AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Optoma HD81 1080p DLP official discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Optoma HD81 1080p DLP official discussion - Page 14

post #391 of 4809
1/23/06 at 11:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWigggles View Post

To be clear you guys are talking about the Ruby, most projectors are very much zoom independent - you get the same light for either position.

-Mr. Wigggles

I believe there was some differing opinions on this in some of the Ruby threads. Some indicated that this was pretty much true for all projectors, not just the Ruby.
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #392 of 4809
1/24/06 at 12:11am
Randall,

Could be the case but with the HD81's 1.2X zoom range I don't think it is going to matter regardless.

-Mr. Wigggles
Reply
Reply
post #393 of 4809
1/24/06 at 9:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWigggles View Post

Randall,

Could be the case but with the HD81's 1.2X zoom range I don't think it is going to matter regardless.

-Mr. Wigggles

No argument here.
Reply
Reply
post #394 of 4809
1/24/06 at 11:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by stopdog View Post

Darin, by longer throw lens position do you mean less zoom? So this means less light leaving the projector? Sorry I thought I had this but still confused.

Are my calculations correct in that using a horizontal stretch anamorphic lens would require less distance from the lens to the screen than a vert compression lens to get the same width/height 2.35:1 image?

In other words, could I get a 120" wide x 51" high image from 15.3 feet away. I'm guessing the light output wouldn't be that much different either H stretch or vert comp lens.

I try to avoid using "less zoom" or "more zoom" because they are fairly confusing to me. The end I was referring to as the "longer throw position" is the same one as the smallest image if you keep the projector in one spot (so probably what you are calling "less zoom") and that is generally less lumens than the other end.

The confusing part is that the horizontally stetching lens does require less distance to the screen, but at the same distance it requires that the image coming out of the projector be smaller, which is also the lower lumens coming out of the lens. But with just 1.2x throw range (I didn't realize it was this small) and moving the projector I wouldn't expect much difference between horizontal stretch and vertical stretch as far as ft-lamberts, like you said.

--Darin
Reply
Reply
post #395 of 4809
1/25/06 at 5:08am
One can design a zoom lens to have a constant effective aperture. These lenses are much more expensive than zoom lenses which have an effective aperture than decreases (increases in f number) as one goes fro close zoom to far zoom. The wider the zoom range with a non constant aperture lens the more noticeable he light loss. The Ruby has a very long zoom range.
Reply
Reply
post #396 of 4809
1/26/06 at 9:55am
All I can say is MAN oh MAN what a picture on that H81 at CES!

Just in case no one has picked up on that yet...


Regards,
Mike
Reply
Reply
post #397 of 4809
1/26/06 at 10:24am
Hey Mike I was blown away too. The HD81 rejuvinated my interest in this crazy hobby once again. Now must figure how to get mondo sized screen in my itty bitty room. I'm thinking 10 ft wide Cinemascope CH if I can cram it in !
Reply
Reply
post #398 of 4809
1/26/06 at 10:47am
Quote:


"All I can say is MAN oh MAN what a picture on that H81 at CES!

Just in case no one has picked up on that yet...


Regards,
Mike"


You're not alone. I felt the same way. My thoughts were, "How do I get this quality and size of image into my home with my budget?"
Reply
Reply
post #399 of 4809
1/26/06 at 10:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWigggles View Post

Not to get anyone started on something else but the actual throw ratio seems more problematic. We are talking 1080p here and most viewers are going to want to be in the 1.0 to 1.4 screen widths away. With the min throw 1.8, we are talking about a projector that is likely going to need to be behind your back wall in some situations.

The projector is highly praised in everything else. I wish we could concentrate on the everything else. Give Tzung some warm-fuzzies

-Mr. Wigggles


The H81 really sounds promising...but the long throw ratio is the problem for me. I enjoy and have grown accustomed to a large picture with a relatively close viewing distance. Because my projection distance is already at maximum due to room constraints, the 1.8-2.2 throw ratio of the H81 would mean downsizing to an image smaller than I like. It seems to me that moving to a 1080P device that will significantly upgrade picture quality is exactly the wrong time to be forced to downsize. Having to go smaller just as the projected image improves is a frustratingly ironic situation. The "longish" throw will likely be a deal killer for me.

