AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Rear Projection Units › GWIV owner thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

GWIV owner thread - Page 2

post #31 of 4081
9/19/04 at 4:32pm
Quote:


Originally posted by papaduxx
i work at BB and have access to the WD-62525 but am trying to wait a decent time for them to work out some problems. I know most problems can be fixed (tilt) but i do not want the hassel of having to call techs, go thru
menus...etc. The Sony 60XS955 is also in our system so i am stuck with the lcd or dlp problem.

Does BB have an expected date for the XS? I was at Ultimate Electronics today and they had the WF's in their computer, expecting a shipment 10/9. But they didn't have the XS listed yet.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #32 of 4081
9/19/04 at 5:10pm
the xs models have an expected date of mid october.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 4081
9/19/04 at 5:11pm
I displayed the 42we655 the other day and liked its picture, not better than Mits DLP though. But the XS models are supposed to be a step above the WE and WF models, similar to the xbr series.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 4081
9/19/04 at 9:09pm
Quote:


Originally posted by zoro
alan, did their system show XS series, and will sears be carrying those?

Just got back from Sears and looked on their computer.
The WE655's are available now and the WF's can be delivered on the 4th Oct if you want one.
They will also carry the XS's but I couldn't get a date on them.
I almost paid for the WF but managed to calm myself down and decided to wait until i've seen one first.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 4081
9/20/04 at 8:16am
Thread Starter 
Sears is going to carry the XS? I didn't expect that...
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 4081
9/20/04 at 10:21am
Please let us know if you see a WE655 or WF655 at a Sears store.

Thanks,
Alan
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 4081
9/20/04 at 4:48pm
Quote:
Originally posted by TH3_FRB
Sears is going to carry the XS? I didn't expect that...

Me neither. It wasn't in their computer yet but the guy had a ring binder with a list of all the models they will be carrying. He said he'd never even heard of any of these till I came in.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 4081
9/20/04 at 6:15pm
Does anyone have the Sears stock number for the WE655? My mother -in-law works at Sears and she checked on this set yesterday and she said the model number was not in their system (as far as she could tell).
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 4081
9/20/04 at 7:07pm
Quote:
Originally posted by nixima
Does anyone have the Sears stock number for the WE655? My mother -in-law works at Sears and she checked on this set yesterday and she said the model number was not in their system (as far as she could tell).

That's what the guy told me, he said they can only look it up by their stock number.
He then found this ring binder with a list of all the new equipment coming in from all the manufaturers and it had them listed in there. With the stock numbers he was able to look them up.
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 4081
9/21/04 at 2:39pm
Quote:
Originally posted by papaduxx


Sony lists ť 1386 x 788 pixels (all signals displayed at 788p) , so apparently has a higher resolution but will it be better?

Mitsubishi 1280 x 720p
DLP� Light Engine


Just a little math.

1386 X 788 = 1,092,168
1280 X 720 = 921,600
________
170,568 Pixels

If you have 170 thousand more pixels in the same size screen there has to be a good deal of difference in PQ sharpness and smoothness of images.
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 4081
9/21/04 at 4:03pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Barrybud
Just a little math.

1386 X 788 = 1,092,168
1280 X 720 = 921,600
________
170,568 Pixels

If you have 170 thousand more pixels in the same size screen there has to be a good deal of difference in PQ sharpness and smoothness of images.

Not true, you have to factor in the electronics, the light engine, and many many more factors. To make yet another bad car analogy: If you put the exact same engine in a beetle and a porche, which car do you think will handle the road better?
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 4081
9/21/04 at 4:59pm
Thread Starter 
I agree...more pixels doesn't necessarily mean better PQ. That's that logic most big box store clerks use when pushing digital cameras...the MP number is higher on this one...so it's a better camera

Quote:
Originally posted by marcelval
Not true, you have to factor in the electronics, the light engine, and many many more factors. To make yet another bad car analogy: If you put the exact same engine in a beetle and a porche, which car do you think will handle the road better?
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 4081
9/21/04 at 5:38pm
Quote:
Originally posted by marcelval
Not true, you have to factor in the electronics, the light engine, and many many more factors. To make yet another bad car analogy: If you put the exact same engine in a beetle and a porche, which car do you think will handle the road better?


i agrere with your analogy the way you state it, however, it doesn't really fit this example IMO. we're not talking about a "beetle" vs. a "porshe"... the quality of the sony and the mits' electronics are both generally regarded as top notch.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 4081
9/22/04 at 9:16am
Quote:


Originally posted by Fidelity
i agrere with your analogy the way you state it, however, it doesn't really fit this example IMO. we're not talking about a "beetle" vs. a "porshe"... the quality of the sony and the mits' electronics are both generally regarded as top notch.

