or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › SONY VPL-VW500ES SXRD 4K Projector : IFA BERLIN 2013
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SONY VPL-VW500ES SXRD 4K Projector : IFA BERLIN 2013 - Page 13

post #361 of 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

What is the screen gain?

All things being equal you will get the brightest picture at short throw and the greatest on/off contrast at long throw. The lens will perform best optically at long throw. The exit image is smallest at long throw and one uses more of the sweet spot of the lens. So if you have enough brightness which is a function of your screen gain. the curves of fallmoff in brightness as you migrate from short throw and fall off in on/off as you migrate from long throw are log curves and are not straight lines , so deciding to mount a midthrow is not a good choice because you lose much of the brightness and much of the on/off. Say about 30%. Pick your poison.

Thx for that informative response; so I'll try to mount the projector as far back as possible which is approx 19ft from the 120" screen from the sounds of it.

Still haven't figured out the screen material, but thinking of either of these ones:

- Stewart StudioTek 130
- JKP Affinity HD Progressive 1.1

To provide background on where the screen will be going, the Theare room will be dedicated with one small window (2' x 3' covered w/ shutters) adjacent to the back row seats. Ceiling will be painted black, Carpet will be a midnight blue, and walls a dark grey. Any preference on which screen would work best with the VPL500ES?

THanks in advance!
post #362 of 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

Hi Mark,

Hope you are feeling well.

The above seems to be the prevailing wisdom, but I wonder whether that is accurate. A while back somebody asked me about seeing higher MTF at short throw and whether I thought that made any sense. I thought about it a little bit and decided that there could be some logic in it.

If the exit image is smallest then it has the highest density of pixels per inch of lens cross section. No lens is perfect, so let's consider an exit image that takes up 1" horizontally at lens exit and a lens imperfection with exactly 1 pixel width under those conditions. If you change the zoom so that the exit image uses 2" of lens horizontally at exit then that same lens imperfection is only 1/2 of 1 pixel width.

I know there are multiple lens elements, this could be much more complicated, and a smaller image may use a better part of the lens (depending on lens shift), but I think using less of the lens could cause worse images instead of better.

Consider a more extreme example of a 10" wide lens. Now if you shoot a 1920x1080 image through that lens at full width the anomolies at full width will be much smaller compared to the image than if you tried to shoot that same image through just the center 1" of that lens.

Seems like the same kind of principle as it being more difficult to make a small lens of the same pixel resolution as a large lens.

What do you think?

Thanks,
Darin


I think thar discussion ignores where the lens is sharpest considering the use of vertical lens shift. As one puts more of the image towards the glass extremities, the image tends to get less sharp at those points.
Edited by mark haflich - 9/20/13 at 5:17am
post #363 of 482
I would choose between the Stewart snomatt 100 (gain of one) and the JKP Affinity 1.1 gain. Given your screen size, you could use some gain and I would choose the JKP 1.1. You could use the 130 for the extra gain considering your long throw mount but to me the 100 is a better fabric than the 130 making the screen disappear when lit up. But I don't know about how happy you would be with the brightness.
post #364 of 482
I am unsure of screen gain, screen size, or projector placement. So, I ordered the projector first, and got a bunch of different free screen samples I can tape on the wall. Once I can experiment with the projector, it should help with all these decisions.
post #365 of 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post

I am unsure of screen gain, screen size, or projector placement. So, I ordered the projector first, and got a bunch of different free screen samples I can tape on the wall. Once I can experiment with the projector, it should help with all these decisions.

Great strategy! Just projecting onto the wall will definitely help you decide on the screen size that is best for you, and the samples are also very helpful to decide on the screen material.
post #366 of 482
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen

I am unsure of screen gain, screen size, or projector placement. So, I ordered the projector first, and got a bunch of different free screen samples I can tape on the wall. Once I can experiment with the projector, it should help with all these decisions.

Great strategy! Just projecting onto the wall will definitely help you decide on the screen size that is best for you, and the samples are also very helpful to decide on the screen material.

+1. That is a good way to finalize your screen size / choice.

Quote:
I would choose between the Stewart snomatt 100 (gain of one) and the JKP Affinity 1.1 gain. Given your screen size, you could use some gain and I would choose the JKP 1.1. You could use the 130 for the extra gain considering your long throw mount but to me the 100 is a better fabric than the 130 making the screen disappear when lit up. But I don't know about how happy you would be with the brightness.

