AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP › Any Sharp DT-500 owners out there?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Any Sharp DT-500 owners out there? - Page 25

post #721 of 836
10/2/07 at 6:26pm
16:9 native, it'll 'do' 4:3 if you ask it.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #722 of 836
10/3/07 at 12:10pm
The 510 is 1280x720 as opposed to 1280x768. The 510 has a 0.62" DLP chip compared to the 0.65" in the 500 (not sure what this means to performance). Contrast ratio is the same but the 510 lists with 1000 lumens as opposed to the 1200 lumens of the 500. The only other difference I see is the 510 has something called TrueVision Image Processing, and I'm not sure what that is.
Reply
Reply
post #723 of 836
10/11/07 at 5:05pm
Thought it was time to wake up this thread. Looks like the Marantz is getting all the attention. Planning on some DT-500 screenies tonight for posting. Take that you Sharp rebadgers!
Reply
Reply
post #724 of 836
10/12/07 at 7:03am
Well... I have to say that I am very impressed with my DT-500 as is my wife, which is the reall telling part!
I have had this projector sitting in a box for about 9 months waiting until I finished the remodel project that would eventually yield my home theater. Well, I mounted it this last weekend and it is superb. I don't even have a proper screen to show it on and it is still fantastic. My wall currently is sort of a light reddish color. I'll be painting on a screen this weekend. My projector is ceiling mounted on a drop acousitcal ceiling. It is only about 7' from the ground and 13' away from the wall. I have an approximately 100" picture going. So I have about 15" from the bottom of the picture to the floor.
We sit almost underneath the projector and I can not even tell that it has a fan, it is that quiet to me. The picture is real nice out of the box, from what I can tell. This is my first projector and I am quite pleased with it!
Of course I bought it from the store not to be mentioned here that changed their return policy, so I paid a little more than you folks are doing now. But since I purchased it a week before the poilcy change, I do have a lifetime warranty on it.
Overall...if you are in the market for a real nice DLP projector, I would not hesitate to buy a DT-500.
Reply
Reply
post #725 of 836
10/25/07 at 9:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by r8ered View Post

Anyone ever find a good price on lamps?Don't need one yet but I wouldn't mind having one available.Btw,I still can't get a signal from my hd satellite to my pj through hdmi.Is there a setting I am missing?

You could open it up and find out what the bulb itself is and order it straight from the manufacturer (ex. Philips) or where ever else. It is usually about 1/3rd the price since it does not come with the housing, just be careful when replacing the bulb.
Reply
Reply
post #726 of 836
10/25/07 at 10:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMRA View Post

Thought it was time to wake up this thread. Looks like the Marantz is getting all the attention. Planning on some DT-500 screenies tonight for posting. Take that you Sharp rebadgers!

What happened to the screenies? I'm calling shenannigans!
Reply
Reply
post #727 of 836
10/26/07 at 6:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTyson View Post

What happened to the screenies? I'm calling shenannigans!

I'm doing 'RADIO' instead. No kidding. The wildfires out here wiped out 2/3 of our imported juice and emergency cutbacks have been requested. So for the time being I'm monitoring my consumption. Hence, no PJ, AC, or oven for the last 5 days. Hot water is provided by natural gas so no problem there. We should be back to normal in a few days.
PS: I'm taking requests.
Reply
Reply
post #728 of 836
10/26/07 at 9:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMRA View Post

I'm doing 'RADIO' instead. No kidding. The wildfires out here wiped out 2/3 of our imported juice and emergency cutbacks have been requested. So for the time being I'm monitoring my consumption. Hence, no PJ, AC, or oven for the last 5 days. Hot water is provided by natural gas so no problem there. We should be back to normal in a few days.
PS: I'm taking requests.


