*OFFICIAL* Benq PE7700 Thread - Page 11

Don't hold your breath, Samhain_777. Normally, if a display cannot handle 3-2 pull down, it also means the PAL 2-2 pull down maybe lacking as well.

If you want to check out any display's ability to handle PAL film 2-2 motion artifacts, put in Region 2 PAL DVD, Armogeddan (the Bruce Willis, comet-hit-the-earth movie)

This movie is a torture test for PAL 2-2 pull down, the director likes to move his camera a lot, and you know it means lots of motion artifacts.

The easiest one is when Bruce and Liv Taylor were brought to NASA, the beginning of the chapter we see the camera moves in on NASA building, motion artifacts galore!! Of course if you use a good progressive 576p DVD, try switching between the 576i and 576p input, and you will see.

So I guess my decision on a PJ will either be the 7700, Tosh 700 or the Sony 51. I do like the way the BenQ has the cool senseye feature. Of course it could be a gimmick and until more new owners get a chance to post we won't know. I just hope there is not a HDMI problem with this or the Tosh. I will be using the HDMI almost exclusively. I have an Onkyo SP1000 and the TX NR1000 and a HDTIVO and finally a DVHS JVC HM5 U. My main concern is that I go thru my TX NR1000 HDMI out. Anyway, it seems that either of these PJs will get the job done. I will be sitting back 23-25 feet (back row), on a 110" 16:9 screen. I am lucky knowing that I have the luxury of waiting (basement is not done yet) and seeing what the general feeling is on these PJs. And who knows, there may end up being a newer PJ released soon to that will confuse me even more...

I have had the PE7700 for a week now. Due you have to set back that far??? After getting my PJ the first thing that I and the wife noticed is the quality of the picture, and the virtual lack of any artifacts like blocking, motion ect.......... I am throwing a 106 diag and the wife is moving the seating forward. My front row of club chairs is now at 11ft and the main couch (on a 9"platform) at 14'.

The quality of the PJ allows US to sit a little closer than we originally thought but seating distance is a personal, preference, but a little closer sure makes for a Big screen movie theater effect and at the distance we are at, I can see no screen door/pixels ect...............

I personally think BenQ hit just what they were AIMING for by using their own chip.(I don't think it's just marketing trick) A RIGHT out of the box HIGH quality picture that gives great contrast WITHOUT THE USER(ME) needing a degree in electronics to get a good picture. NO MEES ON FUSS!!!!!! I still might go adjusting later as I learn more but it nice to have such a great picture in the mean time.

I am sure BQ won't win any friends of the people who make living adjusting HT projectors, but from my point of view THAY HIT A HOME RUN for us guys who have no TIME to learn a new trade as a Tech.

JMO

I may change the wall some and make it 17-20 feet back. That would put us a little closer. The BenQ does seem like the front runner. If someone sheds more light on HDMI situation that would help. Also, with the infamous RBE effect, do folks that see them do it that far back? I was under the assumption that they were harder to see on a PJ.

joerod -- I tend to agree with Kysersose, the RBE is way overblown, especially with 4x wheels. I'm sensitive to any kind of motion related artifacts. I've seen both the IF4805 and IF7205 and I didn't see any RBE regardless of how close I got to the screen.

However, there is one motion artifact that did bother me and that was motion blur (when the camera pans quickly over a background scene). This "panning" artifact is related to both the quality of the source material and the display. This artifact is worse on DLPs than it is on LCD PJs, apparently due to the way the panels respond to the panning motion signal.

From what I've been able to find (read), the PE7700 and its Tosh MT700 cousin, seem to have less of this than the Infocus family (and its relations). But it is not eliminated. The perception of this motion artifact can be somewhat reduced by sitting further back, but that should not effect where you put your seats. Of, course, you may not be sensitive to this type of artifact (it effects some people more than others).

checklst stated that he didn't see any motion artifacts with his PE7700, which is a real plus for this PJ. He's sitting at 11' (front row) from a 106" diagonal (92" width) screen (about 1.5 x screen width).

Ultimately, how far you sit from your screen will depend on how far you like to sit from the screen in a movie theater, provided it's more than 1.3 x to 1.5 x times your screen width.

Besides 16:9 DVD's I am watching a lot of sports on 4:3 mode and my plan is to use the 1:1.37 zoom of the 7700 to fill in a 4:3 sreen by enlarging the image and "throwing" the side bars out of the screen. My question is: with a "0" offset, when you enlarge the image with the use of the zoom on the lens, how does the image get bigger, to which direction? Does the offset remain "0"? Meaning - as I hope - the image gets bigger only on the sides and to the one of the horizontal sides? (as I would have the pj ceiling mounted, I would hope the image gets bigger towards the sides and the bottom part of the screen)
Thxs!

Greetings, with the 0 offset the BenQ 7700 wants its lens to be even with the top of your screen. If you are off by 5 inches (center of lens below your top of screen) that you mention, you will have a minor amount of keystoning. However, that is really pretty close. I would expect that (depending on whether your lens is zoomed in, out or somewhere in the middle, the image on the top of the screen will be between 1 and two inches wider than at the bottom of the screen. (I'm assuming a 100" screen). Since most screens have a border at least 2 inches wide, you will simply have a little bit of the picture hitting the black around your screen. You shouldn't notice it.

