or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP › Infocus IN72-IN74-IN76
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Infocus IN72-IN74-IN76 - Page 6

post #151 of 4267
What's the street on Pixelworks versus the chips Infocus currently using in 4805? Is this new IF PJ going to use the vibrating DMD to get 720P? (Wobulation I think it was called).

I too got my 4805 from that vendor online unnamed as part of first shipment. Late June. I believe Kraz about IF release cycle, I delayed my purchase 6 months waiting on IF to ship 4805. Thankfully its still great so I can't take my time on upgrade.
post #152 of 4267
I'm not aware of the use of wobulation on front projections, so I don't know why people keep bring it up. There are many 720p DLP under $3k now (and under 2k soon maybe) so there's no need to cut corners by using wobulation.

Infocus and Optoma use Pixelworks chip for awhile now (in some cases, Infocus uses faroudja for deinterlacing and pixelworks for scaling, but not in the 4805). I don't believe the older pixelworks chips compared well to the Faroudja, but their new DNX is new and could be as good as Faroudja, but I guess we'll find out for sure in a few months.
post #153 of 4267
Thread Starter 
The Play Big IN72, IN74EX and IN76 are finally on the Infocus website!
post #154 of 4267
Are these capable of picture in a picture or split screen?
post #155 of 4267
Hello,

I'm back from CES and am working hard to get these projectors into production as soon as possible. If you have any technical questions I will try to answer them. In the mean time here is the Excel-based projection calculator for the 3 new models.

 

IN72-74-76 calculator - English.zip 10.3564453125k . file
post #156 of 4267
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Williams View Post

If you have any technical questions I will try to answer them.

Hey Bob!

Thanks for the calculator!

And congratulations on the new lineup. It looks very exciting!!

Most people here have three outstanding questions (the first is not technical):

1. When!!??

2. What are the noise levels?

3. Please explain the advantages of Pixelworks vs Faroudja and "2D" vs "3D".

Thanks again!!
post #157 of 4267
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zh.guitar View Post

Are these capable of picture in a picture or split screen?

Like any other projector, they are merely display devices. They will reproduce whatever is sent to them; if the signal generated by your receiver, STB, etc. has PIP, then that's what it will display.
post #158 of 4267
Thread Starter 
Bob Williams' new screen calculator for the Play Big series reveals the following offsets. All are less than the SP4805 with the IN74EX and IN76 being about half!
Code:
IN72     27.67%
IN74EX   14.72%
IN76     15.59%
post #159 of 4267
Bob,

Why are the lens throws so short on the model 74 and 76? Some of us want to use 2.35:1 screens and the anamorphic lenses need as long a throw as possible so as not to have image cropping, pin and barrel distortions, and chromatic artifacts. A throw ratio of 1.50:1 is the bare minimum for the Prismasonic horizontal lenses, for instance. Having the lens inset doesn't help any either.

Will all three models have the proper 2.35:1 stretch mode with no image cropping needed for anamorphic lens usage on all video resolutions (from 480i to 1080p)?

Will your Pixelworks scaler properly "weave" 1080i signals, and not "bob" those signals to 540p (you only get half the vertical resolution of the original signal by bobbing 1080i) before conversion to the native resolution of the panels? That is an issue with many HDTV's internal scalers on the market.

Will your new projectors accept all forms of 1920x1080p signals from the new Blu-Ray and HD-DVD format players (those that properly output 1080p video, that is)?

Will the optic pathway, DLP chip and color wheel, and lens assembly, etc. all be sealed for no dust blob issues?

Thanks!

Dan
post #160 of 4267
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavu View Post

Bob Williams' new screen calculator for the Play Big series reveals the following offsets. All are less than the SP4805 with the IN74EX and IN76 being about half!
Code:
IN72     27.67%
IN74EX   14.72%
IN76     15.59%

cavu

I was an English major - no math skills. So am I correct in stating that the IN76, when compared to the 4805 using same size screen (92" for example) will sit closer to the screen and the screen will be closer to the ceiling given the smaller offset. If so, then for me that is great. I can go to 106" and still keep my line of vision 1/3 up the screen.
post #161 of 4267
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by therealgeno View Post

am I correct in stating that the IN76, when compared to the 4805 using same size screen (92" for example) will sit closer to the screen and the screen will be closer to the ceiling given the smaller offset.

