or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Projectors at CEDIA Expo 2012
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Projectors at CEDIA Expo 2012 - Page 10

post #271 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post


Sounds like the Sony1000 would be just right for you, though it does have one significant drawback.

biggrin.gif

The 1000 sounds perfect. Only problem is I am working on a landscapers budget. Unless I find some money in one of these holes I am digging, I dont think I can swing it!

tongue.gif
post #272 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

biggrin.gif
The 1000 sounds perfect. Only problem is I am working on a landscapers budget. Unless I find some money in one of these holes I am digging, I dont think I can swing it!
tongue.gif

"perfect" UNTIL you know the price. eek.gif
post #273 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger View Post

Going up 30 bucks.[/quote

But the old price of $269 continues for orders placed through September 15. smile.gif
post #274 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4 View Post

The Darblet I think adds about 6 MICRO seconds of lag. Dr. Darbee I think posted 3 MICRO seconds but sitting down with the Darbeevision engineers we calculated something like 6.3 In any event the lag is really below the threshold of human perception. I think one could safely call it real time processing but of course any processing must take some time and thus it can't be described as real time except in add speak.
I was shocked when I saw how much the Darblet improved the quality of game pictures. The Darblet improves film and video say by 5 to 10 percent. A bit, noticeable and worth it to me.
The improvement to a game picture is staggering. Maybe 50 to 100 percent better.
Darbee engineer told me 1ms (1000us). No offense, but I didn't find an improvement with it. But for what $300, you can try it yourself and give it away if you don't like it.
post #275 of 384
They haven't measured it and I was standing with one of their engineers when he calculated the latency. Bill Darbee joked with me about how their engineers each time come up with a different number and sometimes when asked twice, give a different answer. The point is it is very very small and would not be detectable.
Edited by AV Science Sales 4 - 9/11/12 at 8:27pm
post #276 of 384
If you don't like it, we give any customer their money back less shipping. 30day trial allowed.
Edited by AV Science Sales 4 - 9/11/12 at 8:27pm
post #277 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenC56 View Post

Either one of the new mits units have power zoom and focus? And unlike the 9000, did they retain the 2:35 mode like the 7800?

Anybody know the answer to my questions?
post #278 of 384
With these new projectors being announced When can I expect to snag a rs45 or Sony hw30 or something along the same lines for 2k or less
post #279 of 384
The Sony HW30AES without the glasses and emitter now has a MSRP of $3K. It is sure priced. B stocks of the HW30AES are going to be available shortly as well as a new price on remaining stocks of the HS30AES bundle. RS45s B stocks have been selling for $2199. Give us a call next week and we should have more info.
Edited by AV Science Sales 4 - 9/13/12 at 8:52am
post #280 of 384
Do you have b stock rs45 in right now? 3k pretty high for the Sony. What will be the b stocks price on it
post #281 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4 View Post

If you don't like it, we give any customer their money back less shipping. 30day trial allowed.
Return it!? eek.gif
You'd have to take my Darbee from my cold dead hands smile.gif
post #282 of 384
According to the JVC Booth Rep , the new "improved" Lamp is not a UHP lamp but a SHP and I'm sure the name I scribbled was Ushio . The Model is , as indicated , the PK-L2312U .
I can't find this anywhere on the Internet so it might be really new . He said they had to build an new Power Supply for it and it is now 230W versus the previous 220W .
Time will tell .

Scott..............................smile.gif
post #283 of 384
See this explanation below for "NSH" lamps which are DC rather than AC:



Larry J

offline
669 Posts. Joined 2/2001
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA

Well, mostly going from memory NSH (Ushio) is just another version of UHP and its been around quite awhile. The biggest difference I'm aware of is NSH lamps are DC and UHP are AC. I'm thinking that most lamps are AC and only remember Toshiba using SHP(Phoenix) in rear projection which is also a DC lamp. P-VIP (Osram) is AC, or most of the lamps they make are anyway.

I believe Sharp and Infocus has used NSH lamps in the past in some models. I've read that DC lamps can have special electrode geometry for reduced wear, depending on the design I imagine. So, unless JVC requested Ushio to make a special AC lamp, most likely its DC. Which of course makes it totally incompatible with the other JVC lamps.
post #284 of 384
So CEDIA is over and not a peep from Epson about improved input lag except clandestine "rumors" of improved lag.