As to whether you can get the image on to the top art of the screen, virtually all ceiling mounts allow you to tilt the projector a little, so no problem there.

If you are a perfectionist, you'll need a projector with variable lens shift, or a perfect mounting scenario. But for most of us looking for a great image, your situation should be just fine with the 7700. On my own system with a BenQ 8700+ my projector is mounted about 4" higher than ideal, (so I have the reverse - wider at the bottom). I find it a non issue, the screens black border does the job.

On the other hand, the 7700 is awesome, and I don't believe the Sony comes close for overall viewing pleasure. (Don't tell'm I said that on the Sony forum - I don't need any hate mail.

Art, are you saying that you view your image as a trapezoid (cut off to be square) instead of using keystone correction? (I'm assuming keystone correction is available)

Somehow, I think I'm misunderstanding your post...

Yes I do, its a very slightly trapezoidal, and the black frame hides it. My image at the top of my screen is just over 1" narrower than at the bottom. That's tiny on a screen that's 121" wide. While that little keystoning Might be detectable, I'm set so that I perfectly fill the screen at the top, and by the time the image gets to the bottom, I'm putting 1/2" of image on the black of the screen's border on each side. You don't see anything there so it's just not detectable.

I find that infinitely better than turning on keystone correction which definitely degrades the image. I don't think anyone should worry about being slightly trapazoidal, certainly if the difference is only around 1% or so.

Hope that helps.

I can't even imagine viewing some video with vertical lines, and having them be angled... IMO, anything is better than that, including keystoning.

To each his own, I guess..

Could anyone with a 7700 experience throw some light on the following?

Besides 16:9 DVD's I am watching a lot of sports on 4:3 mode and my plan is to use the 1:1.37 zoom of the 7700 to fill in a 4:3 sreen by enlarging the image and "pushing" the side bars out of the screen.

My question is: with a "0" offset, when you enlarge the image with the use of the zoom on the lens, how does the image get bigger, to which direction? Does the offset remain "0"? Meaning - as I hope - the image gets bigger only on the sides and to the one of the horizontal sides? (as I would have the pj ceiling mounted, I would hope the image gets bigger towards the sides and the bottom part of the screen)

Thxs

Ah, thank's Art.
I'm a bit of a perfectionist if it comes to screen geometry. Almost every CRT TV i had i corrected settings in the service menu to get the best geometry and convergention . So, if i wan't to watch the movie... that needs to be near-perfect .
Keystoning is te last thing i wan't to introduce to the image.

Do's the Toshiba TDPM700 have the same lens offset as the BenQ? Or could that PJ be an option for me with the lens center a bit below the top of the active screen part?

I'm using a 92" diag. screen, almost 10' between screen and PJ, so i need a bit of zooming, about 1.2x, to fill that screen if the Projector calculator is right . The seat's are straight under the PJ.

Both have the same offset, zero.

cologne -- The zero offset is maintained for all zoom settings of the lens.

Good to hear the senseye is doing something. I still think it may be good to do a bit of tweaking (playing around) is a good thing to do.

In many of our home theaters we have a hung ceiling in the basement and the zero image offset will mean being aware of your head and projector. Ideally you want your eye level to be between 1/3 to 1/2 up from the bottom of the viewing surface. Keystoning causes spherical distortions that can not be mathematically remedied resulting in a loss of detail. I also cannot imagine trapezoidal image viewing. I may have to modify my mount design to accomodate a longer range of movement for this projector.

With the different release dates in different countries. It is based on what the person in charge of the market in your country is doing with it. Some have to bid on how many units for that particular country. There is different packaging requirements ... ie .. in Canada the french language has to be incorporated in the packaging to meet the laws for both English and French.... At times it becomes a fairly expensive exercise if large quantities are not commited.

Robert

Just to clarify, you perfectionists notwithstanding, I don't think the marjority of us can even detect a trapezoid where the length of the short side of the image (top or bottom), is within 1 or 2 % of the length of the long side. You sure aren't going to see it on a basketball.... Remember if you put up a 4:3 image and have it stretched to 16:9, your stretch is 33.33% - So I'm talking say 1/20 or 1/30 of that amount of distortion.

I still recommend that if you have to mount so that you have as small a difference as I suggest, you'll never notice, especially with the border of the screen hiding any overshoot -be it top or bottom.

Now if you buy into my argument, it lets you mount a few inches higher or lower than 0 offset. On a 100" screen, I'd say +/- 6 inches is probably about 2% but I haven't tried actually figuring it out, just guessing based on eyeballing my own setup.
Turning on the digitial keystone correction is what you want to avoid. -art

Separately mandarax suggests eye level to be between 1/3 and halfway up. Technically you should be eyelevel to the center, anything else and your eye is closer or further to the top or bottom.... Which again creates a form of distortion in that, if you sit low, an object at the top of the screen would appear fractionally smaller than the same object at the bottom. This could be every bit as great the trapezoid effect just discussed. I guess you could even have one sort of compensate for the other.

