Panny AE900 Official Thread- Please post here! - Page 12

There is a separate thread started discussing tweaks for the 900...though no one has posted their settings. There have been some filter discussions.

Ron

hi....does it have a "Full" option, letting you stretch 4:3 material on a 16:9 screen? Toshiba does this very well.

What is the range on the lens shift feature? Can I mount the projector level with the top of the screen, and not have to use keystone adjustments?

Also, is there a manual available for download anywhere? I dont even see the projector listed on Panasonic's website.

I just tried aspect ratio controll with 1280x720@60 input and it looks like it supports native and a horizontal stretching mode like you wanted for 4:3 material. I have no idea how well it works as I won't use it. Unfortunately, that is it and no stretching internally for anamorphic lenses with 720p input.

--Darin

Yes, you can have the projector lens positioned 13% of the screen height above the top of the screen. There's a picture from the original AE900 thread here:




No, but if you download the AE700's manual, it's almost identical.

Regarding sharpness:

I can well beilieve a single chip DLP is sharper since there are no alignment errors. Who here has seen an budget 3 chip LCD projector where all three panels are perfectly aligned?

Secondly, I think I read somewhere that seeing screen door artificially boosts your perception of sharpness - it's similar to how edge enhancement makes you think you're seeing a sharper image.

Certainly when I put a pixel grid up on my AE700, the pixels seem very well defined indeed. What's not so well defined is the screen door - it takes on the colour of the neighbouring pixel.

So could this "sharpness" be simply an artifact of screendoor?

To whatever extent the AE900 is smearing wouldn't you be losing fine image detail that would inhibit the illusion of image depth?

Does this mean that the aspect ratio is not locked when used with upscaling DVD players and HDTV? That is a change from all previous panny models...
-Matt

I am a newbie to Home Theater/ Projectors and have been gathering info from this forum and searching for the projectors for a few months now. I just purchased the AE900 last week and have overloaded on some DVD watching this weekend. The feature main that sold me on the AE900 for me was the ability to zoom and I could set it up on a shelf at the opposite end of the room 19' and get a 80 wide image which was a limiting factor for the room. I was concerned with the noise factor with having a projector on an 8' ceiling above my head but I now don't think that would have been an issue since the AE900 is very quiet / almost silent. I don't have the trained eye but after reading this forum I spent the whole weekend searching for Vertical Banding which I did not see. The only banding if that's what it was, was when I was playing around with the aspect ratio settings while watching the Interpreter in wide screen format. I had it in zoom mode to fit the full screen area and I saw black horizontal lines during action sequences on bright objects. I did not see this in the 16:9 format. As far as picture/ contrast I am projecting on a white wall currently and in a dark room which looks excellent but will evaluate screen or paint choices. I had a hard time convincing myself to spend the extra money for the AE900 vs the AE700 I did get to view both side by side as well as a BenQ 7700 at Tierney Brothers since I live near Minneapolis and the contrast and black levels were not quite as good on the AE700. I have also got and extra set of component inputs and a learning remote for my extra money. I hope to participate more to the forum as I set up the home theater room and build an HTPC as money and time allow. Thanks for the information that is provided by all in the forum.

Yep, but the choice they added was only a horizontal stretch from 4:3 to 16:9. I took a closer look and it looks like it is just a uniform stretch to me. I didn't try 1080i with this, but I'm guessing it has the same two choices as 720p.

--Darin

Personally the SmoothScreen seems to me, as a filmmaker, to greatly contribute to a filmic look to the image without an excessive digital look. On pixel generated material (video, PC, HD), it may have slightly less "snap" but it sure makes film sourced material look incredibly natural.

And I'm suprised how much detail the image reveals just running 480i component from a 8 year old Sony DVD sitting 12ft back from 92" image.

MRJAZZZ,

One of your 900's had some VB issues. Was that also the one that was softer? Thanks in advance.

Thanks. Sorry to belabor the point but can you tell me how the project would handle, if it can at all, the following situations on an upscaling DVD player?

1. 4:3 content - When played through an upscaling player, it stretches it to fill the whole 16:9 panel and everyone is short and fat. Is there a way to make it 4:3 again?

2. Letterbox DVDs - When played through a upscaling player, again, it stretches it to fill the 16:9 panel which makes everyone EXTREMELY short and fat. What is needed here is not just 4:3 but a 4:3 ZOOM. This is available on 480p.

Thanks again.
-Matt

Hmmmm.... MRJAZZZ's comments had me thinking that convergence might be the issue between the sharpness of his two models with the Smoothscreen masking outright objectionable convergence problems but instead manifesting itself as a softness (which I'm sure most users wouldn't complain to Panny about).