One other point: Tzung did indicate that the the throw ratio he mentioned was not absolutely precise, i.e., it was "about" 1.8-2.2. If the actual throw turns out to be a bit shorter than he specified, then the H81 may still work for me. Keeping my fingers crossed...
Reply
Reply
post #400 of 4809
1/27/06 at 1:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Hilton View Post

The H81 really sounds promising...but the long throw ratio is the problem for me. I enjoy and have grown accustomed to a large picture with a relatively close viewing distance. Because my projection distance is already at maximum due to room constraints, the 1.8-2.2 throw ratio of the H81 would mean downsizing to an image smaller than I like. It seems to me that moving to a 1080P device that will significantly upgrade picture quality is exactly the wrong time to be forced to downsize. Having to go smaller just as the projected image improves is a frustratingly ironic situation. The "longish" throw will likely be a deal killer for me.

One other point: Tzung did indicate that the the throw ratio he mentioned was not absolutely precise, i.e., it was "about" 1.8-2.2. If the actual throw turns out to be a bit shorter than he specified, then the H81 may still work for me. Keeping my fingers crossed...

Perhaps I have it backwards, but 1.8 to 2.0 is a not that long of a throw. I have a 92 wide screen and the throw would only be 15.3 at the longest. A 110 wide screen would be 18.3. Even in my small theater that barely gets it in the next room. I wish for a longer throw myself
Reply
Reply
post #401 of 4809
1/27/06 at 3:55am
Dan,

My projection distance is maxed at 198" (16.5 feet), and the throw from the H81 would produce a smaller picture than I now get from my older Dreamvision DLP (1.35-2.00). So, as it relates to my room constraints and preference in picture size, the throw ratio of the H81 seems to be on the "longish" side. Moreover, I have lately been looking at throw ratios for several candidate projectors (LCD and DLP), and the H81 is the longest throw I have encountered to date. I must acknowledge that my data base is limited---I have checked 12 so far.
Reply
Reply
post #402 of 4809
1/27/06 at 4:47am
Tom,

If the HD81 is the only viable 1080 option for you, you can always buy an aftermarket short throw lens. There's some very good ones out there for not much money.
Reply
Reply
post #403 of 4809
1/27/06 at 11:26am
My name is Tom and the H81 is the only viable option for me.

"All I can say is MAN oh MAN what a picture on that H81 at CES!

Just in case no one has picked up on that yet..."

Mike you can say that again. I'm in waiting mode and it's killing me, things are so boring now. We need these 1080p DLP's.

Someone thought my idea on the HD81 being twice as good as the 720p H79 could be over the top. Thinking back at what I saw. The HD81 seemed twice as bright and the resolution was twice the resolution. So yeah twice as good. Black level and contrast wasn't too shabby either. Can you imagine once the Iris is installed.

I bet my buddy Darin buys one at the nice price they come in at. Then he can try his bulb Iris tricks or whatever he's doing. Shooting for 15000.1, this added brightness should help him get there.
Reply
Reply
post #404 of 4809
1/27/06 at 12:22pm
Anybody hazzard a guess as to what we can expect regarding street price? Does 7K seem reasonable given Optoma's past history regarding MSRP vs street pricing?
Reply
Reply
post #405 of 4809
1/27/06 at 12:40pm
The good new is it will probably be lower than that. Here we go again with bang for the buck. Not one but two items Projector and Gennum Scaler. The wait is painful
Reply
Reply
post #406 of 4809
1/27/06 at 12:52pm
That is good news. I have not had good experience with single chip DLP (viewing fatigue), however, I may give this one a shot if I can figure out how to get around that freakin fixed offset. The high brightness and external processor being big advantages. I am hoping for at least 3000:1 on-off contrast at 900 lumens post-calibration (this would obviously be with the iris wide-open).
Reply
Reply
post #407 of 4809
1/27/06 at 1:52pm
I presume the exhaust from the cooling fan comes out the rear of the unit; is this correct? So if it is ceiling mounted toward the rear of a room, I presume that one should put it no closer that 1 ft or so from the wall; is that correct?
Reply
Reply
post #408 of 4809
1/27/06 at 2:57pm
1' would be plenty. Looks like a Seleco with sparkles.
Reply
Reply
post #409 of 4809
1/27/06 at 6:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by guitarman View Post

