Optoma HD81 1080p DLP official discussion - Page 10

I might even suggest 2000 lumens calibrated so that you could have about 25 ftL at first, which could be reduced with an ND2 until the light output drops naturally to around 12-15 ftL. Of course, this is based on unity gain, and I suppose at that size, you would at least be considering a gain screen.

Come to think of it, with a real-world 2.0 gain screen, you may be very happy with the HD81 just as it is. That would give you about 22 ftL to start if the HD81 calibrates to 900 as TzungILin suggests in an earlier post. You would finally settle at 10-12 ftL after aging, which would be very watchable, I think.

Scott,
I hear ya. I've owned several 1 chip DLP machines, and though I adapt to them in a few weeks, there's no getting around the fact that it's a bit of an effort to watch them... for me. Owning an AE500 has only reinforced that fact. Despite it's major flaws, I can watch all day with no strain at all.

Now the HD81 for me was much easier on the eyes than any other 1 chip machine I've seen, but there's no guarantee that this will not be a problem for you. (Another good one was the LG AN110...)

I have not been reading this thread the last few days so I hope this is not new info...

All you guys that can't get the offset to work in your room might want to consider THIS

Now you just need to convince TzungILin to offer the PJ without a scaler for installations where the offset will not work...or end up with an extra scaler.

PM me and I will give you the address to send your gratitude checks to.

Well my plans ona big screen are that I will use Screen goo sprayed on a perfectly prepared wall with crt white as base and lite grey on top. Accourding to screen goo this will have a gain of 1.6-1.8.

Nevertheless I am currently using for learning purposes an Epson TW-600, which has in the living-room-mode around 600 ansi lumens and in the cinema mods 350 lumens. The picture is not perfect at all and should be brighter, but even though currently I am not using a real screen, but a yellow wall as screen. I am already very impressed by the result of this setup and with a real screen and a pj which is quiet and thorws out double of the light the Epson offers, I think I will be a pretty happy man.

Posted byQQQ

THAT is a very cool solution...unfortunately, it doesn't look like it does 1080P

Here's the Scaler Product Brief

That's somewhat similar to what I do: I use a TW600 as intermediate PJ before getting a sufficiently bright 1080, possiby the HD81, if early enough, or else maybe the Action 1080.

But if in your setup the TW600 in living room mode is not absolutely bright enough, then you can rule out the HD81. The TW600 in living room mode puts out more like 900 lumens, so that should be comparable to the HD81. Don't let yourself be fooled by the HD81's nominal 1,400 lumens. THat's the same what is the Epson's 1,600 lumens.

In my setup with a 165" High Power screen (real gain app. 2.2) the TW600 in living room mode has plenty of brightness, even with enough headroom to allow for some bulb aging. In cinema mode this is not the case, and the picture, while being better colorwise, loses its pop. So I prefer using the living room mode.

Maybe this weekend I can successfuly fight my lazyness and attack the TW600 with my ColorFacts. If so, I'll give some more info.

Falk, that's interesting, especially as I live only 40 minutes away from you in Bruehl. I feel not bad about the living-room-mode as I said, I have to see what screen-goo will do for me as I had difficulties to find reasonable offers for a high-power in Germany in this size. Where did you get yours ?

The TW-600 is not bad, but to loud and screen-door is visiible to much for me. As well sharpness /resolution could be a bit better. The lumens numbers came from the measurements of Audio-Vision-magazine.

I don't know what screen size you are aiming for, but in case it's large, I wouldn't go for screen-goo. In fact I wouldn't go for anything other than a retroreflective screen, which automatically leads to High Power.

The reason you should not go for non-retroreflective high gain material with large screens is that you would get hot spotting, the more gain the more serious. Retroreflective is the perfect solution, provided you can arrange your setup in a way that you can sit "on axis" with the PJ.

The price is not so bad BTW. I paid $1,300 for a 3.66m x 2.60m (165" diagonal using 16:9 format sources) Electrol, i.e. with motor, including shipping to Germany. Add customs and value tax, let's say alltogether you pay $1,700. That's not cheap, but OTOH it's for a really large screen with all comfort.

If you have problems with screen door, I can recommend the IMX lens. You can get it used for app. $350.

