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 3

post #61 of 877
The international Sim2 website http://www.sim2.com has some info about the C3X 1080. There is one statement in the technical specification that puzzles me:

> Lens shift: half up picture =>50% <<br />
What does this mean? Can the Lens shift only go up, not down? If the projector is to be placed above the middle of the picture, does it have to be placed "upside down" (unfortunate for "shelf" installation in an projection room)?
post #62 of 877
If it is the same as the C3X 720, which I believe it is, the shift goes both ways, but not nearly enough to do an upright high rear shelf mount.
post #63 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Free View Post

If it is the same as the C3X 720, which I believe it is, the shift goes both ways, but not nearly enough to do an upright high rear shelf mount.

I am afraid that's true. I had the same problem with the SIM2 HT500, which I had to mount "upside down" because of the limited Lens shift downwards. Ugly, painful, but possible. And there is no way I would use digital keystone correction.
BTW, I just checked the manual of the new DP Titan 250 1080p, it has the same problem - full Lens shift only possible in "up" direction. But looking at its case, the Titan is probably very easy to mount "upside down", the "Italian design" case of the C3X makes it a little more difficult. Maybe using a ceiling mount and "hanging" it at the shelf will do it.
post #64 of 877
Yes, I think, as I understand it is due to a combination of the size of the chip, and the design of the case, that limits the lens shift. I had a similar issue with the old SX21 from JVC, and I built a cradle for it, out of 2x4's so I could mount it upside down, and still move the projector around to align it. It was a tiny projector though.
post #65 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuffzack View Post

The international Sim2 website http://www.sim2.com has some info about the C3X 1080. There is one statement in the technical specification that puzzles me:


This technical spec lists it as a single 250W lamp.

On the USA site press release it says:
"
For the ultimate in home theater video reproduction, SIM2 will give installers their first look at the company's forthcoming three-chip 1080p DLP models. As the first three-chip models available that employ Texas Instruments' recently introduced 0.95-inch 1080p DarkChip3 DMD chipset, these projectors represent the pinnacle of digital projection, combining true 1080p resolution with the extraordinary contrast, color fidelity, and brightness that is attainable only in three-chip configurations. Three-chip models will be available in single and dual 300-watt lamp configurations, both as standalone units and in tandem with SIM2's acclaimed DigiOptic Image Processor (DOIP)."
post #66 of 877
ACMEinNY
Single and dual bulb HT5000
Single bulb C3x1080
That is how I read the quote.
post #67 of 877
Its the HT5K that offers dual lamp configuration. I believe a 2 lamper will cost itro an extra $10k ish. It must be ordered as a 2 lamp configured model.
post #68 of 877
Are the lamps psitioned at 90 degrees or at some other angle? Probably 90 if to preserve the hc.
post #69 of 877
I believe they are at 90. It appears it was quite a difficult issue to resolve. Coupled with the tiny numbers it adds up to an expensive 2nd lamp.
It would be interesting to see what size of screen could be accomodated.
post #70 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACMEinNY View Post

This technical spec lists it as a single 250W lamp.

On the USA site press release it says:
"
For the ultimate in home theater video reproduction, SIM2 will give installers their first look at the company's forthcoming three-chip 1080p DLP models. As the first three-chip models available that employ Texas Instruments' recently introduced 0.95-inch 1080p DarkChip3 DMD chipset, these projectors represent the pinnacle of digital projection, combining true 1080p resolution with the extraordinary contrast, color fidelity, and brightness that is attainable only in three-chip configurations. Three-chip models will be available in single and dual 300-watt lamp configurations, both as standalone units and in tandem with SIM2's acclaimed DigiOptic Image Processor (DOIP)."

Mattias is correct, the International site is commenting on the new C3X 1080, and the USA site is commenting on the HT5000. The "plural" nature of the language is referring to the two bulb options available for the HT5K.

Jim
post #71 of 877
The 3 chip 1080p at SIM2 was outstanding for the cost vs. others. Even though $30K is a good month's work it is better than $90 - $150K...