PJ in full throttle. But...now, technical difficulties. Tripod head damaged and NEW digicam way too contrasty for screen shots. (Handheld at 1/4 second sucks). Time to dust off my trusty Oly, charge up some NiMH batts, and repair the tripod head. The delay is unavoidable. Sorry.
Reply
Reply
post #729 of 836
10/27/07 at 12:18pm
No problem. Looking forward to seeing some good screenshots of this pj in action.
Reply
Reply
post #730 of 836
10/29/07 at 12:56pm
Just out of curiosity, what at what level are some/most of you running your fan speed? I set mine to high...just to be "safe" and when I turned it down, I couldn't believe how quiet it was. Having said that, there's usually enough noise in my house that the volume of the HT drowns out any fan noise/background/kids/dogs noise anyway.
Reply
Reply
post #731 of 836
10/29/07 at 2:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bri1270 View Post

Just out of curiosity, what at what level are some/most of you running your fan speed? I set mine to high...just to be "safe" and when I turned it down, I couldn't believe how quiet it was. Having said that, there's usually enough noise in my house that the volume of the HT drowns out any fan noise/background/kids/dogs noise anyway.

I set mine to high awhile back. The other noises do drown out the high fan. At first I was lilke "Whoa. That's quite a bit louder." when I changed to high, but my brain adapted. I don't notice it when watching a movie or anything.
Reply
Reply
post #732 of 836
10/29/07 at 2:07pm
Mine is set at low (econ mode) and I've had zero issues. It's ceiling mounted as well. I still love this PJ
Reply
Reply
post #733 of 836
10/29/07 at 2:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTyson View Post

No problem. Looking forward to seeing some good screenshots of this pj in action.


Promise made, promise kept.

But, aaaaarrrgggg. These are still too darn contrasty. Highlights blowout, blacks get crushed regardless what digicam I use. The following series was taken with my trusty Oly 2100UZ of 2001. I was thinking about reshooting in RAW with my D50 and then post processing but that would invite doctoring the image, an AVS taboo.

For some reason the snappier the image, the harder to capture as seen on the screen. These will have to make do for now.

From "Immortal Beloved"

#1 City scape
LL
Reply
Reply
post #734 of 836
10/29/07 at 2:26pm
#2 City Scape
LL
Reply
Reply
post #735 of 836
10/29/07 at 2:28pm
#3 Ludwig (Oldman) at the keyboard.
LL
Reply
Reply
post #736 of 836
10/29/07 at 2:29pm
#4 One of many.
LL
Reply
Reply
post #737 of 836
10/29/07 at 2:31pm
Ready for harvest.
LL
Reply
Reply
post #738 of 836
10/29/07 at 2:34pm
Conspire a test.
LL
Reply
Reply
post #739 of 836
10/29/07 at 2:35pm
The brother.
LL
Reply
Reply
post #740 of 836
10/29/07 at 2:39pm
Another love.
LL
Reply
Reply
post #741 of 836
10/29/07 at 2:43pm
"My Immortal Beloved"
LL
Reply
Reply
post #742 of 836
10/29/07 at 2:45pm
Going over a few details.

These are merely a facsimile of what this setup offers. Yes, it's MUCH better than these images illustrate. Oh, well.
LL
Reply
Reply
post #743 of 836
10/29/07 at 3:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMRA View Post

Promise made, promise kept.

But, aaaaarrrgggg. These are still too darn contrasty. Highlights blowout, blacks get crushed regardless what digicam I use. The following series was taken with my trusty Oly 2100UZ of 2001. I was thinking about reshooting in RAW with my D50 and then post processing but that would invite doctoring the image, an AVS taboo.

For some reason the snappier the image, the harder to capture as seen on the screen. These will have to make do for now.

From "Immortal Beloved"

#1 City scape


Try miscalibrating the image to make up for the lack of dynamic range. Raise the black level (and maybe lower the contrast too) and you will get a more accurate image with more dark and highlight detail. I get much better photos with my camcorder when I do that and it looks a lot more like what I see in reality.

The photos aren't bad though, but the only way some of these cameras can capture the image right is by miscalibrating the image. The thing to remember is these cameras don't have the contrast range of our eyes so the best way to make up for that is to decrease the contrast of the image, espeically in higher contrast scenes.

Try it out and see if you can get good results. I usually make the image more washed out and capture an image that looks a lot closer to what my eyes see.
Reply
Reply
post #744 of 836
10/29/07 at 3:55pm
Nice screenshots.
Reply
Reply
post #745 of 836
10/30/07 at 5:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTyson View Post

Try miscalibrating the image to make up for the lack of dynamic range. Raise the black level (and maybe lower the contrast too) and you will get a more accurate image with more dark and highlight detail. I get much better photos with my camcorder when I do that and it looks a lot more like what I see in reality.