Yes.
post #162 of 4267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Williams View Post

Hello,

I'm back from CES and am working hard to get these projectors into production as soon as possible. If you have any technical questions I will try to answer them. In the mean time here is the Excel-based projection calculator for the 3 new models.

Any reviews on tap that you know of for the 76?
post #163 of 4267
the offset is actually great news for me, my setup is closer to the ceiling so right on.

now i just have to see if i can talk the wife into a 106" screen upstairs. LOL. otherwise, i'll have to put her downstairs on my 92, which i guess in the long run would be just fine. put less hours on her that way i suppose.
post #164 of 4267
The 15% offset on the IN76 is very good news! It's also perfectly logical, considering most people tend to use larger screens with 720p PJs.

Why other manufacturers insist on implementing large offsets on higher resolution projectors just doesn't make any sense to me. The most puzzling example of this is the Optoma HD81. Why you would make a 1080p superbright projector (an absolute perfect fit for large screen applications common to the high end buyers likely to be your market), and then throw a 27% offset on the thing, is a complete mystery to me.

I had decided a while ago that I might just buy a new bulb for my 4805 in a few months and forego any upgrade until DC3 720p projectors hit the $2k mark. After all, DVDs comprise 90% of my viewing and I'm still extremely satisfied with the 4805's image. At this point however, I'm thinking "screw that plan"! All this talk has given me the upgrade itch and I'm thinking I'll pull the trigger around June.....if the prices pan out as predicted.

Jeff
post #165 of 4267
Bob - thanks for dropping in!

Was anything done to minimize or eliminate color wheel contamination from the outgassing of the plastic lamp housing?

What performance improvements (if any) are you seeing in these PJs vs the older DC2 projectors?

The lumen spec states "1000 ANSI Max". (Heh, how'd you tweak another 250 lumens out of a bulb with the same wattage as the 4805's! ) I assume that's high power mode. What's the lumen spec for low power? Is it 800?

Thx
Jeff
post #166 of 4267
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKB View Post

The lumen spec states "1000 ANSI Max". I assume that's high power mode. What's the lumen spec for low power? Is it 800?

The low/high power lumen settings on the new projectors are:
Code:
IN72     720/900 lumens
IN74EX   800/1000 lumens
IN76     800/1000 lumens
post #167 of 4267
Do these have sealed optics?
post #168 of 4267
Thanks Bob for providing the calculator.

Will the IN76 use the same mounting configuration/screw pattern that holds the 4805 to the mount or will us 4805 owners have to get a new mount ?

I'd like to be able to use my present mounting location and from the throw distance #'s that have been released, I figure that I'll be okay, but I know that the IN76 is a bit larger than the 4805. I would prefer to use no keystone correction, but I imagine that the lens will not be in the same location once the IN76 is mounted.

Is it possible to shed some light on the differences between the 4805 and the IN76 with regards to lens placement. In other words, using my present mounting location, how far off of the centerline of the 4805's lens would the IN76's lens be ?

In simpler terms, basically what I'm asking is "will upgrading to the IN76 necessitate a change in mounting location and require a new mount" ?


Thanks again Bob for any further help you can provide us.


Unfortunately for me, I don't have Excel, just the Excel viewer and it will not allow me to change any info to see how the IN76 will work in my situation.

Presently I have the 4805 around 18'4" from the lens to the screen. My screen is 105" wide/120.5" diagonal. Gain is estimated to be 3 for the SilverStar.

Would somebody be kind enough to punch in my screen info and post the results ?

Thanks
post #169 of 4267
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by smithfarmer View Post

will upgrading to the IN76 necessitate a change in mounting location and require a new mount?

Yes and yes.

The INxx lens offset is only 51.5mm left of centre versus 65mm on the SP4805. The hole mounting pattern of the INxx series is different than the SP4805.

For a 105" wide screen, the short throw mounting distance is 13.39' and the long throw is 16.98'.

BTW, your brightness would be 55.7fL in low power and 69.7fL in high power! Yikes! Sunglasses required.
post #170 of 4267
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavu View Post

Yes and yes.

The INxx lens offset is only 51.5mm left of centre versus 65mm on the SP4805. The hole mounting pattern of the INxx series is different than the SP4805.

For a 105" wide screen, the short throw mounting distance is 13.39' and the long throw is 16.98'.

BTW, your brightness would be 55.7fL in low power and 69.7fL in high power! Yikes! Sunglasses required.