Add the new JKP HD Pro 1.3 and the Stewart Cima Neve 1.1 materials to the list Mark posted there, to check out.
post #367 of 482
Thread Starter 
One lucky guy in France today wink.gif





post #368 of 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geof View Post

To clarify, the horizontal axis on charts below go from 0-22...however, the edge of the image occurs at 18mm - the reason the chart goes to 22 (or thereabouts) is to show corner performance (half the diagonal is roughly 22mm).



Thanks Geof. Given those charts I wonder what they would look like with an infinite zoom range (like we essentially get) and the zoom setup so the edge of the image is at 15 mm. I see the MTF getting better for the middle there (even as it gets worse for the edges) going to wide zoom. I wonder if that is related to the factor I brought up.

Where I said anomolies it may have been more clear if I had said lens imperfections, which every one of these lenses will have down at the microscopic level.

One thing to keep in mind is that the image is not focused as it passes through the front of the lens, so center pixels on the screen don't just use their corresponding spot as they exit the front of the lens. What I wrote earlier may have given a different impression, but I still think that the factor of lens imperfection size to average pixel size may be relevant here, with that factor possibly getting worse as we use less of the lens surface (use longest throw).

--Darin
Edited by darinp2 - 9/19/13 at 10:24am
post #369 of 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

I think thar discussion ignores where the lens is sharpest considering the use of vertical lens shift. As one puts more of the imge towards the glass extremities, the image tends to get less sharp at those points.
Such as that those of us who use a retro-reflective screen and put the projector a little overhead and behind may be using a sharper part of the lens than those who mount their projector high up on the ceiling. smile.gif

We know that the edges of the lens may not be as good as the center (and generally won't be), but that does not automatically lead to the longest throw giving the best images. There can be multiple factors at work that have to be weighted against each other.

This could get especially complicated if one place in the throw range gives the sharpest images for the center pixels but not the sharpest toward the edges of the image, since pixels near the center of the screen tend to be more important than edge pixels for normal viewing.

BTW: I'm not saying I know where the best throw positions are, but I think it may be more complicated and not quite match the general wisdom around here.

--Darin
post #370 of 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraine View Post

One lucky guy in France today wink.gif







Kraine,

Are you getting to play around with one of these today? If so, what are your impressions? I'm especially interested in how 1080p blu-rays look up scaled.

Mike
post #371 of 482
Also, if you get one kraine,

1: does it compare to the vw1000 or vw95 for contrast?

2: how is lens sharpness compared to the vw1000?

3: 3d impressions? Does it have the lamp pulsing 3d mode that the 1000 lacked?

Sweet looking projector though. Def looks bigger than my 95
post #372 of 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifiaudio2 View Post

255 I believe. Been quite a while since I tested (and I don't have it anymore).



Hifiaudio2 ( and SOWK )

You are correct, with contrast at 88 ( iris off ) , its is just arround to begin to clip at 250-255. ( with auto iris on, the clip will occur with contrast at 96 - max. typical )
If you want it to clip arround 235 ( with iris off ) , you can turn contrast up to about max.


dj
post #373 of 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraine View Post

One lucky guy in France today wink.gif

Nice! Looking forward reading your first impressions.
post #374 of 482
It will be REALLY interesting to see how the VW500ES compares to the VW1000ES. Really, if the contrast and sharpness are even close, i don't see the point of getting the VW1000ES. That's an extra $10,000 at least.

From the hands on reports so far (including Cine4homes detailed report), the brightness calibrated is almost the exact same. The native contrast is 20% less, BUT you can adjust how far the iris opens and closes in a new menu, so really, i would just clamp it down that extra bit and be good. The only thing that concerns me is the lens sharpness. But that's a large premium to pay, if its $10,000 MORE than the VW500. The VW1000 has a wider color space, and a sharper lens. but the VW500 has many cool features that are not on the VW1000 YET (mastered in 4K, autocalibration, new motionflow modes, previously mentioned iris tuning, possibly it has brighter 3D than the VW1000 if Sony implements its lamp pulsing tech, and probably cheaper lamps). Maybe some will come with the update? hopefully it does for VW1000 users.