Doesn't it also depend upon the source feed? If the source is 720, won't it look better on a 720 screen instead of 788 because you are introducing artifacts when you scale up? For example I would image a 640x480 image would look better in it's native resolution on my computer instead of stretching it on a higher resolution. This may be especially true if you go to a 788 resolution where only some of the lines are extrapolated.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 4081
9/22/04 at 9:26am
Quote:


Originally posted by Barrybud
Just a little math.

1386 X 788 = 1,092,168
1280 X 720 = 921,600
________
170,568 Pixels

If you have 170 thousand more pixels in the same size screen there has to be a good deal of difference in PQ sharpness and smoothness of images.

If you notice he said PQ sharpness and smoothness of images, not overall PQ. The picture will be more "resolute", sharper, etc.

I agree the same is true with MP on digital cameras, as in more MPs does not mean a better overall PQ. However, the resolution of 3 MP is better than 2, in terms of a shaper image.

Several other factors as mentioned account for overall PQ.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 4081
9/22/04 at 9:35am
Quote:


Originally posted by kasm
Doesn't it also depend upon the source feed? If the source is 720, won't it look better on a 720 screen instead of 788 because you are introducing artifacts when you scale up? For example I would image a 640x480 image would look better in it's native resolution on my computer instead of stretching it on a higher resolution. This may be especially true if you go to a 788 resolution where only some of the lines are extrapolated.

I have often wondered on my 50 in GW3 about the 720p/1080i debate. The display's native resolution is 788p. Sat feeds that are in 1080i like HDnet, Leno, Discovery HD etc., look better than ESPN or ABC's 720p on my display.

I am not saying 720p doesnt look good due to its upconverting to 788p. I am saying 1080i is more detailed and overall better PQ, again on my display.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 4081
9/22/04 at 11:37am
My pixel count post was not a poke at DLP, just stating that higher density in a 50" or 60" screen is a good thing.

Its true that the GW will scale everything to its native res. So unless you feed a pc at 1386x788 ( Don't know if that is a valid res or not) this TV will alway scale it. The 1080 V 720 feed for a set like this is difficult and really is what looks best to you. Generally if you are able to pick a pass through, that would be best. Let the TV do the scaling. If you set a STB to 720 here is what you get.. Source 1080> STB 720> TV 788. Every time a signal gets scaled you increase possible artifacts and video delay.

It seems that most HD is 1080i (NBC, CBS, PBS, WB, INHD1 & 2, DiscoveryHD, HDNet, HBO, Starz, Showtime, Cinemax) with the odd ones at 720 ABC, ESPN and Fox. If you have to pick one I would say 1080i. If you settle on one of the 720 stations go in and change it to 720. It only takes a few seconds.

Even with a DLP that is 720P I would let the 1080i channels hit the TV in that format. Chances are very likely that the TV does better at scaling than a STB.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 4081
9/22/04 at 12:00pm
so do you think it is a clear advantage of the Sony LCD line to offer this resolution compared to the other resolutions of competitors?
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 4081
9/22/04 at 12:24pm
Thread Starter 
Seems this would be a disadvantage. Both 720P and 1080i need to be scaled by the set. At least with a 720P display the 720P material is displayed natively. I really can't see a significant difference between feeding 720P vs 1080i to my GWIV. Unfortunately my Moto 6200 doesn't do pass-through so I have to pick one or the other for all my cable HD channels...going with 720P right now. Luckily OTA stuff only gets scaled once to the nativ res of the set.

Quote:


Originally posted by papaduxx
so do you think it is a clear advantage of the Sony LCD line to offer this resolution compared to the other resolutions of competitors?
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 4081
9/22/04 at 12:34pm
Regarding Sony's 1386 X 788 native resolution and scaling.