Thank you cavu for taking the time to input the #'s and post the results for me. It's very much appreciated. Looks like I'll need an ND4 for the 76.
post #171 of 4267
Voice added to the chorus asking about squeeze/stretch for CIH setup with horizontal expansion lens.

Am I calculating correctly that for the IN76 the throw ratio is only about 1.5 without zoom, and 2.0 with full zoom?
post #172 of 4267
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimB View Post

Am I calculating correctly that for the IN76 the throw ratio is only about 1.5 without zoom, and 2.0 with full zoom?

The throw ratios were posted a week ago in this same thread but the numbers Bob used in the calculator for the IN74EX and IN76 are slightly different than those published numbers.
post #173 of 4267
Quote:
Originally Posted by therealgeno View Post

cavu

I was an English major - no math skills. So am I correct in stating that the IN76, when compared to the 4805 using same size screen (92" for example) will sit closer to the screen and the screen will be closer to the ceiling given the smaller offset. If so, then for me that is great. I can go to 106" and still keep my line of vision 1/3 up the screen.

i got to thinking about this, and cavu's reply "yes"

closer to the ceiling with it being ceiling mounted right?

not right side up table mounted, that would be a larger offset, right?
post #174 of 4267
1. When!!??

All I can say is that we'll be done when we're done, and that the information given out at CES for availability is not unreasonable in my opinion.


2. What are the noise levels?

We have chosen once again not to publish our actual noise testing results because the ISO standard test that we use is not the same as other manufacturers methodology so from a marketing standpoint we may look worse than we really are. However, as it stands right now the IN72, IN74, and IN76 comprise the 2nd quietest product line we have ever designed, and far quieter than the SP4805. The quietest of our products is still the SP777, but that's not a product aimed at the people visiting this forum. Our number 1 technical priority for the new product line was acoustic noise performance. The system has been designed from the bottom up, including all new color wheel designs and low-noise fans, to produce the least noise possible at this price point.


3. Please explain the advantages of Pixelworks vs Faroudja and "2D" vs "3D".

This is a complex question with mutliple viewpoints so I will probably clarify some of the points later. There are 3 technical reasons for the move away from Faroudja.

- The Faroudja deinterlacing solution for projectors has fallen behind the times in that it cannot do advanced deinterlacing for high resolution interlaced sources such as 1080i. The Pixelworks deinterlacer does not have this limitation.

- The Faroudja chip requires the use of relatively old video decoders because of very tight timing requirements and therefore we have always been forced to use an 8-bit video decoder with it. For the Pixelworks solution we are using a brand new 10-bit video decoder.

- InFocus has a very good relationship with Pixelworks since the company was formed by former InFocus employees and it resides about a mile away from our headquarters in Oregon. This allows us to have quick turnaround for any issues we are seeing, allows us to access the full performance of the hardware in the shortest time period, and lets us have some say in their future roadmap of offerings.

The two deinterlacers have very similar performance. They are both pixel-based motion compensated deinterlacers with film cadence detection and low angle interpolation for video sources. Using various deinterlacer "torture" tests available such as the HQV or Video Essentials (and Peter Finzel's disc for PAL) discs Faroudja wins some tests and Pixelworks others, but the differences are minor. That is, until you switch to 1080i where we are forced to do simple bob deinterlacing with the Faroudja part and Pixelworks wins hands down.

The difference between 2D and 3D comb filters is that 2D filters look at a single frame whereas 3D filters look at multiple frames (the 3rd dimension is time). Comb filters reduce the image artifacts associated with composite video sources but have no effect on any other sources. In general, 3D comb filters are necessary to elimate the color moire in high frequency details and 2D comb filters are good enough to elimate all the other artifacts such as dot crawl. The IN72 and IN74 have 2D comb filters and the IN76 has a 3D comb filter. There are many good internet references on the subject of comb filters, so I won't say any more on this subject.
post #175 of 4267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Williams View Post

2. What are the noise levels?

We have chosen once again not to publish our actual noise testing results because the ISO standard test that we use is not the same as other manufacturers methodology so from a marketing standpoint we may look worse than we really are. However, as it stands right now the IN72, IN74, and IN76 comprise the 2nd quietest product line we have ever designed, and far quieter than the SP4805. The quietest of our products is still the SP777, but that's not a product aimed at the people visiting this forum. Our number 1 technical priority for the new product line was acoustic noise performance. The system has been designed from the bottom up, including all new color wheel designs and low-noise fans, to produce the least noise possible at this price point.

