or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › Runco vx5000d w/ Cinewide
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Runco vx5000d w/ Cinewide  

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
Any Runco owners out there with this new feature?

My 5000d w/ Cinewide came in last week, and I must say this thing is truly stunning (but the price was brutal). The unit comes with an ISCO anamorphic lens which sits in front of the regular lens. Full height 2.35 is truly astonishing. I've never been so engrossed in a front-projected image.

The lens configuration looks kind of like the picture of the MBX-1 - a heavy steel plate is screwed to the bottom/top of the projector and a special mount holds the lens in place.

I haven't even seen the picture yet on a good screen. I am waiting on an installer and am just throwing the picture on drywall in a room 15' wide by 20' deep. I've moved from a Mits 65" Diamond and just can't believe what I've been missing....

I don't think Runco has been shipping with Cinewide feature for very long so not sure how many people may own this piece.
post #2 of 22
We have installed a significant number of these (including the first, second and third). We have the 5000d Cinewide in our showroom (about to be swapped for the VX2C auto wide). The projection system has been available for about a year now but it is only within the past couple of months its availability has been generally announced to their dealer network. The picture is stunning (IMHO)
post #3 of 22
has anybody used this with the .8 lens? If so, can the projector go at the bottom of screen with it?
post #4 of 22
Thread Starter 
This is my first front projector, wish I could have afforded the vx-6c with 2.35 but I don't don't have 120k for that luxury...!

I imagine the difference between projecting on drywall and a Stewart screen will be considerable. I don't see much about Cinewide on Runco's website. I'm glad it caught my eye....

Their scalar works miracles on my laserdisc collection too. Not quite DVD quality of course, but an astonishing improvement.
post #5 of 22
Dizzman ... you'll need to talk to Runco about the .8 lens. Yes, you can mount the projector even with the bottom of the screen; however, the shorter the throw distance the greater the pincushion effect from the lens. At shorter throw distances we use a curved screen. I'd suspect a curved screen would be required with the .8 lens...thus a conversation with your dealer & Runco would be in order.
post #6 of 22
The Cinewide lenses do not work with the .8 lens.

Under a 2.5 throw you should use a masking screen or a curved screen.
post #7 of 22
I just played with this PJ with the DC3 in it for four days at a Canadian show,and it is indeed stunning. We used a 125" diagonal 'Digital Grey Lite' screen I made for the show. Yes. Runco shows with Screen Goo. Why? Because it is a superior image. Enough said.

Once again, as for the PJ: a very, very nice image. Best at the show, in my opinion. The Sony Qualia fell flat on it's face in mid to dark scenes. True HD content didn't do much for that.

We ran 480i into the Runco scaler as a act of pure contempt for HD sources with bad PJ's in front of them. The Runco scaler with a 480i feed ended up having the most vivid, 3-d ,and beautifully delineated image at the show. Take that. :D Gives you an idea of how good that scaler actually is.
post #8 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by KBK
Sony Qualia fell flat on it's face in mid to dark scenes. True HD content didn't do much for that...
Then it wasn't set up well. Black level is not an issue with the Qualia, in my judgment, but there are many settings that need to be properly adjusted for the picture to shine. No consumer projector looks better with HD content. 1080P will do that for you.
post #9 of 22
True. We had all kinds of good video people at the Runco Set-up. To be fair all Sony had..was..Sony people. So sad. Great equipment, in some ways. dumbass people.

But..the facts of the matter are..the Sony Qualia can't do a good 3-d effect in a single given complex CR scene. It falls flat, like all 3 chip devices that use a combining prism. All.

Not one exception have I seen yet. Single chip DLP excels at this particular situation. Too bad it makes up about 40-50% of all frames in film, and (as an educated guess) about 60% of frames are overall..dark ones.

so, does that mean 3 chip devices are bound to suffer 'dimensional' failure in 60% of all given film (DVD or HD, whatever) frames?

In a word?:

Yes.

I personally don't want a large amount of the frames I see in a given movie to look 'flat'. It really makes me rub my eyes, like they are clouding up. bugs me, big time. I'm not defending the Runco 5000, Runco makes three chip too.

I've managed to repair (to an extent) a three chip device, by messing with the optics package, but some issues remain.
post #10 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by KBK
...But..the facts of the matter are..the Sony Qualia can't do a good 3-d effect in a single given complex CR scene. It falls flat, like all 3 chip devices that use a combining prism. All...