Great picture. The folks at SIM2 are great to talk with as well. Knowledgable and humble. A combination rarely found today.
post #72 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

That is totally untrue 8k maximum, which is double what is needed. That was a great looking cx-3 dc4 unit with no* green blooming issues BTW.

* not more than the minimum occasionally acceptable as evidednced cross manufacturers.

if you go constant height then yes 4000:1 but especially 600-800:1 ansi
is enough (and much more than lcos, ansi i mean)
but if you have the typical 16/9 screen and thus with "black" bars, then it's noth enought and 15000:1 and above are required. (nasty bars !)

to me the C3X is a killer machine for a 171" (400cm) wide scope curved screen with an ISCO III
SIZE AND PROJECTOR PRICE DO GO TOGETHER
post #73 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldmachine View Post

Being totally honest here..... the higher end machines are really meant for an on axis install. I would never have a $30k or $50k machine installed in anything othere than absolute true. Any off axis install will be a compromise.

How much do you need?

My last 3 models had between 0.25 and 0.5 screen height. Are you that far out?

Would 100% on Axis install be Dead Center of the screen both vertical and horizontal?
post #74 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital2004 View Post

if you go constant height then yes 4000:1 but especially 600-800:1 ansi
is enough

Hi,d2.4k.

I meant 4,000 on/off cr., not to be confused with ansi Cr. But don't go throwing around 600 grouped on the same sentence as 300, that is f_cking irresponsible from a Videophile standpoint. 970ansi should be the goal, a 30% loss is like a building implosion, one moment something great is there the next moment it is gone.

If you see a high brightness, high on/off xenon based digital cinema projector without the isco 3 and then with it deployed the difference is huge. You will never want to see anamorphic again. Some people say the anamorphic image is more film like. Well, it is, because 35mm film has inferior ansi contrast ratio to 3dlp. But the lower ansi number is directly correlated to a lower MTF value, and that IS INEXCUSABLE.

I see the anamorphic lens as the optical equivalent as revealing a mirror on the back wall of the theater, guaranteed to wash out a significant portion of the image. This wont be as noticeable in a low ansi projector. But that IS NOT FOR THE VIDEOPHILE. The videophile must seek close to 1,000 ansi in order to have maximum modulation transfer function. Not 650, nor 350.
post #75 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

I see the anamorphic lens as the optical equivalent as revealing a mirror on the back wall of the theater, guaranteed to wash out a significant portion of the image. This wont be as noticeable in a low ansi projector. But that IS NOT FOR THE VIDEOPHILE. The videophile must seek close to 1,000 ansi in order to have maximum modulation transfer function. Not 650, nor 350.

You are right Peter, what's wrong with all the numnuts like Art who have reference theaters? He is NOT A VIDEOPHILE.

HOWEVER, I thought everyone knew that a true videophile musT see 1250 ansi. You sir, are a faker, a wannabe, a cheap pretender. YOU ARE NOT A VIDEOPHILE.
post #76 of 877
calm down guys...i like to consider myself a videophile and yet I will own the paltry 1 chip DLP Sim2 HT380. I can guarantee you I'm the videophile amongst my friends...lol.
post #77 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJG View Post

Would 100% on Axis install be Dead Center of the screen both vertical and horizontal?

Yes, but it's not practical, except in rear projection. However, it's much better to keep the vertical off axis shift to a minimum and to use some tilt, especially in long throw installations. A good starting point is to split the needed vertical shift between lens shift and projector tilt. The resultant keystone in most installations will be very small and easily hidden by the screen frame. The digital cinema projectors also have adjustable angled masking to create perfectly straight edges.

Horizontal shift should never be used, except when there is no other way to center the image. It should not be used to correct a sloppy projector placement.
post #78 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by QQQ View Post

You are right Peter, what's wrong with all the numnuts like Art who have reference theaters? He is NOT A VIDEOPHILE.

By sliding out the lens he achieves a higher ansi reading pretty close to the target.