Bob, thanks much for your responses thusfar. I have a question regarding the operating altitude spec on the IN76, which the PDF states to be limited at 7,500' above sea level. I live at 7,600' and am wondering what that means for this PJ. Can I use it and just expect a reduced bulb life, or am I going to risk having some sort of other thermal breakdown problems? Does the IN76 have a variable fan speed for higher altitudes, and if so, how much louder is that than the normal fan noise?

RIght now I run a Panasonic on low lamp mode (92" screen, light controlled room, don't really need the lumens) and high fan speed for the altitude, and find the noise to be basically a non-issue. It's *significantly* quieter than the 7210 I demoed, enough to help sway the purchase decision. My concern is that, given the 7,500' limit listed, I'll either have to crank up the IN76's fan so high that it sounds like a 7210, or I won't be able to use it at all.

Thanks,
Sean
post #176 of 4267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Why are the lens throws so short on the model 74 and 76? Some of us want to use 2.35:1 screens and the anamorphic lenses need as long a throw as possible so as not to have image cropping, pin and barrel distortions, and chromatic artifacts. A throw ratio of 1.50:1 is the bare minimum for the Prismasonic horizontal lenses, for instance. Having the lens inset doesn't help any either.

We responded to users' concerns that the previous throw ratios we had in our products were too long. In general, the shorter the throw, the more rooms the projector will fit into.
Quote:


Will all three models have the proper 2.35:1 stretch mode with no image cropping needed for anamorphic lens usage on all video resolutions (from 480i to 1080p)?

The "Letterbox" resizing mode can be used for anamorphic lenses. This mode chops the top and bottom 1/8 of the image off and stretches the remaining image to fit the 16:9 display. Typically it would be used for non-anamorphic DVDs but it stretches anamorphic content the same amount that an anamorphic lens should unstretch it. It works the same way for all input types.
Quote:


Will your Pixelworks scaler properly "weave" 1080i signals, and not "bob" those signals to 540p (you only get half the vertical resolution of the original signal by bobbing 1080i) before conversion to the native resolution of the panels? That is an issue with many HDTV's internal scalers on the market.

Yes. Not only will it properly deinterlace film-sourced content at all resolutions, it will also smartly deinterlace video based content to reduce jagged edges.
Quote:


Will your new projectors accept all forms of 1920x1080p signals from the new Blu-Ray and HD-DVD format players (those that properly output 1080p video, that is)?

Yes. They all accept 1080p at 60 Hz and 24 Hz.
Quote:


Will the optic pathway, DLP chip and color wheel, and lens assembly, etc. all be sealed for no dust blob issues?

The optical engines are dust resistant with all major dust paths gasketed. This is a great improvement over the SP4805 but the engines are not completely sealed.
post #177 of 4267
Where does the projector (76) vent (back, bottom)? How close to a back wall can the projector be mounted hanging from a ceiling mount about 12" below the ceiling?

Thanks
post #178 of 4267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tnedator View Post

Any reviews on tap that you know of for the 76?

I do not know of any in-depth review yet. Review units have only just gone out, so the reviews you are likely to see at this time are the ones based on demos that our sales force has been giving.
post #179 of 4267
Thanks for the info Bob, as usual. Two quick questions:

1. Will there be a separate video dvi setting (instead of having to adjust RGB gains/offsets)?

2. Will the IN76 be able to sync at either 48Hz or 72Hz?
post #180 of 4267
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKB View Post

Was anything done to minimize or eliminate color wheel contamination from the outgassing of the plastic lamp housing?

Yes. The lamp housing in the new line is aluminum which does not outgas.

Quote:


What performance improvements (if any) are you seeing in these PJs vs the older DC2 projectors?

The biggest change is the pricing for the 576p and 720p units. The contrast is also higher than our previous DC2 products. And the new case design allows for a more home-optimized product. There are no longer any screens to clean, the units are very quiet, and the light leakage is minimized.

Quote:


The lumen spec states "1000 ANSI Max". (Heh, how'd you tweak another 250 lumens out of a bulb with the same wattage as the 4805's! ) I assume that's high power mode. What's the lumen spec for low power? Is it 800?

The lumens scale with lamp power so for a 200 watt lamp at 1000 lumens you get 800 lumens at 160 watts.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP › Infocus IN72-IN74-IN76