If the VW1000 is still 25K, i would have a hard time justifying that purchase over the VW500 unless the lens and contrast are REALLY crappy. I can't see the contrast on the VW500 being much worse than my VW95, which i'm happy with.
post #375 of 482
With the cheaper lens I'd make a wager that the ANSI contrast is going to take a huge hit too.
post #376 of 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitetrash66 View Post

It will be REALLY interesting to see how the VW500ES compares to the VW1000ES. Really, if the contrast and sharpness are even close, i don't see the point of getting the VW1000ES. That's an extra $10,000 at least.

From the hands on reports so far (including Cine4homes detailed report), the brightness calibrated is almost the exact same. The native contrast is 20% less, BUT you can adjust how far the iris opens and closes in a new menu, so really, i would just clamp it down that extra bit and be good. The only thing that concerns me is the lens sharpness. But that's a large premium to pay, if its $10,000 MORE than the VW500. The VW1000 has a wider color space, and a sharper lens. but the VW500 has many cool features that are not on the VW1000 YET (mastered in 4K, autocalibration, new motionflow modes, previously mentioned iris tuning, possibly it has brighter 3D than the VW1000 if Sony implements its lamp pulsing tech, and probably cheaper lamps). Maybe some will come with the update? hopefully it does for VW1000 users.

If the VW1000 is still 25K, i would have a hard time justifying that purchase over the VW500 unless the lens and contrast are REALLY crappy. I can't see the contrast on the VW500 being much worse than my VW95, which i'm happy with.

If I hadn't had a 1000 for almost 2 yrs now, and were looking for a new pj this year, I think I would go the route you describe. The main choice, I would think, is between the VW500 (or 600--don't yet know what its US label is) and the top of the line JVC's. I'll bet they both look very, very good. (Still happy, though, that I did bite for the 1000!)
post #377 of 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

If I hadn't had a 1000 for almost 2 yrs now, and were looking for a new pj this year, I think I would go the route you describe. The main choice, I would think, is between the VW500 (or 600--don't yet know what its US label is) and the top of the line JVC's. I'll bet they both look very, very good. (Still happy, though, that I did bite for the 1000!)

+1

Looking forward to see what the VW1000 upgrade brings!smile.gif
post #378 of 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitetrash66 View Post

It will be REALLY interesting to see how the VW500ES compares to the VW1000ES. Really, if the contrast and sharpness are even close, i don't see the point of getting the VW1000ES. That's an extra $10,000 at least.

From the hands on reports so far (including Cine4homes detailed report), the brightness calibrated is almost the exact same. The native contrast is 20% less, BUT you can adjust how far the iris opens and closes in a new menu, so really, i would just clamp it down that extra bit and be good. The only thing that concerns me is the lens sharpness. But that's a large premium to pay, if its $10,000 MORE than the VW500. The VW1000 has a wider color space, and a sharper lens. but the VW500 has many cool features that are not on the VW1000 YET (mastered in 4K, autocalibration, new motionflow modes, previously mentioned iris tuning, possibly it has brighter 3D than the VW1000 if Sony implements its lamp pulsing tech, and probably cheaper lamps). Maybe some will come with the update? hopefully it does for VW1000 users.

If the VW1000 is still 25K, i would have a hard time justifying that purchase over the VW500 unless the lens and contrast are REALLY crappy. I can't see the contrast on the VW500 being much worse than my VW95, which i'm happy with.

those are good questions. We really need Cine4home's deep dive to get to some of the specific details you are referring to. I bet he's already working on it.

i'm interested in hearing about the auto-cal and the new iris functions. Also if 3D is brighter than the VW1000. I can't imagine why they wouldn't put the lamp pulsing into the new model.
post #379 of 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas21 View Post

+1

Looking forward to see what the VW1000 upgrade brings!smile.gif

Yes, this will be my 'new projector' for this year (and maybe the next, too)!
post #380 of 482
Thread Starter 
Sadly I'm not this french lucky guy. M'y review will come but only early November.
post #381 of 482
French Lucky Guy would be a great name for a race horse or for a posting name on AVS.
post #382 of 482
Thread Starter 
Well this guy isn't on avs for the moment, but I will give him your advice Mark wink.gif
post #383 of 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

Thanks Geof. Given those charts I wonder what they would look like with an infinite zoom range (like we essentially get) and the zoom setup so the edge of the image is at 15 mm. I see the MTF getting better for the middle there (even as it gets worse for the edges) going to wide zoom. I wonder if that is related to the factor I brought up.