I guess we'll have to wait for Art F. and others to get hands on with demo units to see if button presses registers fast onscreen. Again, I stand by my earlier statement that Epson's crowing over improved lumens, CR, and THX is not nearly as telling as their dead silence regarding input lag.
post #285 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holiday121 View Post

Do you have b stock rs45 in right now? 3k pretty high for the Sony. What will be the b stocks price on it

No B-stock Sony's yet. Hopefully we will be able to sell them for the same price or lower, than we had before. We will also have some RS40 B-stock and a few HD250 B-stock. Not many RS40's or HD250's. The last two surprised me. I did not expect any of those.
Edited by AV Science Sales 5 - 9/13/12 at 7:03am
Reply
Reply
post #286 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonF View Post

See this explanation below for "NSH" lamps which are DC rather than AC:
Larry J
offline
669 Posts. Joined 2/2001
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
Well, mostly going from memory NSH (Ushio) is just another version of UHP and its been around quite awhile. The biggest difference I'm aware of is NSH lamps are DC and UHP are AC. I'm thinking that most lamps are AC and only remember Toshiba using SHP(Phoenix) in rear projection which is also a DC lamp. P-VIP (Osram) is AC, or most of the lamps they make are anyway.
I believe Sharp and Infocus has used NSH lamps in the past in some models. I've read that DC lamps can have special electrode geometry for reduced wear, depending on the design I imagine. So, unless JVC requested Ushio to make a special AC lamp, most likely its DC. Which of course makes it totally incompatible with the other JVC lamps.

The Marantz projectors used DC lamps. They called them Super High Pressure DC lamps.
Reply
Reply
post #287 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonF View Post

See this explanation below for "NSH" lamps which are DC rather than AC:
Larry J
offline
669 Posts. Joined 2/2001
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
Well, mostly going from memory NSH (Ushio) is just another version of UHP and its been around quite awhile. The biggest difference I'm aware of is NSH lamps are DC and UHP are AC. I'm thinking that most lamps are AC and only remember Toshiba using SHP(Phoenix) in rear projection which is also a DC lamp. P-VIP (Osram) is AC, or most of the lamps they make are anyway.
I believe Sharp and Infocus has used NSH lamps in the past in some models. I've read that DC lamps can have special electrode geometry for reduced wear, depending on the design I imagine. So, unless JVC requested Ushio to make a special AC lamp, most likely its DC. Which of course makes it totally incompatible with the other JVC lamps.

The Marantz projectors used DC lamps. They called them Super High Pressure DC lamps.

Added
I guess I should say use, since there are still many Marantz projectors still in use. They are built like a tank. I have been using one for years.
Reply
Reply
post #288 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

The Marantz projectors used DC lamps. They called them Super High Pressure DC lamps.
Added
I guess I should say use, since there are still many Marantz projectors still in use. They are built like a tank. I have been using one for years.

Meaning that the new NSH lamps that JVC will implement in its 2013 projectors will be similarly built like a tank and perform and last extremely well I take it?
post #289 of 384
So u do have b stock Rs45s in stock
post #290 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

What were you using to do the vertical stretch? Reason I ask, there is a very noticeable difference on my system between letting the projector do the vertical stretch and using the Lumagen for the vertical stretch. With the projector doing the vertical stretch, I thought the image was kind of soft. With the Lumagen doing the vertical stretch, the image is very sharp. I was surprised at how much better it was with the Lumagen.

I tried the internal scaling in the JVC projector and the 4k or 6k upscaling-sharpening system I normally use on my HTPC which is significantly sharper than normal unscaled video. The scaling system was used with and without the A-lens, the only difference was the cropping and aspect ratio change required for scope when scaling back to 2k for output to the projector.
I did not notice any significant softening due to the A-lens when viewed at the same 43 degree viewing angle used for 16:9 but when scope was viewed 30% wider it was definitely too soft for my taste, with or without the lens. I was hoping the A-lens would allow a wider viewing angle but found that the maximum viewing angle before the image became unacceptably soft to be about the same with and without the lens. I should add that I draw the line on quality long before pixel structure becomes intrusive with an LCoS projector so the finer pixel structure provided by the A-lens solution is not useful to me. If visible pixel structure was an issue I would go 4k or sudo 4k rather than use a lens.