Now reference (from a video standpoint) is a moving target. For constant image width Odyssey's system is reference by a long shot. For CIH the paradigm will shift soon, as soon as the post production reference Barco's leave the gate, then a uhp powered 3dlp/isco3 or a cermax powered 3dlp/isco3 can no longer be considered reference, reference in compact projection maybe.I don't think he has any presumptions of his video chain being totally compromise free, he understands the limitations of UHP and decided he could live with it. I believe though he has become an ANSI convert having lived without it for so long.

A UHP lamp DOES NOT AGE the rgb values linearly. This RGB interactions over usage time and percent of power boost need to be charted and understood.
I believe that Art and everyone else with these uhp projectors will require re-calibration every 200-300 hours depending on the lamp power mode.

On the other hand the real xenon projector will give a flat spectral response for 1,000 hours. Not to mention that the digital cinema units allow you to use the TIP7 calibration system, that when properly setup with a 5nm accuracy acoutred spectrum radiometer, as opposed to the ubiquitous 8nm (the suposedly current state of the art as per JK and the ISF) will yield you the most perfect drift free color possible. This mostly has been covered by Odyssey in his posts.

The fact that an anamorphic projection looks damn good and very filmlike ignores the fact that 3dlp has inherent more ANSI and thus more potential MTF than film at the 2k resolution format. The superior image will happen with a real xenon lamp and a high quality digital cinema servo zoom/tilt/focus lens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QQQ View Post

HOWEVER, I thought everyone knew that a true videophile musT see 1250 ansi. You sir, are a faker, a wannabe, a cheap pretender. YOU ARE NOT A VIDEOPHILE.

I think you need to stop frequenting the humour and sarcasm usenets, and invest some money in R&D outside of the scope of home automation and control. Specifically it would not hurt you to attend SHOWEST.

If you did, and you poked around, you would learn why your idiotic statement is not possible in a 12 degree dmd-tilt world (that we currently live in).

ANSI will not increase past 975 with such little tilt angle as light will inevitably stay in the tube. But fear not, my reference ansi and mtf image has always been the same, September overlooking Magens Bay in St Thomas USVI, where the rapid trade winds move the clouds at a frenetic pace allowing the spectator to sample a wide range of light and color in a sitting.

Magens Bay therefore has to be considered a reference image, not a cloudy day in seattle, or the view of the fields of siberia. In those realities you are mostly talking about varying levels of gray.



To recreate that dynamic range and colorimetry a 12 degree tilt dmd suffices.
I can attest, 975 ansi is fine, you sir are the imposter.
post #79 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by odyssey View Post

Yes, but it's not practical, except in rear projection. However, it's much better to keep the vertical off axis shift to a minimum and to use some tilt, especially in long throw installations. A good starting point is to split the needed vertical shift between lens shift and projector tilt. The resultant keystone in most installations will be very small and easily hidden by the screen frame. The digital cinema projectors also have adjustable angled masking to create perfectly straight edges.

Horizontal shift should never be used, except when there is no other way to center the image. It should not be used to correct a sloppy projector placement.

Odyssey you mentioned I should tilt the projector a bit in the Helene install as the top of the lens is levelled with the top of the 6' high 2.40 ar screen.

AG the pm for the DP1500 feels that only 50% lens shift is being effected and that would be covered by the lens shift. Him and BW said to use only the lens shift.

Any insight on why you recommend the physical tilt?
post #80 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by odyssey View Post

Yes, but it's not practical, except in rear projection. However, it's much better to keep the vertical off axis shift to a minimum and to use some tilt, especially in long throw installations. A good starting point is to split the needed vertical shift between lens shift and projector tilt. The resultant keystone in most installations will be very small and easily hidden by the screen frame. The digital cinema projectors also have adjustable angled masking to create perfectly straight edges.

Horizontal shift should never be used, except when there is no other way to center the image. It should not be used to correct a sloppy projector placement.


Odyssey:

Thank you, very helpfull to my understanding
post #81 of 877
Peter,

Am I understanding this correctly that Barco is recommending not to use any vertical lens shift in your installation and to tilt the projector down instead? Their usual recommendation is to use lens shift only, unless there is not enough range.