In my setup, I use reclining captains chairs, and the bottom of my screen is about 1 foot ABOVE eye level. Yet no one has complained. I recommend you be more concerned about comfort of the seating position - if you have to tilt your head up to watch, that could be fatiguing. My seats solve that problem perfectly. -art

Presenter

I have been carefully following your reports regarding dealing with the Zero offset...the one thing keeping me from buying either the BQ7700 or the MT700.

In my present setup I have an 8 ft ceiling and a 92" dia screen mounted with the bottom at eye level. Seems ok... perhaps a little high when reclined in the couch/recliner. Screen surface is 40 in from floor and 11 in from ceiling.

However my new house will have a 9 ft ceiling in the dedicated HT so the screen should be 23 in or more from the ceiling meaning the PJ must be the same creating a hazard in a dark room.

Any suggestions short of sticking with a PJ that has offset.

Will you have guests over often who are 7 feet tall? I don't know the layout of your room, but with the projector at 7ft I doubt you will have a hazard because nobody should be tall enough to hit their heads on it. Also, if it is suspended over a couch or something else, it won't be in a place where someone could stand anyways.

None 7 ft but back row raised 1 ft so as you suggest I will have to locate PJ over the first row to clear the 6 fotters as they go in/out of back row.

Back to the layout plan again.

The projector should be placed even with the top of the screen...That is with the projector mounted from the ceiling? My question really is, if the projector is table mounted, then it should be placed even with the bottom of the screen?

Yes, the zero degree offset applies to wherever it is placed. The image will begin even with the lens of the projector and go upwards. When ceiling mounted the PJ is upside down and the image is flipped with a menu setting. So, the offset doesn't change depending on where it is mounted.

Take a look at the attachment ... I am suggesting that a trapezoid is worse than being a bit off on the height of the screen... If done properly you will not have an image on the screen look smaller at the top or bottom of the screen. Put up a test pattern and see for yourself. If the projector is properly set up images will appear the same size at the top and bottom of the screen. Just because someone is suggesting how not to do it does not make them a perfectionist. They are simply offering their opinion which differs from yours.

Robert

mandarax -- Get real! That picture is no argument. Art is talking about 1%, not the 40% trapezoid that your picture represents.

Question on PE7700 ceiling-mount as it relates to projected image.

I plan to convert my bonus room into my HT. It's a room above the garage with a gable at one end. Though large, the back half of the room's walls and ceilings form an A-frame with a chopped-off top, giving me a 2-foot ceiling gap. The walls go 45-deg from the ceiling to mid-height, with the ceiling height being 8 feet. A crude drawing of the whole room, looks like this, with the described A-frame in the middle.

____________ (ceiling)
| / \\ |
| | | |
-------------------- (floor)

I want to mount the PJ in the A-frame part of the room. How far back can I install THIS PJ so the angled walls do NOT crop the image? I want to get at least a 100" screen, hopefully 120". Can I do this? Seating will be about 12 feet back from the screen. Thanks!

Sorry the crude drawing did not work out. Please look at

http://trifs.dyndns.org/a-frame.jpg

for a small image of what I'm trying to portray.

My trapezoid was running about 1/2 inch on a 106 diag screen size. It's one of those things you won't notice unless you point it out, or have a straight edge that's not black. I would have never caught the slight trap I was throwing until I got out my tape measure. Art brings up a good point that a vary small % trapezoid to screen size will not be seen by most.

I was not trying to say everyone should set up a trapezoid, it best to avoid, I was just merely pointing out its one of the many possibility to consider when setting up a zero offset PJ, that you can fudge a little and their not harm your viewing pleasure.

Zilla -- According to the (MT700) manual, the PE7700 should be between 11.5 and 15.6 feet back from a 120", diagonal, screen. For a 100" screen, the distance is 9.6 to 13 feet.

Calculating the other way, If you put your mount at 13', you can fill anywhere from a 100" to a 135" diagonal screen (16:9 screens in both cases).

checklst -- Exactly. I've done that with my L300 LCD PJ and haven't noticed any distortion on my 106" screen (with a SMALL amount of tilt of the PJ).

Zilla - this may help you also...

http://www.projectorcentral.com/BenQ...ulator-pro.htm

CT_Wiebe... the attachment was only a depiction of a trapezoid and its effects on the image.. You do not get this effect by lowering or raising your eye level as was suggested...

Robert

Saw the Mits900 today. Nice... might be my alternative as I was told today that infact BW aus have 2600 8700+ units in stock, and at the rate they are sold in Aus, that equates to about 3-4 months before the 7700 is released.... but thats on the assumption they will wait till the 8700 is sold out (makes sense given the difference in pricing).

I will be wanting to make my purchase in under 2 months and only watch SD PAL... and at about 1k cheaper, I think the Mits it is for now anyways :-)

Thanks. Yes I'm aware of the screen calculation programs so I do know that I'll have to put the PJ at least 12 feet back to get the desired screeen size. This puts the PJ into the A-frame part of my room. So my question remains, how far back into the A-frame can I mount the PJ BEFORE it crops the image?