or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › The new C3X1080 review.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The new C3X1080 review. - Page 9

post #241 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Costanza View Post

Is there any disadvantage going to a 1.0 gain (Snomatte) rather than a 1.3 gain screen(Studiotek) for 9'W or less screens?

no
post #242 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Costanza View Post

Is there any disadvantage going to a 1.0 gain (Snomatte) rather than a 1.3 gain screen(Studiotek) for 9'W or less screens?

The only issue would be reflective surfaces. The 1.3 gain is more directional and rejects room reflections better. On the flip side, it's also less uniform and worse at larger viewing angles.

It's not a good idea to use non-directional matte screens unless the room surfaces are highly non-reflective, unless they are very low gain.
post #243 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by odyssey View Post

The only issue would be reflective surfaces. The 1.3 gain is more directional and rejects room reflections better. On the flip side, it's also less uniform and worse at larger viewing angles.

It's not a good idea to use non-directional matte screens unless the room surfaces are highly non-reflective, unless they are very low gain.

when i put up the screen I now use for the 1080 I has large sample of 1.0, 1.1 and 1.3 surfaces. I could clearly see the brightness increase, but no reflective disadvantage with the unity gain.

I know its there, as you said, and its a well documented fact, but i couldn't detect it. Maybe the gain difference is too small to notice. With an HP screen i could see it clearly.

The shades required to mitigate a high proportion of the light reflection is actually not as dark as some may think.
post #244 of 877
The Stewart matte material is almost Lambertian and puts a lot of light on the side walls, floor, and ceiling. The difference in ANSI CR between the 1.0 and 1.3 gain materials in less than ideal rooms is easily measurable and can be significant. Again, one solution is to use a low gain matte screen which also puts the same amount of light on these surfaces, but the reflection back is attenuated by the low gain. Of course, the low gain screen would have to be smaller than 9' wide for this projector.
post #245 of 877
How does curved Cine-w affect this? To be honest, I don't see a difference between the flat and curved studiotek material. You'd think focus would be affected but yet both methods seem to be the same in regards to focus. The curved looks fantastic and so does flat frame... Hmmmm....
post #246 of 877
You uys ever hear of ND filters to give you the benefits without too many ft lamberts to meet proection specs for movies? Its all subjective, but I think its rediculous to asset that a 1.0 ain screen for the C3x1080 would limit one to using a smallish screen. i really don't care what oe silver things should be a new ft lambert standard. I'll go with SMPTE. Its OK to like whatever you like, 35 ft lamberts. Its Ok to turn up the bass and trebles if you like that. But it isn't correct.
post #247 of 877
There are moves afoot to have the movie standard increased to 20fL.
post #248 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by odyssey View Post

The Stewart matte material is almost Lambertian and puts a lot of light on the side walls, floor, and ceiling.

Thanks. Good to know.
post #249 of 877
Coldmachine any idea when you might get a chance to post a few screen shots.
post #250 of 877
Any idea what Ft/L I would be getting with a 10' wide scope screen and studiotek...? I'm doing some measurements now to contemplate going to an 11.5' wide snapper deluxe....
post #251 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Young View Post

Coldmachine any idea when you might get a chance to post a few screen shots.

Too many far higher priorities atm. I haven't even clocked up more than single digit viewing hrs.
post #252 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Health Nut View Post

Any idea what Ft/L I would be getting with a 10' wide scope screen and studiotek...? I'm doing some measurements now to contemplate going to an 11.5' wide snapper deluxe....

Roughly 22-35 dependent on lamp power used
post #253 of 877
OK, honeymoon's over. 35 Fl was too much. ND2 filter in place. 18fL is more like it. :-)
post #254 of 877
I have had both flat and curved (Studiotek) screens. Personally they both looked 'perfectly' focused and I can't even tell its curved anyway. But I'm looking to possibly make a change becasue of the C3X 1080 projector.

I currently own a 10' curved cine-w (2.35). I am in a rental house yet again and will be here for 6 months to as long as 24 months. I have good but not complete light control. I will be putting up a 3 feet wide black velvet 'canopy' around the screen soon. Since I have a C3X 1080 on the way I am considering going to a 11' wide Cine-w or up to a 12' wide Snapper deluxe...