Not one exception have I seen yet. Single chip DLP excels at this particular situation...
I'll take that bet. Next time you're on the east coast, I'll show you a three-chip Qualia that does three dimensionality better than anything -- anything -- you've seen (save the 4K Sony SRX-R). All that incredible 1080P resolution is what does it, along with the infinitely subtle shading made possible by the Qualia's xenon lamp. With those advantages, it's then all in the set up, the screen, and the HD feed.
post #11 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by KBK
so, does that mean 3 chip devices are bound to suffer 'dimensional' failure in 60% of all given film (DVD or HD, whatever) frames?

In a word?:

Yes.
I see no reason for this to be the case other than 3 chippers having lower on/off CR at the moment. With 400:1 ANSI CR it is the on/off CR that will limit the instantaneous CR in a lot of these scenes that lean towards dark. I know you've said or implied that on/off CR didn't matter in the past, but some simple math will show how much it effects the instantaneous CR in many scenes when it is under 2k:1.

If what you are talking about with the 3D depth isn't related to instantaneous CR in those scenes, then what is it? Can a G90 give this depth? Okay, that is an obvious one, but leads to why you say it isn't there on 3 chip devices. The 3 chipper I measured would kill a G90 in ANSI CR. It was the on/off CR that was the limitation by far.

Have you seen the Panasonic 7000U? If so, was it in a light controlled environment with an appropriate white level? I bet that one has some great depth at an appropriate viewing ratio with these kinds of scenes after proper calibration and setup. I'll see when I get one.

--Darin
post #12 of 22
I know it's hard or shall we say difficult for the average user..even one of multiple bits of high end gear to understand where I am coming from at times.

I'm not just an end user, who takes a given device and tries to get it to perform.

I take said devices apart and do single cause analysis optical experiments, mechanical experiments and electrical experiments on them, one step, after one step, after one step. Day, after day, after day... ad nauseam. To the point that I might have made 20-50-100 or more incremental small changes in said areas of the given projector.. over a one, two, or three year period. Yes, I need a life.

But on the other hand, I do know what I am talking about in most cases when it comes to the optics of a given device type. Nor do I feel the need to explain exactly what I mean. I'm not here to feed understanding to any given people who might design or produce electronics, and put ideas and understanding on their plate, and thus...money in their pockets. They can do that well enough on their own.

I'm not dismissing, PF, what you have said, at all.

I have seen many scenes in a given 'dynamically' controlled device (ie, AE700, etc) that do fall short of the proper CR, and can write that off to awkward scenes for the iris, and software to deal with. CRT ain't perfect either. I am willing to consider that the scenes I saw with the Qualia are of a similar nature, but..on the other hand.. the situation was consistent with the entire viewing experience with this unit during the time I spent, which amounted to a whole 15 minutes. No matter what exact scene was shown in the HD feed they had. I am ~~~very~~~ familiar with the evidence that is seen when viewing limitations of Optics and how exactly that affects CR. specifically again, ANSI inter-scene CR. According to what I saw, that was it.

The dynamic Iris of the Qualia SHOULD give at a minimum, the life-like capacity a DILA shows in bright scenes, in any given scene on that Qualia. Should. I'm not trashing the Qualia, but merely mentioning the fact that getting perfect ANSI inter-scene CR out of any three chip device that utilizes a combining prism is a very, very tricky act, at best. Who knows exactly what I saw. One viewing is not enough to dismiss the Qualia, even though the evidence I saw speaks the same language as the standard flaw that 3 chip devices have.

I would certainly love to take one apart and see exactly the optical path, design and implementation. That would explain much. That would also explain what it can, or cannot do. Or what it might be capable of, and yes, if re-implemented, or altered.

Perhaps I should start a digital PJ chop shop. I might, but it would be for serious units only. No ****** $3k DLP units (they can be made to look fabulous, but no-one on a $3k budget can afford the work I'd do). $20k and above, only. On the other hand, I don't have the time to pursue such a thing. :)

For example, if enough people asked me to re-build Qualias, 3 chip Runcos, 5000c's etc, I would do it. For I'm not going to do just one, and have all the work and energy I've put into understanding how to improve these things be lost out into the world on one single sale. Not a chance. It's like the modded Shanling SACD players, etc. The same thing, but for High-end Digital PJ's. and THAT, my friend, is a entirely different kettle of fish than High End audio mods. Entirely different set of skills, in many/most ways.

Another example.. PF.. I/we design video screen products. Damn good ones. I have been working on, or hsall we properly say, happy enough to use my own experiments in video screen design and stop there, for the past two years now. I've created a screen, that improves ANSI CR by about 25-40%, depending on the given PJ in use. Seriously. I stopped working on it, after making my own. :) a common problem of mine. Not really a problem..but...:

I meet such resitance to ideas I propose, by lunk-headed, idiotic individuals, that I stopped giving a shite and trying. To hell with the people who want a better image, because I'm tired of trying to deal with those who are too mired in their own opinions and mindsets to even have an open thought or two. I always find it odd that they propose to look for the best, but refuse to understand that I might be trying to hand it to them.