I bet my buddy Darin buys one at the nice price they come in at. Then he can try his bulb Iris tricks or whatever he's doing. Shooting for 15000.1, this added brightness should help him get there.

I'm not sure if I will buy one or not. It would be fun to try to tweak one, but with the offset I'm not sure if I would want to do the screen tilting thing I would have to do with my pull-down High Power to get the projector low enough to get good gain. At 1080p I also want to be able to use whatever I get on my 10' wide High Power from about 16' away.

--Darin
Reply
Reply
post #410 of 4809
1/27/06 at 7:23pm
Without reading through 14 pages what is the finalized throw of this projector. Is it still short throw?
Reply
Reply
post #411 of 4809
1/27/06 at 7:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

Without reading through 14 pages what is the finalized throw of this projector. Is it still short throw?

I don't think it has changed: between 1.8 and 2.2.
Reply
Reply
post #412 of 4809
1/27/06 at 7:51pm
The throw issue seems to me to be less of an issue for most than that awfully high fixed offset of 27%. And the bigger the screen you want, the worse it gets unless your ceilings are pretty tall.
Reply
Reply
post #413 of 4809
1/27/06 at 8:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by flint350 View Post

The throw issue seems to me to be less of an issue for most than that awfully high fixed offset of 27%. And the bigger the screen you want, the worse it gets unless your ceilings are pretty tall.

Since I have 10 foot ceilings, and a big screen, the throw is definitely the bigger issue for me. I agree that for most people, the offset will be the bigger issue though.
Reply
Reply
post #414 of 4809
1/27/06 at 9:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by guitarman View Post

My name is Tom and the H81 is the only viable option for me.

"All I can say is MAN oh MAN what a picture on that H81 at CES!

Just in case no one has picked up on that yet..."

Mike you can say that again. I'm in waiting mode and it's killing me, things are so boring now. We need these 1080p DLP's.

Someone thought my idea on the HD81 being twice as good as the 720p H79 could be over the top. Thinking back at what I saw. The HD81 seemed twice as bright and the resolution was twice the resolution. So yeah twice as good. Black level and contrast wasn't too shabby either. Can you imagine once the Iris is installed.

Tom, based on what I saw at CES, I would definitely rate the HD81 as twice as good as other 720p projectors that were there, certainly twice as good as the HD72 in the next room...
Reply
Reply
post #415 of 4809
1/27/06 at 9:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post

Since I have 10 foot ceilings, and a big screen, the throw is definitely the bigger issue for me. I agree that for most people, the offset will be the bigger issue though.

I calculate that my 8'4" ceiling, and 17'3" depth makes my room almost perfect for the HD-81 with a ~110" to 120" screen. Now I just have to decide whether I want to go FP or not!
Reply
Reply
post #416 of 4809
1/28/06 at 7:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

I calculate that my 8'4" ceiling, and 17'3" depth makes my room almost perfect for the HD-81 with a ~110" to 120" screen. Now I just have to decide whether I want to go FP or not!

Is that a CH setup calculation? If not (1.78 instead), a 120" wide scrn has a 67" height, which would require an 18" offset drop. Starting at 100" ceiling, minus about 6" for mount (94"), offset drop of another 18" (76" top of scrn), minus scrn height of 67", leaves only 9" to the floor and that doesn't account for screen borders. Maybe I messed up the math, but it doesn't seem to work well for a 120" wide 16:9. I have 8' ceilings and had similar problems bcz I wanted a large screen.
Reply
Reply
post #417 of 4809
1/28/06 at 7:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by stopdog View Post

For those with small theaters like mine (11'x18') who wanted to go with a really wide screen with the HD81 but don't have the required throw distance, there is a solution, please someone correct me if this is wrong.

