performed a blind test.

Yes Drexler has mentioned that brightness changes will tend to skew preferences to the brighter image. But that's not the only point he's making.

The point Drexler keeps making is that, especially when it comes to a comparison of the E-shift images with/without an A-lens, BARRING brightness advantages (if there is no brightness difference) then theoretically, given the pixel density of a E-shifted image from any normal viewing distance (it's hard to see pixels at all with a nose to the screen!), there is no reason to expect an advantage to making the pixels even smaller via an A-lens.

It is entirely rational to be deeply skeptical of such a claim. (I am).

And at such a point of diminishing returns, if you really want to be careful and rigorous about such a claim, or about finding out if there REALLY is a detectable difference, then blind testing becomes very wise. The fact that brightness is constant between the A-lens and the zoomed image is great, but in no way does that negate the very well known problem of our bias.

Keep everything utterly the same in an audio system, but show an audiophile that you are switching the AC cords or switching speakers cables, and many of them will swear they hear an obvious difference in the sound, despite the theoretical impossibility. Then, do it blind-tested with them, and suddenly they can't tell between the two. Placebo. And all the "experience" an audio professional or audio dealer has in the world does not guard against this bias problem - they'll fall to the same problems (as has been shown a number of times).

And the placebo/bias effect is hardly confined to audio - it happens everywhere - it's a fact of life.

It is great to hear reports from owners trying various things, to be sure. But Drexler's skepticism is, I think, quite warranted and he's not being simply stuffy or recalcitrant for simply pointing out very real problems in how people are going about their comparisons.

One might be tempted to say "Well, great, should we all just stop posting our experiences unless we do nothing but blind testing?"

No. Of course there are many times in which visual differences are going to exist, uncontroversially. Most of the types of visual differences we discuss between products fall well in line with what it expected and possible, given our visual system and the differences in contrast/color/brightness etc of various systems. But when you get into more controversial claims...time to remember our skeptical tools.


It does no such thing! The differences may be real, someone may have a "clue," or not, or be very experienced with AV equipment. It doesn't matter - the placebo effect doesn't distinguish, we all have to be on guard for it. That's why the most experienced scientists appeal to blind/double-blind protocol.

Hey Rich ...

And who would we regard as qualified participants in such a blind test? It really should be professionals from film and video: colorists, cinematographers, maybe even engineers from video projector manufacturers and the like. Joe Six-Pack and his pal, Joe Bagadonuts, and probably most of us are just not going to provide reliable data.

Actually I'm not sure specialists are needed per se, in the same way "golden ears" are not needed in blind audio testing. Often in these threshold tests "regular people" seem to be fine. You don't even have to express the difference you see; you only have to reliably detect "A" over "B" in blind testing to suggest there are detectable differences.

I can think of some reasons why someone experienced in looking for artifacts may be better than a regular person. But, as in scientifically controlled audio blind testing, often there is a period of "training" of the subject, and testing, to see if they can first reliably pick up subtle differences that "really exist" (are there technically, and expected to be detectable), and then it's on to the specific comparison being tested.

So...I dunno for sure...

I used to review audio gear and after a while I started employing some blind and double-blind testing. It was very sobering. Utterly obvious sonic differences (so I thought) would sometimes disappear utterly when I didn't know which product was which. I chose only to review loudspeakers as there was quite well known, well studied, uncontroversial, gross differences (objectively and subjectively) between speakers. I didn't have the heart to review cables and perhaps have people spending money because I simply thought I heard differences that were likely not there.

So I'm naturally cautious about threshold-level claims and I like to become more careful.

That's why I gave the caveats when I reported what I see comparing the E-shift effects. I'm not 100 percent sure I would still see them in more rigorous testing, and I'm still not sure what to attribute to the "more solid look" I seem to see. (Could be some effects of processing used to upscale, differences in contrast etc).

Cheers!

BTW,

(A reminder that I have a 130" wide, 67" tall screen, viewed from about 10 feet, and I vary my image size to taste with 4 way masking...)

I'm still fascinated by the "closer-is-better" school of thought that so many people seem to be engaging in, especially with the new JVC and Sony projectors. For me, pixel visibility and density is typically much less of an issue than source limitations - the variability of the clarity and detail between various HD sources. I'm not finding E-shift per se some paradigm-changing addition in terms of pixel smoothness and viewing angle, because enlarging the image still has the issue of enlarging any and all defects in the source material. Even a lot of HD material, I find, really starts to suffer (looking softer, less dense, less contrasty, less smooth in terms of noticing digital and analog artifacts, etc). A denser pixel structure does nothing to help these issues, IMO. So I'm not necessarily making my images bigger due to the E-shift.

What DOES seem to make me more happy with bigger images is the apparently more punchy contrast of the RS55 over my RS20. As I enlarged images on my RS20 I tended to note a drop in image tightness and contrast. But the RS55 maintains better contrast, richness and dimensionality at larger image sizes.

1080p is excellent at it's best, but I find myself quite aware of it's limitations as well, and not only on my projection set up. Standing near flat screens I often find myself noting that, yeah its clear, but there are still lots of details that just aren't being rendered in the 1080p resolution. The industry moving to 4K may be a bit of a pipe dream at this time, but I would certainly welcome higher resolution.

Well, you might have something there. It would be interesting to test both groups of people, but really make the tests comprehensive testing many times so that you arrive at good data.

On your closer is better chat...and back to my question about thoughts on the RS55, and A-lens (or not), and an AT screen. We are seeing the new "4K" AT screens arriving. It seems to me that this is uniquely a home theater phenom...and because we not only don't want to have 4k moire, but because people are going to sit closer and closer, and therefore be close enough to start to see weave or microperfs by the time we would see artifacts. I suspect that the folks who want to use an AT screen will be able to do fine with a number of 2K screens if their rooms and screens are bigger, and their sitting distance farther. I'm hoping that some folks with all these variables will post their experiences and impressions.

I'm using a 140" AT scope screen (not 4K) with the RS65 and a Schneider A lens. I have three rows of four seats, the front row is 10ft from the screen, and I see no moiré, weave, holes, or artifacts from the front row. In fact it is the row with the best image for detail with E-shift turned on and the "A" lens in place, yet the best row still is the one behind (middle row) for sound.

My screen fabric is turned 30deg to the frame, this eliminates any moiré. I have been told by a screen manufacturer who makes 4K AT screens that they are really not a necessity when using a 4K projector.

I don't know what the Sony may look like in this situation, but if you do see the pixels on that machine I'm still sure they are too small to see at 10ft.

Sounds like an awesome theater. Thanks for the sharing the specifics and your impressions.