But don't mind me, I'm just rambling.... :)
post #13 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by KBK
I am ~~~very~~~ familiar with the evidence that is seen when viewing limitations of Optics and how exactly that affects CR. specifically again, ANSI inter-scene CR. According to what I saw, that was it.
...
but merely mentioning the fact that getting perfect ANSI inter-scene CR out of any three chip device that utilizes a combining prism is a very, very tricky act, at best.
What do you mean by "ANSI inter-scene CR"? I assume you basically made up this term since I don't believe there is such a thing. I'm also guessing it is the same as what I called "instantaneous CR", which is something that is affected by both ANSI CR and on/off CR (as explained pretty well by Bill Cushman in his HS51 review). As I pretty much mentioned, the SIM2 HT500 with an HD2 chip had close to 400:1 ANSI CR. If it had high native on/off CR then it would have very high instantaneous CR even in scenes that are pretty dark. While your comment about combining prisms may be true, I think that the ANSI CR spec and native on/off CR (not counting dynamic irises) give an extremely good indication of how the designers have done with this. And since the on/off CRs on the consumer 3 chip DLPs are not all that great, they have plenty of room to improve there. But, if a super high on/off CR chip could magically be placed into one of those projectors I think the 400:1 ANSI CR number already shows that the rest of the light path would do very well, since 400:1 shows that there is way less washout effect than the top CRTs. It is that dang raised floor (as shown by the on/off CR) that is ultimately the issue IMO.
Quote:
The dynamic Iris of the Qualia SHOULD...
Since the Qualia doesn't have a dynamic iris, are you talking about a future version?

--Darin
post #14 of 22
I was given the impression that it had a dynamic iris. If it doesn't - that would explain the issues I saw. Given being the operative, as I saw that info here on the forum somewhere, many moons ago.

As for the term of 'instantaneous' CR, what's the difference? As long as you get the point. Apparently you have.

Micheal Grant come up with the term and I've been having fun using it ever since. I think he actually said 'intra-scene'.

I'm not trying to be lording here, guys, or to be egotistical. Please understand that. No matter how it may appear in the text of the writing, via your impression of what I write/wrote. I'm trying not to come off that way, but how else do I explain my point of observation and explain my opinion?

As for the on/off vs ANSI and how that affects instantaneous CR, it's a bit of both. The answer is not exclusive to one consideration, in my experience of modification and design work.

Recently a well known company had access to my optical design work concerning some aspects of light boxes..via the good ole' signed NDA. Nothing came of it, but I'm a bit miffed and upset, because the only logical path for them to pursue after seeing it.. is to walk down the same road in all their new/following work. Definitely not fair. Good for them, but crap for me.
post #15 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by KBK
As for the term of 'instantaneous' CR, what's the difference? As long as you get the point. Apparently you have.
I get it because I understand this stuff and delve into it. ANSI is a standards group. There are billions of frames of information out there and ANSI decided to use exactly one of those billions for a CR test. Applying the term ANSI to any CR that isn't sequential just doesn't make any sense and confuses things IMO.
Quote:
I'm not trying to be lording here, guys, or to be egotistical. Please understand that. No matter how it may appear in the text of the writing, via your impression of what I write/wrote. I'm trying not to come off that way, but how else do I explain my point of observation and explain my opinion?
I don't think that. We are having a discussion. If you want to talk about instantaneous CR, or ANSI inter-scene CR or inter-scene CR or whatever, I was trying to get to what we were discussing here as far as the 3D effect. And if what you are talking about is what these refer to then they are all limited by both (the actual) ANSI CR and on/off CR as I said. And I guess this is where I think calling it "ANSI inter-scene CR" makes things confusing and/or misleading. It makes it sound like ANSI CR is the dominant factor in it when I can show tons of situations with simple math where the actual ANSI CR is not the limiting factor. On/off CR is. Just run some numbers with a 4x4 checkerboard of 0 IRE and 20 IRE with a 3 chip DLP with 400:1 ANSI CR and 1800:1 on/off CR and it will be obvious in no time that the on/off CR is the more limiting factor to that instantaneous CR or inter-scene CR or whatever you want to call it.
Quote:
As for the on/off vs ANSI and how that affects instantaneous CR, it's a bit of both.
They both affect instantaneous CRs across many images as we have discussed. To know which is the limiting factor you have to know both of them as well as the scene. Basically, we have one that is at one extreme and one that is at another since this makes a lot of sense if you want to give the best indication of a whole spectrum with only 2 specs. And in the 3rd spec (lumens) and you can get a lot of information about light levels and instantaneous ratios.
Quote:
The answer is not exclusive to one consideration, in my experience of modification and design work.
Which makes perfect sense. They can each be limiting factors. Improve one enough and the other now limits you at times. Getting the ultimate requires extending both so that they don't limit difficult scenes too much.
Quote:
Recently a well known company had access to my optical design work concerning some aspects of light boxes..via the good ole' signed NDA. Nothing came of it, but I'm a bit miffed and upset, because the only logical path for them to pursue after seeing it.. is to walk down the same road in all their new/following work. Definitely not fair. Good for them, but crap for me.
Sorry to hear that.