With a constant height 2.35:1 screen and anamorphic horizontal stretch lens, throw distance is decreased. For example, with a 120" wide by 51.5" high 2.35:1 screen , minimum throw distance of 1.8 is 13.8 feet from the screen, 2x throw distance is 15.3 feet. Throw is still calculated using 16:9 ratio for 16:9 panel projector (92" wide x 1.8/12 = 13.8 feet). Before image is vertically stretched by scaler and then horizontally stretched by the anamorphic lens, the 2.35 image is 92" wide by 39" high. After applying these, image is 51.5" high x 120.5" wide.

I saw this application at CES with the Vidikron 90 and Runco VX2C projector demos, it is truely amazing the dramatic increase in resolution, brightness, and size of image. They did a before lens and after lens in place comparison with huge electric masking screens. You guys probably already knew about this but I just figured out how it works. The other advantage of this is you use the full 1920x1080 panel for 2.35:1 movies instead of partially cutting some pixels off. Of course if your watching 16:9 material, you would bypass the lens and still have full 1920x1080 res, but have black bars on left and right sides of screen. Ideally you would have electric masking left and right, but I'm sure this is mucho expensive screen. But if you're like me and the majority of your theater time is spent watching blockbuster movies which seem to be mostly 2.35, this works great.

I know now the HD81 will work in my room with a 10 ft wide screen. I do have 9 ft ceilings so offset not a problem.

Hate to quote myself but as you can see there is a solution for small rooms like mine.

Tom that's good news on the price. One could hopefully get HD81, Gennum VXP scaler, and nice anamorphic HE lens for about $10K. Sweet.
Reply
Reply
post #418 of 4809
1/28/06 at 9:29am
Regarding CH setup with 1080P. Many are leaving their lens in place at all times and letting the scaler perform the needed custom aspect ratios with 720P projectors. The results are very good. The increase in resolution using a 1080P will really benifit these setups. I doubt anyone will see any shortcoming to leaving a lens in place at all time. Plenty of resolution.
Reply
Reply
post #419 of 4809
1/28/06 at 9:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by flint350 View Post

Is that a CH setup calculation? If not (1.78 instead), a 120" wide scrn has a 67" height, which would require an 18" offset drop. Starting at 100" ceiling, minus about 6" for mount (94"), offset drop of another 18" (76" top of scrn), minus scrn height of 67", leaves only 9" to the floor and that doesn't account for screen borders. Maybe I messed up the math, but it doesn't seem to work well for a 120" wide 16:9. I have 8' ceilings and had similar problems bcz I wanted a large screen.

I think the missunderstanding is that I was referring to a 120" DIAGONAL screen, which is ~105" W and 59"H. The 27% offset is 16", and mount will take at least 4". The ceiling is 100" high, so the top of the screen will be ~20" from the top of the ceiling, and the bottom about the same amount above the floor. My front wall is ~150" wide, so this will leave about 20" on each side of the screen. I.e., the screen will be right in the center of the wall, with a ~20" border on all 4 sides.
Reply
Reply
post #420 of 4809
1/28/06 at 12:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

Regarding CH setup with 1080P. Many are leaving their lens in place at all times and letting the scaler perform the needed custom aspect ratios with 720P projectors. The results are very good. The increase in resolution using a 1080P will really benifit these setups. I doubt anyone will see any shortcoming to leaving a lens in place at all time. Plenty of resolution.

Didn't know that Alan, thanks. Curious to hear how the lens expensive lenses like UH-50 will handle 1080p. As the 2.35:1 screens become more popular as I believe they are, hopefully more manufacturers will enter the scene with less expensive options for anamorphic lenses.

Is there a scaler that can fit a 16:9 image properly (filling the screen in proportion) on a 2.35:1 screen with the anamorphic lens in place? Or is the only option to have black bars on the sides? Maybe question for scaler or 2.35 forum.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Optoma HD81 1080p DLP official discussion