My throw is currently around 1.6-1.7 with the 10' wide screen and will drop lower if I go to a wider screen. How is focus affected in such a case? Would people here recommend going to another cine-w? A snapper deluxe flat frame? Firehawk material instead of Studiotek? People mention that if you have a long throw, curved is not beneficial, but if I got a wider screen, my throw would likely be around 1.5

Also, what is the latest opinion on 2.35 vs 2.37 vs 2.40?

Thanks,

Chris

(I can fit an 11' cine-w or up to 12' snapper deluxe.) Is this worth doing?
__________________
post #255 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian_Currie View Post

OK, honeymoon's over. 35 Fl was too much. ND2 filter in place. 18fL is more like it. :-)

Wondered how long that would take

I like it bright but 35fL is too much for me. Your blacks should be better now too.
post #256 of 877
Quote:


Ian_Currie>
OK, honeymoon's over. 35 Fl was too much. ND2 filter in place. 18fL is more like it. :-)

Any change in color or picture quality? Which filter manufacturer did you use?
post #257 of 877
CM, I had a question that you didn't answer earlier. Since I have not had the priviledge to see a C3x yet I would like to know how loud is the fan? Hopefully it's very quiet. Thanks.
post #258 of 877
I havent put an SPL on it, but I will, when i next get the chance to use it. I think its just below Dolby Reference Level

I'll let you know, but its not an issue for me.
post #259 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian_Currie View Post

OK, honeymoon's over. 35 Fl was too much. ND2 filter in place. 18fL is more like it. :-)

How do you install the filter?
post #260 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevelMN View Post

How do you install the filter?

Place between forefinger and thumb. Insert into recessed lens cavity very carefully. Make sure you have 77mm diamater - this will fit into the cavity but is much larger than the actual lens and resting on the bottom of the cavity (which is well below the proj lens) it will just cover the top of the proj lens... and there doesn't seem to be any chance of it touching the lens. It could fall OUT of the projector but that hasn't happened to me (in my case it would fall against my Prismasonic (anamorphic) lens.

Working out great for me. Also tried an ND4 but that was under 10 fL... image was superb, but too dim for my taste.
post #261 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldmachine View Post

when i put up the screen I now use for the 1080 I has large sample of 1.0, 1.1 and 1.3 surfaces. I could clearly see the brightness increase, but no reflective disadvantage with the unity gain.

I know its there, as you said, and its a well documented fact, but i couldn't detect it. Maybe the gain difference is too small to notice. With an HP screen i could see it clearly.

The shades required to mitigate a high proportion of the light reflection is actually not as dark as some may think.

I expect that a 30% increse in fL would be barely noticable 1.0 to 1.3 but the High Power would net nearly 300% increase in fL over the 1.0 at the sweet spot.

Art
post #262 of 877
I'm probably going to pull the trigger tomorrow, so I'd appreciate any last minute advice about pros vs cons in my case:

I've done the calculations. Funny but their is an exact model number which I could not have custom ordered for a better fit on Stewart website: CW151S, as noted on the Stewart website (59" x 139" image size; 151" Diag.; 69" x 149" frame dimensions). This would be a perfect fit.

I have the CW130S (51" x 120" image size) and I am at 1.7 throw.

If I go to a CW151S at 59" x 139" wthat would put me at a 1.47 throw... That would actually improve my situation as far as the T1 lens in the C3X 1080 since I would be in the middle of the lens throw, not the end.

Any opinion if I were to use a snapper deluxe flat screen instead? Pros vs Cons? I'd like to make a decision ASAP... Also, I'm absolutely torn between Firehawk and Studiotek... Any opinions feel free to PM me as well... A lot of people behind the scenes swearing by Firehawk, but studiotek seems so 'pure' it is hard to break my habit of that material... What about matte? I mean this C3X 1080 has lumens to spare it seems...

One more factor: which material would perform better in a curved screen: Studiotek or Firehawk?
post #263 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Costanza View Post

Any change in color or picture quality? Which filter manufacturer did you use?