However, your comments got me thinking... Would VB be more apparent if convergence was off? You would be able to see the transition from band to band easier... no?
-Matt

I have not noticed any convergence issues,from either mis alignment of panels,or optical problems, on either unit.(I have yet to put up a convergence grid, to really check this out,however). I have had expensive single chip DLP's that have exhibitied optical problems, that manafested itself as a convergence issue. I find that alone(lack of these issues)in such an inexpensive projector quite an acomplishment.

Yes, the sharper of the two units, does in fact also have less VB (almost none), so perhaps there is some correlation there. I put the two units up last night on my larger screen (120" diagonal) and the unit that is softer looking, definatly doesnt look as good, or "clean" looking , at that size.

I continue to be surprised at just how artifact free this projector is. It's combinantion of decent on/off (some where around 2700, in the NORMAL mode, and very satisfactory ansi of over 300 (as measured by DARREN), with it's artifact free picture, is just a very pleasant surprise at this price point. I have had many more expensive projectors, over the past 12 to 18 months, that did not have as nice a picture. Superb buy for the money.

CHEERS, TC

For those who aren't seeing any VB or FPN on their new AE900, I'd be curious what would happen if they fired up an all green (then all yellow and light blue) screen using the projector's OSD (if it's available) or via a PC. Do you still see nothing but a crisp clean screen of color?

VB & FPN is my single most hated attribute of LCD's.

PS: Don't do this unless you #1) really want to prove you don't have VB/FPN or #2) want to see it from here on in.

[EDIT] For anyone discussing smooth screen, don't forget that the smooth screen is not adjustable, and that other projectors can achieve a "similar" effect simply by defocussing. Without smooth screen its up to the individual how "smooth" or how "sharp" you make your projected image, depending on how much you defocus or focus it. With the Panasonic lcd PJ's with smooth screen, if you find the image soft, you can't make it sharper if you want to. I for one am not a fan of smooth screen. Defocussing is a simple operation and produces essentially similar results to smooth screen, and its custom adjustable to suit the individual. I've seen smooth screen in action, and its ok I guess, but not for me.

Bottom line here, I'm not going to say that defocussing is identical to smooth screen. Bottom line is look at a smooth screen projector in action and compare it to one without smooth screen (with the same resolution of course). Remember that if you don't like smooth screen, you can chose a projector without it, and yet if you still see screendoor, you can defocus the image and do very well to remove screendoor. I am not alone in this view. Sorry I made it seem like I thought smooth screen was identical to defocussing. They aren't the same. Dare to compare for yourself. [/EDIT]


The reports about vertical banding are generally not too bad so far. Most report not seeing it, and few report seeing it. Perhaps we should ask that everyone who gets an AE900 (or any new D5 projector for that matter)...take their projector and watch certain movie scene's with shots of blue cloudy sky, shots of the sea, shots of fog, shot of desert or a shot of a single coloured object which takes up most of the screen.

Glad to hear people are enjoying the AE900 so far

I have an Panny L300u (AE300) and have seen other comparable projectors without Smoothscreen and, at least at 960x540 resolution, I can tell you that defocusing and what smoothscreen does is not even close to the same thing. I haven't seen an IMX lens in person but from what I read about what it does and what others have said, I think Smoothscreen would be much more comparable to a fixed setting IMX lens.

Is Smoothscreen for everyone, no. Does it improve picture quality, I think so. Does an IMX lens cost $500+, yes... any many were buying them for their Sony HS51s to make the SDE tollerable! To each one's own. I think it's a heckuva bargain.
-Matt

Thanks to all the members here and their exhaustive efforts in terms of reviewing this new panny. I have have been researching and deliberating the purchase of a projector for over a year.(my wife thinks i'm nuts) I have had my Firehawk screen for over 4 months with nothing throw at it.(unless you count the pathetic business projectors I brought home from work) MRJAZZZ couldn't have said it better......"superb buy for the money!" I am glad I waited a year(things really changed) however I am now looking forward to my new purchase. Thanks again guys!


p.s. I am still going to wait for the PC review.

Ditto your comments about the smoothscreen. I've used a IMX lens with one of my former projectors (Boxlight 13HD). I find the smoothscreen to improve upon what the IMX did for the boxlight. But, as far as a comparison vs defocusing the image...the IMX is a more accurate comparison.

Ron

As has been explained about the IMX in the past, defocussing decreases the MTF in ways that the IMX doesn't and the same applies to Smoothscreen. What this means is that you lose real, distinguishable resolution (lower MTF) when you use defocussing to get the same amount of SDE reduction as these others give. The difference between defocussing a regular projector and the Smoothscreen on the AE900 is pretty clear to me just by looking at small text. While I believe that the Smoothscreen reduces the sharpness, I do not believe it is as much as defocusing would have to do there. Basically what others said.

--Darin

hi....does it have a "Full" option, letting you stretch 4:3 material on a 16:9 screen? Toshiba does this very well.