Do you really care how they did it as long as the picture looks great?
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 4081
9/22/04 at 12:53pm
Thread Starter 
No, I don't care..unless the scaling everything to 788 means the PQ is not as good as it otherwise could be...and we have no way of knowing this.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 4081
9/22/04 at 1:13pm
I agree. If the pic rocks, who cares if its 720P, 788P, 1080i, or whatever. Just enjoy a great picture on a really big screen

On a related note, I wonder if Sony's new line of upscaling DVD players with HDMI will scale to 788P. I've seen the specs for some of these player that scale to 768P and wondered what that was all about, but if Sony put out a quality upscaling DVD that did 720P, 788P, and 1080i that would be key... not to mention good business sense.
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 4081
9/22/04 at 3:56pm
Does anyone know the real reason why Sony uses 1386x788 instead of 1280x720 when it doesn't match any of the HD standards?
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 4081
9/22/04 at 4:18pm
Is it possible to get a DVI->HDMI from my computer to the GWIV?

Im debating on getting the 42WE655 or the HLP4663W

The only concern I have about the Sony is the possibility of getting dead pixels and the lack of connections compared to the Samsung =\\
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 4081
9/22/04 at 5:52pm
and with the Samsung you get rainbows. Pick your poison
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 4081
9/22/04 at 6:03pm
Guys!! One Q? I understand Sony GW dont support PC connection through RGB/VGA?
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 4081
9/22/04 at 7:33pm
"Many of today's widescreen format projectors use either 1280x720 or 1366x768 resolution displays). With each step up in the number of pixels that produce the image, visible pixelation and the screendoor effect have been reduced. At the new pixel densities, visible pixelation is usually eliminated at normal viewing distances."

http://www.projectorcentral.com/lcd_dlp_update.htm
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 4081
9/22/04 at 8:17pm
Not to be a nitpicker, but page 46 of the XS955 model states that 'this TV displays all format types of picture in a resolution of 1368 dots X 768 lines.' And the only reason I bring this up, is because I have already purchased an external scaler in hopes of using it with whatever RPTV I purchase in the next month. At this point, it almost seems easier to buy a JVC dila set that displays in 720p natively then to continue to consider the GWIVs. My Iscan HD doesn't support this 1368 X 768 resolution as a preset. If anyone is currently using an Iscan with a GW III, please PM with 1X1 pixel mapping resolution that you are using.

Thanks,

7
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 4081
9/22/04 at 8:53pm
Thread Starter 
I decided to run through the THX optimizer tonight to see what kind of improvements I can get. I just have't been able to set aside enough time to do UMR's tweaks yet. I've been playing with the user settings every night since I got the set last Friday and arrived at some settings that seem fairly good using standard mode. After going through the tests I ended up with essentially the same settings that I had from trial and error:

Standard mode
Picture - max
brightness - 30
color - 45
Hue - 0
sharpness - 45
temp - warm

The settings on the GWIV range from min/0 to 62 with the final notch being "max". I guess I am a little surprised at these settings. No matter how high I cranked the picture setting, the 4 shades of white were still visible...I'd estimate I could go another 5-10 notches above the "max" before they would merge into one solid block. For color, I couldn't really pick out a single point where the red started to "bleed" so I used a relatively high setting that made the colors fairly vibrant and saturated. I guess I have this idea in my head that adjusting the settings towards the high end of the range is wrong for some reason...but it's what I get from following the tests. I really never saw the lines on the sharpness test become overly enhanced either but again, it just didn't seem right to leave it set at the max...this may have something to do with the relatively soft picture to begin with.

On the 16-9 aspect ratio set-up screen the outter-most box is centered with about 1/2 inch space from the edge of the screen top to bottom, but is about 1/2" off-center to the left. The left edge of the box is right at the edge of the screen leaving 1/2-3/4" space on the right side. I assume I can tweak this in the SM.

I'm fairly happy with the colors and overall brightness of the set but my two main complaints haven't changed...the picture is still too soft and the blacks aren't dark enough. Next step is to do UMR's tweaks and see if that doesn't help. As for the picture/contrast...is it possible to push the max even higher in the SM since it looks like I still have room? I'd say I'll be looking into a neutral density filter too since the bright blacks are kind of driving me crazy.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 4081
9/22/04 at 9:49pm
Quote:


Originally posted by TH3_FRB

On the 16-9 aspect ratio set-up screen the outter-most box is centered with about 1/2 inch space from the edge of the screen top to bottom, but is about 1/2" off-center to the left. The left edge of the box is right at the edge of the screen leaving 1/2-3/4" space on the right side. I assume I can tweak this in the SM.

IS this similar to what is being descibed on the Mits DLP's? At my BB most of our DLP and some LCD displays all have the 1/2" black gap on the side, could it be source?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rear Projection Units

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Rear Projection Units › GWIV owner thread