BTW: The reason I use instantaneous instead of inter-scene is because scenes can be frames or multiple frames in succession (like a director shooting a whole scene). Inter-scene CRs get a whole lot more complicated (especially with dynamic irises) because time is involved and the complication of lots of different images. To me "instantaneous" is non-ambiguous.

BTW2: I refer to the quote in your signature sometimes. That is a good one.

--Darin
post #16 of 22
The day a PJ shows me (creates within) specular effects in my eye-k-balls..is the day I'll know projected video actualy does something better than mundane, with a projected image. Of course, the source would have to have the dynamic range within it, as well.
post #17 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by PF
Then it wasn't set up well. Black level is not an issue with the Qualia, in my judgment, but there are many settings that need to be properly adjusted for the picture to shine.
Black level is an issue with the Qualia the same as it is with any other projector that has an On-Off-CR in the 2000:1 region, IF you watch it in a strictly light controlled environment. That's a fact. Claims to the contrary are marketing hype at best...
post #18 of 22
[quote]Originally posted by g2uhlj
[b]Any Runco owners out there with this new feature?

I have the Vx-6c 2.35:1. Just got it 2 weeks ago. It is truly spectacular. One thing that threw me for awhile was the aspect ratio choices can be a little strange. For instance, to watch an old 4:3 movie you choose "anamorphic" as the scaling is undone by the lens. For anamorphic 16x9 movies you also choose this mode, but for anamorphic 2.35:1 movies you chose cinewide. But, in most cases I think I got it now, though anyone with any tips/experience would be appreciated! In particular I think there are two different "virtualwide" modes for stretching images, anyone know what the differences are?

All in all, when watching a good anamorphic 2.35:1 DVD on cinewide, this system just blows me away.
post #19 of 22
Thread Starter 
I'm jealous...the vx-6c is my dream projector but I can't afford it. I like the 1024p output which would eliminate screen door. Still I am thrilled with the 5000d with the Isco-3 lens. Hard to complain about that combo.

I don't know if it's my eyes or what, but I went from a Da-Lite screen to a Stewart. The difference exceeded my wildest expectations. Better blacks, contrast, etc. The blackout felt certainly helps a lot too.
post #20 of 22
Thread Starter 
thegratingone, what kind of VirtualOptions are listed? My vx5000d has VirtualWide 2.35 which is just 16:9 being stretched, then "Cinema" which is the CineWide ratio. I don't stretch or compress normally, I prefer viewing in the proper AR.
post #21 of 22
The Runco VX2 and scaler with motorized lens at HE2005 looked very good, allowing for show conditions, though it needed calibration. A Stewart screen with variable masking added to the effect nicely.

The problem I have, and it's not necessarily serious for those who watch only DVD, is the lack of resolution. The Qualia is noticeably sharper, with better fill factor, for quite a bit less money (I was quoted $51K and $53K for the Runco). In addition, the Qualia's color rendition with its Xenon bulb is more natural -- much more like a CRT than any digital projector I'm aware of.

But with the Qualia, you don't get a turn key constant height, variable width package as you do with Runco. So, big kudos still to them.
post #22 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by mhafner
Black level is an issue with the Qualia the same as it is with any other projector that has an On-Off-CR in the 2000:1 region, IF you watch it in a strictly light controlled environment. That's a fact. Claims to the contrary are marketing hype at best...
For the one millionth time, quoting a contrast ratio number is insufficient to tell the whole story. You must SEE the image. The xenon bulb, extra fill, and especially 2K resolution, compensates for that diminished contrast ratio number in ways that are not apparent by simply reading specs. Set up well, on a large enough screen, the Qualia is very close to a G90 in contrast and naturalness, and exceeds it in resolution and edge to edge uniformity.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › Runco vx5000d w/ Cinewide