AE 900 Projector Central Review.

I may have posted incorrect information from a letter I receieved regarding the upcoming review on Projector central stating that there was something wrong with the 900 sample and it was being returned. It seems that Projector Central has asked for second samples to be sure that any strength or weakness is not specific to a sample. They will be doing this because there is such interest in their reviews of these new projectors.

Sorry for any confusion.

About the smoothscreen, could someone post a close up picture to get a good idea as to what to expect ? Video may not show it well but some graphics or text from a PC maybe.

Just wrote to Evan Powell to ask him if he'd identify the problem with the first 900 unit in his review. He asked me to correct the misperception that the first unit had problems.

(Quote)"...the AE900 that I currently have substantially outperforms the AE700 in all respects that I can think of. Reviewed on its own it would get exceptionally high marks.

However, I am planning to make some comparative remarks concerning relative strengths and weaknesses between the AE900, the Sanyo Z4, and hopefully the Mits HC3000. In this three way face-off, all three units have some interesting strengths that trump the other two, and all three have unexpected weaknesses that have surprised me somewhat. But none have been dramatic enough to warrant a return of the sample. To ensure a fair comparison, I have invited the vendors to supply second samples to verify that the first samples are representative of the product's performance. Basically, I am just being extra cautious. If I find any remarkable differences between two samples of the same model, I will note them in the reviews" (end quote).

I'd sure love to see one in action. I'm still a bit sobered by the sudden and significant dimming that occurred at 120 hrs with my 700. I'd simply spring for another lamp if I could know that my case has been an anomaly, and not merely the normal degree of dimming of this particular model of lamp. I can't really justify $350 every 100 hours or so, but damn, that bright 100" image made me feel like a king. Hungering for brightness now, it would be very enlightening to see a side-by-side 700/900 BROKEN-IN brightness comparison. Often, when I hear of a new PJ model making the previous model look weak, I have to wonder how much the fact of the (probably) aged lamp in the previous model, and the blazing newborn lamp in the new one has been taken into account.

KongFan

P.S. Hey all, and especially rwestley, when reviewing this post, I just saw your post addressing the same matter of PC's 900 unit, so I'm being a bit redundant, but I suppose Evan Powell's quote is informative.

I just rented season 1 of the series "Lost". This series has FPN written all over it. Numerious scenes with panning across a light blue sky. Vertical streaks all over the place but especially near the upper, center of the screen. This FPN in my AE900 is absolutely the same as what I saw with my AE700. No improvement whatsoever.

Was there supposed to be some improvement in FPN on the AE900 ?

Does the AE900 use the same ceiling bracket as the 100/300/700?

For those of you that are feeding the AE900 from an htpc via HDMI, are you simply using any video card you happen to have, and setting the resolution to 1280x720? For HD content, do you seen an improvement for HDMI over SVGA?

Thanks.

I also remember the euphoria I had when I got my Z2 2 years ago and how amazingly bright and punchy the image was. Mine also experienced the same plunge in the 100-150 hour mark. All of a sudden, it was dim and you have to use it in high bulb mode to be even remotely acceptable.

If you can't see any improvement then there isn't any.

Disturbing how variable the reports are.... are they unit to unit variations, or simply viewers who don't know what they are looking for? Or are some of the initial no VB/FPN reports based on cherry picked/hand-tweaked units?

- JP

Thanks KongFan for your post regarding the Projector Central review. I received a similar letter. I asked permission to quote it and I just received that permission. I think that a full review should be up in a few days. I am pleased that Projector Central is making the effort to review two samples of each model for their shootout.

"I understand there may be some confusion on AVS Forum regarding my comments to you below. To clarify, I have not returned the AE900, or any sample, due to any problem with it. In point of fact, if the AE900 that I currently have was being reviewed on its own, I would find that it is a substantial improvement over the AE700, and it would receive a very strong endorsement.



The situation is this - in the course of these reviews I am planning to make some comparative remarks concerning relative strengths and weaknesses between the AE900, the Sanyo Z4, and hopefully the Mits HC3000. In this three way face-off, all three units have some interesting strengths that trump the other two, and (since I wrote last) I find that all three have weaknesses that surprise me somewhat. However, none have been dramatic enough to warrant a return of the sample.



Due to the high profile nature of these reviews, and to ensure a fair comparison, I have asked the vendors to supply second samples so that I can verify that the first samples are indeed representative of the product's performance. Basically, I am just being extra cautious before making any public statements. The problems and weaknesses that I alluded to below were in the context of this three-way comparison of three very good products, and none of them rise to the level of a defect in product design. However, I can understand how that may have been construed from the language in my note below. I should have been more careful in setting the entire issue in proper context.



Thanks again for your kind interest in these upcoming reviews. I hope you will find them informative and helpful."