If you have uncertainties with respect to such a setup, then you are invited to come to my place and look at it. It's not 40 minutes from Bruehl, if you follow the law, but sure not more than an hour

Rob - what is the geometry of your HT setup?

Screen size
Distance from floor to the bottom of the screen
Distance from screen to 1st row of seats (to the actual viewing position)
Distance from 1st row to 2nd row (from viewing positon to viewing position)


Ron Jones

If anyone thin it might really be an option, I would contact them. I read a blurb that suggested it does do 1080P. There are a bunch oif Realta guys that particpate in the video proecssor forum. Maybe I'll post there and ask. I want to find out price too.

The DragonFly can do that too! I saw a demo in Montreal. Don't know if it does 1080p.

"If anyone thin it might really be an option, I would contact them. "

Don't you end up throwing away a lot of the panels resolution taking that approach?

Shawn

They claim not I believe. The engineer claimed they would place it in a room at an odd angle and it would look better than the same PJ placed correctly due to their superior scaling. I agree, I am skeptical. It sounded ridiculous at first, and still does! But it is Teranex/Silicon Optix so I will give them the benefit of the doubt. I want to learn more about it. It seems to me the technology could be licensed to just about every PJ manufacturer. Being able to stick the projector where ever you want it would be nothing short of incredible. Hell just read this thread!

I still need to go over there and read just exactly what they are doing - I've only skimmed it so far.

Here is a short blurb. They have the manual and everything online there for those that want to read it.

If the upcoming DragonFly also includes Image Anywhere, I know for sure that machine will do 1080P.

Please help me determine if the HD81 will fit in my little HT. Room is 11'x18', actually screen wall is 127.5" wide(current screen is 106" diag 16:9), the room widens in the back. Ceiling height is 9 feet. 1st row seating is 9 feet, 2nd row 15 feet, riser is 12 inches high.

I want to change to the largest screen possible, maybe even a 2.35:1 constant height scope screen I'm not sure. Total immersion is the goal. I want to place the speakers in wall behind the screen. Screen Research CP2 seems to be the hot ticket for this application right now. From Screen Research website these are the possibilities:

16:9 fixed screen
Image width 120"
Image height 67.5"
Image diag 137.7"
Overall Width 126.3"

2.35:1 fixed
Image width 120"
Image height 51.1"
Image diag 130.4"
overall width 126.3"

C-Mask Classic Scope 16:9
2 way masking
Image width 120"
Image height 67.5" 16:9
Image height 50.2" 235:1
Image diag 137.7" 16:9
Image diag 128.8" 2.35:1
mask height 8.1" (top & bottom)
overall width 126.3"

I don't care if the screen almost touches the side walls. I do want full 1920x1080 res for 2.35:1 movies and 1.85:1 movies. I assume this will require an anamorphic lens. But which one? Will the Gennum VXP scaler do the vertical stretching ? What would you do?

Thanks,
Rod

Ooow, Wow, this scaler would be able to do a new technology called DIGITAL KEYSTONE CORRECTION.

Sorry, but we are trying to avoid digital keystone correction (I assume the HD81 would already have that feature).

QQQ, come on man. Bring your A-game.

-Mr. Wigggles

Ps. I really don't think offset is that big of a deal on this projector. I still think the long throw is going to be more of a problem. People are likely going to want a big image with projector and might not be able to make it fit in their room.

Mr. W.,

Have fun making fun, but this obviously goes far beyond conventional keystone correction, and for that reason may be able to eliminate the shortcomings that typical keystone correction produces. If the correction can indeed correct for irregular projection surfaces and dome type screens, than that gives a clue as to why the distortions common to typical keystone correction might be able to be eliminated.

My intital reaction was to make fun of the guy who initially posted the info. But I read about it, and thought about how it might be pulled off, and I'm willing to consider it as a possibility. My biggest skepticism is not that it's not possible - so to speak - but that we don't have the technology to pull this off seamlessly yet.

I'm glad to see someone mentioning this! For me, the offset is not a problem at all. But the throw really kills it for me. I'm kind of disappointed to see it has such a long throw. The ruby is as short as 1.4x ! I guess only those with a real big house can have a 10ft wide screen.

(well I can understand Optoma's reasoning. After all a 1080p FP is not meant for average home any way.)