Yes, PQ is improved, blacks are better. I used a Hoya HMC (MC=multicoated) 77mm lens bought from here:

http://www.2filter.com/hoya/hoyasolidND06.html

Had guests over last night (non-videophiles) who commented on the level of detail on faces etc (the ANSI shining through). Proj is so revealing that once in a while when the scene changes to one less than stellar, it REALLY shows. My wife says I'm not allowed to upgrade to anything more revealing than this one... :-)
post #264 of 877
anyone seen a really good ,raving review and screenshots for the c3x1080?
post #265 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian_Currie View Post

Place between forefinger and thumb. Insert into recessed lens cavity very carefully. Make sure you have 77mm diamater - this will fit into the cavity but is much larger than the actual lens and resting on the bottom of the cavity (which is well below the proj lens) it will just cover the top of the proj lens... and there doesn't seem to be any chance of it touching the lens. It could fall OUT of the projector but that hasn't happened to me (in my case it would fall against my Prismasonic (anamorphic) lens.

Working out great for me. Also tried an ND4 but that was under 10 fL... image was superb, but too dim for my taste.

Thanks for that. I had a 62mm filter, but just ordered the 77mm, so I will be ready for my projector, hopefully, in the next few days.
post #266 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Health Nut View Post

I'm probably going to pull the trigger tomorrow, so I'd appreciate any last minute advice about pros vs cons in my case:

I've done the calculations. Funny but their is an exact model number which I could not have custom ordered for a better fit on Stewart website: CW151S, as noted on the Stewart website (59" x 139" image size; 151" Diag.; 69" x 149" frame dimensions). This would be a perfect fit.

I have the CW130S (51" x 120" image size) and I am at 1.7 throw.

If I go to a CW151S at 59" x 139" wthat would put me at a 1.47 throw... That would actually improve my situation as far as the T1 lens in the C3X 1080 since I would be in the middle of the lens throw, not the end.

Any opinion if I were to use a snapper deluxe flat screen instead? Pros vs Cons? I'd like to make a decision ASAP... Also, I'm absolutely torn between Firehawk and Studiotek... Any opinions feel free to PM me as well... A lot of people behind the scenes swearing by Firehawk, but studiotek seems so 'pure' it is hard to break my habit of that material... What about matte? I mean this C3X 1080 has lumens to spare it seems...

One more factor: which material would perform better in a curved screen: Studiotek or Firehawk?

There's no reason to go with firehawk unless your room's not light controlled. Greyhawk III is a much better grey screen if you have a light controlled room, it has a gain of 0.9 and does not color shift like the firehawk.
post #267 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl b View Post

anyone seen a really good ,raving review and screenshots for the c3x1080?

Sorry ,I've yet to see this projector but here is a nice shot of Serenity using that projector's brother.


post #268 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by MC6 View Post

There's no reason to go with firehawk unless your room's not light controlled. Greyhawk III is a much better grey screen if you have a light controlled room, it has a gain of 0.9 and does not color shift like the firehawk.

I believe te firehawk is a incredibly versitile screen. Putting it on a curved frame will also help with it's viewing cone which is fine with me already. THere are width limits on it, but I don't remember what they are. If you will *always* watch in a 100% light controlled room (AKA bat cave), and you have the light to spare, the grayhawk would be my choice. But, if you ever expect to have any ambient light, like in having some friends over for a sports event party, etc and will have some lights on, the FH is superior. For me, the overall advantages and enviroment flexibility of the FH material outweight what I consider as minor disadvantages. Either way, for the C3X, I'd choose a FH or GHRS. FWIW, Sim2 chose to use a FH at CEDIA. Search the "official stewart screen" thread for a question to M. Robinson by me and his answer regarding the subject. Essentially I was asking a very similar question at the time.
post #269 of 877
One issue I had with the Firehawk, is the vertical viewing cone. It seemed to me, that the viewing angle for the front row, caused significant dimming of the image.
post #270 of 877
I really appreciate all this input. Any more thoughts on curved vs flat as well as material? At what throw ratio, if any, do you say that one should go curved. I know Art debated about it for a while but ultimately he had a long throw so perhaps in his case the pros vs cons were not worth it...

I really have not seen the firehawk, Greyhawk, and studiotek side-by-side... I will be putting a 3 foot black velvet canopy around the edges of the screen. Also, do you think moving from 51" x 120" to 59" x 139" will lead to a significant difference in terms of 'immersion' ? I'm using three D-Box love seats in the first row (and only row) which uses a decent amount of width. seatng positioning can be moved, but I tend to prefer about 0.9-1.0 seating distance.

What does a grey emmulsion offer over a white studiotek? Also, what is wrong with matte?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › The new C3X1080 review.