I wonder how much of the advantage people see with an A-lens, other than finer pixel structure and a slight change in brightness, is due to the scaling required rather than the lens its self. We dont need to use a lens to get the advantages of scaling, people typically think 1:1 mapping is best but thats definitely not the case for video.
post #291 of 384
There not much talk about the Mitsubishi HC8000D yet. Would love to hear more about it as it seems a real 3D killer!
post #292 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 4 View Post

You mean Tod (Toe), not Mark (AV Science Sales 4 (Mark Haflich)) smile.gif


redface.gif sorry , yes I did mean Tod/Toe smile.gif


dj
post #293 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Hey dj!
The Sony sounds great for my needs, but unfortunately does not have enough throw for my setup so I can do a rear shelf mount with my HP screen. I also need a motorized lens since I am doing the zoom method on a 2.35 screen and switch aspects a lot. This knocks the Epsons out as well.



Hey, there is allways the 1000ES biggrin.gif ( sorry, all others in here, beat me on this tongue.gif )


dj

BTW. how big ( wide ) is your HP screen and is it the much sold 2.4 gain model ?
Edited by d.j. - 9/13/12 at 5:14am
post #294 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by d.j. View Post

Hey, there is allways the 1000ES biggrin.gif ( sorry, all others in here, beat me on this tongue.gif )
dj
BTW. how big ( wide ) is your HP screen and is it the much sold 2.4 gain model ?

The 1000 sounds awesome, well besides the obvious.............. tongue.gif

I am using a 9' wide 2.35 2.8 HP screen. I literally got one of the last 2.8 HPs ever made! eek.gif Wish I could go even bigger, but I am maxed out both height and width in my room.
post #295 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holiday121 View Post

So u do have b stock Rs45s in stock

Not yet. When we have them, we will be contacting the customers that have contacted us asking about them.
Reply
Reply
post #296 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Owen View Post

I tried the internal scaling in the JVC projector and the 4k or 6k upscaling-sharpening system I normally use on my HTPC which is significantly sharper than normal unscaled video. The scaling system was used with and without the A-lens, the only difference was the cropping and aspect ratio change required for scope when scaling back to 2k for output to the projector.
I did not notice any significant softening due to the A-lens when viewed at the same 43 degree viewing angle used for 16:9 but when scope was viewed 30% wider it was definitely too soft for my taste, with or without the lens. I was hoping the A-lens would allow a wider viewing angle but found that the maximum viewing angle before the image became unacceptably soft to be about the same with and without the lens. I should add that I draw the line on quality long before pixel structure becomes intrusive with an LCoS projector so the finer pixel structure provided by the A-lens solution is not useful to me. If visible pixel structure was an issue I would go 4k or sudo 4k rather than use a lens.
I wonder how much of the advantage people see with an A-lens, other than finer pixel structure and a slight change in brightness, is due to the scaling required rather than the lens its self. We dont need to use a lens to get the advantages of scaling, people typically think 1:1 mapping is best but thats definitely not the case for video.

When I let the projector do the vertical stretch for the A-lens the image looked softer, not as sharp as when I used the Lumagen for the vertical stretch. I am only talking about the stretched image through the A-lens.
Reply
Reply
post #297 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

No B-stock Sony's yet. Hopefully we will be able to sell the JVC B-stocks for the same price or lower, than we had before. We will also have some RS40 B-stock and a few HD250 B-stock. Not many RS40's or HD250's. The last two surprised me. I did not expect any of those.
Reply
Reply
post #298 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

When I let the projector do the vertical stretch for the A-lens the image looked softer, not as sharp as when I used the Lumagen for the vertical stretch. I am only talking about the stretched image through the A-lens.

Yes, I understood that. When most people evaluate an A-lens they are going to compare an unscaled (1:1) zoomed scope image without an A- lens with a cropped and scaled (stretched) image via an A-lens, this introduces two variables, the lens and the digital scaling (stretching) system when the A-lens is in use.
Obviously the scaling system is going to have an effect on the outcome just as the lens will so what we see on screen is due to the combination of both, better scaling = better picture.