Dear Optoma, Just a wishful thinking: if you have not already fixed everything, is it possible to have another short-throw version ? Just like what Marantz had done with their S4. They have 2 versions, one long throw for the american market, one short throw for the European/Japanese/Asian markets (where the average home is an apartment and won't have the space for a long throw)

Were, where?

Looks like the HD81 maybe won't work in my 11'x18' room for 120" wide screen. At 1.8x throw width of screen 120", throw is 18 feet assuming the throw is measured from the front of the lens, not the back of the projector. I would have to shrink to 110" wide screen which would make minimum throw 16.5 feet from the front of the lens. That would work if the projector is less than 1.5 feet long. I can't find the physical dimensions anywhere, they're not in the HD81 brochure or the EP910 brochure.

Small room, big image, yes you can. Check this out: http://www.projectorcentral.com/news_story_868.htm

3M has launched a new projector with an integrated DVD player, a 5.1 channel audio system, and exclusive Vikuiti Super Close Projection will produce a 100" image from under four feet away and a 60" image from only two feet away and the projector will feature the Realta HQV® processor for outstanding image quality. The new 3M DMS 700 will be sold through distribution and be available in Q2 2006.

QQQ,
It does seem to me to be an advanced form of digital keystone correction. There are manipulations you could do to a two-dimensional image off a chip that would allow it to appear to correct for things like irregular projection surfaces, like a form of localized keystone "spot" correction, if you will. However, it is essentially keystone correction. It seems unavoidable that at least technically there will be lost pixels in the process. If it works, great, but I am skeptical about it not introducing any artifacts.

I would like to see it with a 1920 x 1080 Windows desktop, or even better with a Word document with text and images. Also, I would think that a 1:1 black/white test grid would not make it through unscathed. Not to say it wouldn't look fine with a video image, though.

stopdog,
I think it's safe to say it won't be more than 18". My room is as long as yours, but my screen is 92" wide, and at my viewing distance of about 12' (only one row), I am at the THX recommended 36 degrees included viewing angle. So you're going to be "immersed" to say the least in a 110" wide screen image, especially from only 9 feet away in the front row. That is essentially only one screen width back!

HQV,

I suspect that a 3M machine with an integrated DVD player is last thing people here want, big picture in a small room or not!

I totally agree, but obviously HQV wouldn't do his job right, if he wouldn't try to guide our eyeballs toward everything which includes any sort of Realta, be it a truck, a weapon, a coffee machine, or a PJ

QQQ,

Image Anyplace/eWarp technology is essentially the capability to do severe keystone/pincushion/barrel/other distortion correction with a very high level of quality. It is much more than just simple keystone correction. We describe the surface to be projected on as a set of parametric equation curves and compute an inverse distortion map to that surface.

HiFiGuy1,

Yes you are exactly right. It can correct for irregular surfaces, including Torus or other curved surfaces (There is a giant video dome in Japan called the 'CyberDome' that is using our product in exactly this fashion - see this press release http://www.siliconoptix.com/about/ne...cember2003.cfm .)

You are also correct that, inevitably, you will lose pixels in the process - thats simply unavoidable. You are also exactly correct that you might see the difference with an Excel spreadsheet or sharp text (although in our opinion the quality is still extremely good!), but with a video image the quality is high enough that it is all but impossible to see artifacts.

DIY Guy,

You are correct that the 'Image Anyplace' box does not support 1080p. It uses an older Silicon Optix processor. However, our Realta HQV chip does also have eWarp technology in it and it can support 1080p.

Andy K.

ASIC Design Engineer
Silicon Optix, Inc.

Yeah, but does it have vertical lens shift?

HiFiguy,

One screen width back or just inside that is what I want. I like sitting close to the action. My current screen is 92" wide also. THX recommended viewing distances may change with 1080p becoming the new standard? What do think about a constant height 2.35:1 screen. Would I need the anamorphic lens to advatage of full 1920x1080 res for 2.35:1 movies ? And what would that do to 16:9 movies or HDTV cable?. I guessing black bars on the sides, don't want that .

I assumed that's exactly what is was doing but am having a hard time imagining how that is pulled off. For that to work correctly you would have to be able to provide the unit with considerable input/feedback to allow it to map the projection angle and especially an irregular surface, in order for it to generate a worthwhile inverse distortion map. That could involve countless areas on the screen, not just the corners! I'll follow up with any further questions in the other forum.