Where I said anomolies it may have been more clear if I had said lens imperfections, which every one of these lenses will have down at the microscopic level.

One thing to keep in mind is that the image is not focused as it passes through the front of the lens, so center pixels on the screen don't just use their corresponding spot as they exit the front of the lens. What I wrote earlier may have given a different impression, but I still think that the factor of lens imperfection size to average pixel size may be relevant here, with that factor possibly getting worse as we use less of the lens surface (use longest throw).

--Darin
Hi Darin,
Whew, there sure are a lot of variables involved here....While optical performance degrades as you move from the center of the lens the questions of how fast, and at what point, and just how the MTF curves vary are certainly dependent on the optical design. And as you mention lens imperfections could play a part in projector MTF figures but I'd hope those are minimized (when I look at images made with my 36 MP camera and very decent prime lenses I can see sharpness fall off towards the edges but I haven't been able to spot any IQ issues due to lens imperfections and those pixels are very very tiny....a dust spot of the sensor can be barely visible to the unaided eye yet it can cover hundreds of pixels (I absolutely hate cleaning the sensor).. I wonder if this is not accounted for by the overall MTF performance of the lens (for example, I strongly suspect a lens imperfection would affect contrast as light hitting it would be refracted).

I hope you'll be looking at the Sony's and JVC's during your Cedia visit and posting your impressions....
post #384 of 482
Its almost next to impossible to do evaluative comparisons at a show even between two models from the same manufacturer.

Knowing Darin, he will ask several manufacturers and guys like Joe Kane a bunch of tough questions and get wrong answers bordering on nonsense. This will piss him off no end and provide fodder for many posts over the next year. Contrast related questions are almost guaranteed to do it.
post #385 of 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Its almost next to impossible to do evaluative comparisons at a show even between two models from the same manufacturer.

No doubt about that. But a lot of folks will be posting impressions and I'd like to hear Darin's thoughts....(and yours too if you were going this year).
Quote:
Knowing Darin, he will ask several manufacturers and guys like Joe Kane a bunch of tough questions and get wrong answers bordering on nonsense. This will piss him off no end and provide fodder for many posts over the next year. Contrast related questions are almost guaranteed to do it.
Nonsense answers tend to piss me off too....if they don't know they should say they don't know and don't try to baffle with bullsh!t. Oh, and I'm not trying to kiss ass or anything but I think Darin's contrast paper should be required reading for projector owners....
post #386 of 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geof View Post

No doubt about that. But a lot of folks will be posting impressions and I'd like to hear Darin's thoughts....(and yours too if you were going this year).

Nonsense answers tend to piss me off too....if they don't know they should say they don't know and don't try to baffle with bullsh!t. Oh, and I'm not trying to kiss ass or anything but I think Darin's contrast paper should be required reading for projector owners....

Here's the link to the contrast discussion, I haven't seen it posted here in a while.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_13_2/feature-article-contrast-ratio-5-2006-part-1.html
post #387 of 482
It would be great if you had to pass a test before you could buy a projector or at least if your dealer/installer had to pass the test.
post #388 of 482
They should have held this year's expo at 14,000 feet in elevation, that way we'd finally know which projector really has the best lamps.
post #389 of 482
At 14,000 you would pass out standing in line to get into the Sony theater. You can spend time at that elevation but one moves real slow and one really needs to spend several days a little lower to get acclimated.
post #390 of 482
I've been to the top of those mountains just outside Denver before (Mt Evans Drive).
There are people walking around and I've never seen anyone pass out, but I've definitely heard people breathing heavy (there is your opener).
I wouldn't recommend it for asthma suffers, but a cigar at 14k feet will give a better buzz...

An airplane cabin is pressurized up to 8,000 feet so that is all the acclimation you need.
Edited by coderguy - 9/21/13 at 9:38pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › SONY VPL-VW500ES SXRD 4K Projector : IFA BERLIN 2013