In any case, you should first try using tilt only. The projector rear leveling legs should have more than enough range to do this. DCine Communicator will allow you to adjust left and right image blanking at an angle to be perfectly parallel to the vertical screen frame and you may not be able to discern any keystone in the image, except for test patterns and computer displays. If you can see keystone, back off on the tilt and use some vertical lens shift. The closer the lens is to being on axis, the better the optical performance with better image uniformity and less aberrations.
post #82 of 877
Peter,

On second thought, you don't have a long enough throw to use projector tilt only and should split the vertical offset between tilt and lens shift.
post #83 of 877
Whats $30,000.00 the C3X-1080p or the HT5000?
post #84 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by odyssey View Post

Peter,

Am I understanding this correctly that Barco is recommending not to use any vertical lens shift in your installation and to tilt the projector down instead? Their usual recommendation is to use lens shift only, unless there is not enough range.

In any case, you should first try using tilt only. The projector rear leveling legs should have more than enough range to do this. DCine Communicator will allow you to adjust left and right image blanking at an angle to be perfectly parallel to the vertical screen frame and you may not be able to discern any keystone in the image, except for test patterns and computer displays. If you can see keystone, back off on the tilt and use some vertical lens shift. The closer the lens is to being on axis, the better the optical performance with better image uniformity and less aberrations.

Yes they recommend lens SHIFT only. The problem with getting close to on-axis is the resulting sightlines. Here I actually had to move the port up by 9".



Hi Odyssey,

I edited the post for clarity. I have very interesting news on the Barcos, the higher contrast options will be priced out during the next few weeks. There is no aperture plates per se, at least not easily accessible, but the tighter apertures are possible, just requiring engineering weeks.

With the new series Barco has dropped the D-apertures (elliptical shapes) in favour of O apertures to increase uniformity. All of the new engines are more efficent for both sized chips, the hdcp will be active next month, even the DCine basic 2k model looked fantastic. Since DPI achieved 5k-1 cr. with the Highlite reference I have received an agreement in principle that it will be possible to achieve the same or more with the Barco DP 1500. BW and I said that if that is achieved we were putting you down for 2 units.

They have agreed to go for the max (at a higher price point) but are not willing to loose the gains made in image uniformity by the new light engine. So what will need to happen is a trial and error of sorts (the Zemax simulation software cannot give you accurate uniformity predictions) aperture reduction process that is starting with the lens first; once the minimum opening acceptable (as a percentage of light path) is determined, this % of reduction will be applied to the light path.

AG expressed great concern for increased heat buildup, I quoted your situation not having a problem with the 3k lamp at 66% reduction on the dp-100. In any event BW and I explained to him that the screens will rarely exceed 21 feet and most will be between 11.5' and 14.5' wide CIH. With that in mind they are running simulations in Zemax. I also believe that since the pj has a 4kw lamp capacity, smaller lamps are to be used 3,2 (the 2 is actually better because of the sharper focus of the shorter arc). Based on all of this they should shoot for a 75% reduction. We will see.

For Helene they can only commit to 3k-1 cr. The reason for this is that this is the maximum post houses are willing to use, due to the fact that they not only mix for home video, but for Dcine, which is a much larger venue.That sucks because home video will be compromised, I suggested to Barco that they should create a Home Video mastering reference for secondary post production rooms dedicated only to home theater. They liked the idea. It is not like these post houses don't have all the money in the world, so it should happen. We videophiles demand it!
post #85 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by odyssey View Post

Peter,

On second thought, you don't have a long enough throw to use projector tilt only and should split the vertical offset between tilt and lens shift.

I have 28 feet to the vertical center of the screen. It has 50% offset capability for sure. How much offset in yours?
post #86 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

I have 28 feet to the vertical center of the screen. It has 50% offset capability for sure. How much offset in yours?

That's about 2:1 and keystone may be a problem if you use projector tilt only.

I am still confused by the Barco lens tilt recommendation. Did you mean projector tilt or lens shift? Lens tilt would be tilting the lens relative to the optical axis.