What I did differently is pass the video though a similar scaling path for both the A-lens test and the zoomed comparison test thus pretty much eliminating the scaling variable. I've probably got people confused by now so I'll explain, the process is as follows:

For the zoom test I take 1920x1080 scope format Bluray source and upscale it 200% to 3840x2160 with sharpening applied during the upscaling, then downscale to 1920x1080 and output to projector for display.

For the A-lens test I take the same 1920x1080 video, crop the black bars off leaving about 1920x810, then upscale that 200% with sharpening to 3840x1620, then downscale to 1920x1080 for output to the projector. The vertical stretch has now been performed so the projector does not touch the video and simple displays what it is given using all its pixels.

Both test images where displayed the same size on screen and since both the zoomed image and the A-lens image have undergone similar digital processing (double scaling) the comparison is a fair as it can reasonably be.

Double scaling the video as above significantly improved image quality and sharpness but we don't need an A-lens or a 4k projector to get this advantage (something the 4k projector vendors don't want people to know about). I normally use a 300% upscale these days (6k) for all Bluray content.

The lens I evaluated was very good as it had a negligible effect on image sharpness, but I could not see an advantage in using it as I don't use a large enough viewing angle for pixel structure to be an issue. By the time the image is large enough to see the pixels its too soft for my liking, data density is way too low. Using a 4k or sudo 4k projector will not help as no extra data is available from the source.
Edited by Owen - 9/13/12 at 9:32am
post #299 of 384
Just wondering - any new (sub $10K) projectors announced with lens shift memories (ie for fixed height 2.35:1 zoom method). By new I mean where the previous gen did not have this feature.

Thanks!
post #300 of 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Owen View Post

Yes, I understood that. When most people evaluate an A-lens they are going to compare an unscaled (1:1) zoomed scope image without an A- lens with a cropped and scaled (stretched) image via an A-lens, this introduces two variables, the lens and the digital scaling (stretching) system when the A-lens is in use.
Obviously the scaling system is going to have an effect on the outcome just as the lens will so what we see on screen is due to the combination of both, better scaling = better picture.
What I did differently is pass the video though a similar scaling path for both the A-lens test and the zoomed comparison test thus pretty much eliminating the scaling variable. I've probably got people confused by now so I'll explain, the process is as follows:
For the zoom test I take 1920x1080 scope format Bluray source and upscale it 200% to 3840x2160 with sharpening applied during the upscaling, then downscale to 1920x1080 and output to projector for display.
For the A-lens test I take the same 1920x1080 video, crop the black bars off leaving about 1920x810, then upscale that 200% with sharpening to 3840x1620, then downscale to 1920x1080 for output to the projector. The vertical stretch has now been performed so the projector does not touch the video and simple displays what it is given using all its pixels.
Both test images where displayed the same size on screen and since both the zoomed image and the A-lens image have undergone similar digital processing (double scaling) the comparison is a fair as it can reasonably be.
Double scaling the video as above significantly improved image quality and sharpness but we don't need an A-lens or a 4k projector to get this advantage (something the 4k projector vendors don't want people to know about). I normally use a 300% upscale these days (6k) for all Bluray content.
The lens I evaluated was very good as it had a negligible effect on image sharpness, but I could not see an advantage in using it as I don't use a large enough viewing angle for pixel structure to be an issue. By the time the image is large enough to see the pixels its too soft for my liking, data density is way too low. Using a 4k or sudo 4k projector will not help as no extra data is available from the source.

No problem Owen. All I was trying to get across is this:
If you are going to use an A-lens, then scaling is going to be involved. many people try comparing a zoomed image to an A-lens setup. A lot of people are using the projector for the vertical stretch and then saying the image is softer with the A-lens. The problem is not the A-lens, assuming that you have a good lens. The problem is with the choice of letting the projector do the vertical stretch (scaling). If you have a good device for the vertical stretch (I use a Lumagen) then the A-lens image is not soft at all.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Projectors at CEDIA Expo 2012