Try it out and see if you can get good results. I usually make the image more washed out and capture an image that looks a lot closer to what my eyes see.


Yikes! I work so hard getting the image 'just right'. Now, go 'dumb' it down to make it 'look' right.
There's got to be another way. Clarence of G90 CRT fame gets them.
Reply
Reply
post #746 of 836
10/30/07 at 9:18pm
Hi CMRA,

I'd use your D50 shooting raw format which uses the camera's maximum dynamic range and then adjust the image "to most accurately represent what your natural eye sees" in photoshop or GIMP. There's a big difference between post-processing to artificially enhance a picture and doing the post processing yourself to accurately re-create reality.

Letting the camera guess at it with it's auto settings is often inaccurate and limited with what it can do in real time than a PC and your eye can after the fact...make sure your monitor isn't horribly miscalibrated though.

Just my $0.02 and glad to see your not a crispy afterthought of those fires down there!

Mike
Reply
Reply
post #747 of 836
10/30/07 at 11:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMRA View Post

Yikes! I work so hard getting the image 'just right'. Now, go 'dumb' it down to make it 'look' right.
There's got to be another way. Clarence of G90 CRT fame gets them.


Hey. The camera simply sees different than our eyes. It doesn't have the range. I'm not saying you gotta watch it like that. lol. My setting are easy to remember for contrast and brightness. If I need to see what I see on screen sometimes when the contrast is too high I'll raise the black level and lower the contrast so the camer can render the image properly.

I don't know how other get great screenshot. Maybe DLPs high ANSI contrast combined with its light output compared to CRT makes it harder for a digital camera to capture and maybe he also has a better cam. I don't know.

I know with my camcorder there is only one way to achieve decent screenshots.
Reply
Reply
post #748 of 836
10/31/07 at 5:55am
Ah excellent. We're getting into screen shots.

I wrote the following in another thread a couple of months ago:
Quote:


This is a really good topic for all of us taking screen shots.

I've been getting more and more into photography after starting to take portrait photos of my family rather than send them to a professional. I've only obtained enough information to become dangerous

From what I've read in photo instruction books, online, and in some brief medical papers is that there is 'White Balancing Interpretation' that our minds conduct between our eyes receptors and the brains final analysis. So in essence, when a subject is fully lit by fluorescent, tungston, hallogen, candescent or sunlight they all appear relatively 'White' to us. A camera captures the light in it's basic form, i.e. fluorescent = bluish, tungston = warm or orangish, sunlight = pure during mid-day, etc. The cameras output must then be adjusted to how our brain interprets it to make it appear correctly to how we see it. Make sense?

Cameras, even the top SLR's, are only okay at White Balance. On the upper-end cameras there is a blanking white balance method that works the best but still is not perfect. You essentially take 3 consecutive photos at 3 different settings. The camera then adjusts and averages for the best white balance.

The best white balance technique is to utilize a software program like Photoshop to adjust the Histogram levels so that Red, Blue, and Green are adjusted to cover the full spectrum from 0 to 255.

Photographers will use the black & white cards to white balance, but more importantly to adjust the iso, shutter, and apperture for the correct exposure. For the screen shots, making sure you have the correct exposure is more important. If you desire, you can then adjust the White Balance in Photoshop.

I came up with a method to try & compare my old LT150 projector versus the new DT500. I used my Nikon D80 in full manual. ISO, Aperture, Shutter, White Balance, Contrast, etc were all manual in normal settings. Here is the link to the thread discussing the camera settings & how the shots were taken: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=840495
Reply
Reply
post #749 of 836
10/31/07 at 3:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuner View Post

Ah excellent. We're getting into screen shots.

I wrote the following in another thread a couple of months ago:


I came up with a method to try & compare my old LT150 projector versus the new DT500. I used my Nikon D80 in full manual. ISO, Aperture, Shutter, White Balance, Contrast, etc were all manual in normal settings. Here is the link to the thread discussing the camera settings & how the shots were taken: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=840495

Thanks for the tip. I'll take a look-see.
Reply
Reply
post #750 of 836
11/6/07 at 6:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMRA View Post

Thanks for the tip. I'll take a look-see.

And I did. I'm gunna PM Clarence and see what he does.
BTW, no more love for the DT-500?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP › Any Sharp DT-500 owners out there?