Great news about your Barco discussions. I wish I could use a second Barco 1500 in my small room, but the screen is only 67" wide.

The DP100 has at least 50% vertical lens shift. My throw is about 2.3:1 and I have the projector at a 3 degree down angle and about 20% vertical lens shift...roughly half of the needed offset from each.
post #87 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by odyssey View Post

That's about 2:1 and keystone may be a problem if you use projector tilt only.

I am still confused by the Barco lens tilt recommendation. Did you mean projector tilt or lens shift? Lens tilt would be tilting the lens relative to the optical axis.

Great news about your Barco discussions. I wish I could use a second Barco 1500 in my small room, but the screen is only 67" wide.

The DP100 has at least 50% vertical lens shift. My throw is about 2.3:1 and I have the projector at a 3 degree down angle and about 20% vertical lens shift...roughly half of the needed offset from each.


Hi,

I see, no, what Barco recommends is lens shift. 67" wide lol, look at the cx3 with dc4 or wait for a titan with dc4. You have the gear to calibrate every 120 hours, right?
post #88 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

Hi,

I see, no, what Barco recommends is lens shift. 67" wide lol, look at the cx3 with dc4 or wait for a titan with dc4. You have the gear to calibrate every 120 hours, right?

Yes, I am looking at both of those and the upcoming PD 3 chip DLP.

I probably have better equipment than any professional calibrator and can go to 2.5 nm spectral bandwidth. It's a good thing that I don't have to justify it for business. You are right about 8 nm spectral bandwidth being marginal for setting primaries and secondaries, although it's good enough for gray scale.
post #89 of 877
That PD looked like it had crushed blacks and low s/n ratio. It needed a lot of work.

Regards
post #90 of 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

By sliding out the lens he achieves a higher ansi reading pretty close to the target.

Now reference (from a video standpoint) is a moving target. For constant image width Odyssey's system is reference by a long shot. For CIH the paradigm will shift soon, as soon as the post production reference Barco's leave the gate, then a uhp powered 3dlp/isco3 or a cermax powered 3dlp/isco3 can no longer be considered reference, reference in compact projection maybe.I don't think he has any presumptions of his video chain being totally compromise free, he understands the limitations of UHP and decided he could live with it. I believe though he has become an ANSI convert having lived without it for so long.

A UHP lamp DOES NOT AGE the rgb values linearly. This RGB interactions over usage time and percent of power boost need to be charted and understood.
I believe that Art and everyone else with these uhp projectors will require re-calibration every 200-300 hours depending on the lamp power mode.

On the other hand the real xenon projector will give a flat spectral response for 1,000 hours. Not to mention that the digital cinema units allow you to use the TIP7 calibration system, that when properly setup with a 5nm accuracy acoutred spectrum radiometer, as opposed to the ubiquitous 8nm (the suposedly current state of the art as per JK and the ISF) will yield you the most perfect drift free color possible. This mostly has been covered by Odyssey in his posts.

The fact that an anamorphic projection looks damn good and very filmlike ignores the fact that 3dlp has inherent more ANSI and thus more potential MTF than film at the 2k resolution format. The superior image will happen with a real xenon lamp and a high quality digital cinema servo zoom/tilt/focus lens.




Peter, just because you can type your wish list does not make it a reality. I chose the path I did based on the fewest compromises in parameters that meant the most to me.

More glass elements lowers ANSI no doubt but it allows the most use of available projector resolution and, for a screen as large as mine and my viewing distance predilections, it results in the best image possible over making 235 smaller or zooming.

I think you would be better served by not being the ultimate arbiter of what consititues a videophile. I do agree though that max MTF is a great goal but there is a point at which there is a confluence of picture quality parameters that reaching to hard for one results in a degredation of another.I chose some ANSI loss for more immersion, more seating distance choices and resolution.

When the projector comes along that doesn't need any compromises we will all be happier. You know that some other choices go way down in on /off (including the present Xenon based choices). IMO the HT 5000 is just barely acceptable in that department acheiving in excess of 5000:1.

Art
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.