Sony VPL-VW385ES Owners Thread - Page 20 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1457Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #571 of 3718 Old 09-19-2017, 05:45 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,027
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 751 Post(s)
Liked: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
Actually it will be going up in price in one + month.
Wow really?? Man this is hard. Any idea when we can see the reviews start coming in?
sahil0909 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #572 of 3718 Old 09-19-2017, 05:49 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 17,997
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8050 Post(s)
Liked: 10615
Quote:
Originally Posted by sahil0909 View Post
Wow really?? Man this is hard. Any idea when we can see the reviews start coming in?
Sorry - I thought I was on the JVC thread ( regarding pre- order pricing ). It's been a long day. Carry on !
Craig Peer is online now  
post #573 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 03:09 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBrandon View Post
For those obsessing while they wait for this, here is a cool calculator. https://www.projectorscreen.com/proj...en-calculators Remember these are 1250 calibrated lumens. I sit at 25.39 ftL based on screen size which is good for low ambient light. Glad I’m in a 100% treated environment. Also, for my 135 inch screen, to resolve all 4k detail, I have to sit 8 feet or closer!! I am between 8-9. . Didn’t realize how close you needed to be!!!
Throw Distance

Thank you for all your suggestions and advice. But I am having a hard time using the calculators. Was never good at math. Here is my issue. I now have a 52" high 16:9 screen. I would like the same height for the 2.35:1 screen. Which then becomes 122" wide. Screen to back wall is 16 feet. So the furthest I can have the lens is about 14 feet. At this distance, will the 385 zoom to fill the screen? I understand loss of brightness and resolution will be some thing I have to live with but I am hoping 4K will help.


I only watch movies. No games or sports. Completely light controlled.


The other crazy question is, will an anamorphic lens help in this situation? (permission has NOT been granted by her even to have this thought!).


When I did the calculations I get a totally out of range answer. If one of you can please do the math, I will be most grateful.
Pintura is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #574 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 03:53 AM
Member
 
T8OO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pintura View Post
Throw Distance

Thank you for all your suggestions and advice. But I am having a hard time using the calculators. Was never good at math. Here is my issue. I now have a 52" high 16:9 screen. I would like the same height for the 2.35:1 screen. Which then becomes 122" wide. Screen to back wall is 16 feet. So the furthest I can have the lens is about 14 feet. At this distance, will the 385 zoom to fill the screen? I understand loss of brightness and resolution will be some thing I have to live with but I am hoping 4K will help.


I only watch movies. No games or sports. Completely light controlled.


The other crazy question is, will an anamorphic lens help in this situation? (permission has NOT been granted by her even to have this thought!).


When I did the calculations I get a totally out of range answer. If one of you can please do the math, I will be most grateful.
Have you tried this one:
http://www.reviewtranslations.com/pr...ulator_en.html
T8OO is offline  
post #575 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 04:10 AM
 
AMartin56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,750
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2166 Post(s)
Liked: 1152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pintura View Post
Throw Distance

Thank you for all your suggestions and advice. But I am having a hard time using the calculators. Was never good at math. Here is my issue. I now have a 52" high 16:9 screen. I would like the same height for the 2.35:1 screen. Which then becomes 122" wide. Screen to back wall is 16 feet. So the furthest I can have the lens is about 14 feet. At this distance, will the 385 zoom to fill the screen? I understand loss of brightness and resolution will be some thing I have to live with but I am hoping 4K will help.


I only watch movies. No games or sports. Completely light controlled.


The other crazy question is, will an anamorphic lens help in this situation? (permission has NOT been granted by her even to have this thought!).


When I did the calculations I get a totally out of range answer. If one of you can please do the math, I will be most grateful.
That won't work (I just happen to know the math on that one as it's similar to my setup). You be short by a few inches of throw. My 2.35 screen is 120 inches wide and minimum throw with zoom method is around 14.5 feet.

A lens would allow you to do what you need to but personally I didn't care for he pincushion with my setup.
AMartin56 is offline  
post #576 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 06:12 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 28,541
Mentioned: 289 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14004 Post(s)
Liked: 11680
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by sahil0909 View Post
Isn't the 540 going to be for like 6000$ in itself?
Sent you an email.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #577 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 06:23 AM
 
AMartin56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,750
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2166 Post(s)
Liked: 1152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pintura View Post
Throw Distance

Thank you for all your suggestions and advice. But I am having a hard time using the calculators. Was never good at math. Here is my issue. I now have a 52" high 16:9 screen. I would like the same height for the 2.35:1 screen. Which then becomes 122" wide. Screen to back wall is 16 feet. So the furthest I can have the lens is about 14 feet. At this distance, will the 385 zoom to fill the screen? I understand loss of brightness and resolution will be some thing I have to live with but I am hoping 4K will help.


I only watch movies. No games or sports. Completely light controlled.


The other crazy question is, will an anamorphic lens help in this situation? (permission has NOT been granted by her even to have this thought!).


When I did the calculations I get a totally out of range answer. If one of you can please do the math, I will be most grateful.
One additional comment in using a lens. I don't believe the 385 can do the vertical stretch required for 4k sources. Easiest way around this would probably be an Oppo.
AMartin56 is offline  
post #578 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 06:28 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 28,541
Mentioned: 289 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14004 Post(s)
Liked: 11680
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pintura View Post
Throw Distance

Thank you for all your suggestions and advice. But I am having a hard time using the calculators. Was never good at math. Here is my issue. I now have a 52" high 16:9 screen. I would like the same height for the 2.35:1 screen. Which then becomes 122" wide. Screen to back wall is 16 feet. So the furthest I can have the lens is about 14 feet. At this distance, will the 385 zoom to fill the screen? I understand loss of brightness and resolution will be some thing I have to live with but I am hoping 4K will help.


I only watch movies. No games or sports. Completely light controlled.


The other crazy question is, will an anamorphic lens help in this situation? (permission has NOT been granted by her even to have this thought!).


When I did the calculations I get a totally out of range answer. If one of you can please do the math, I will be most grateful.
With 14' of throw, you will have enough throw to use lens memory for your 122" wide 2.35 screen. If I can help you, shoot me a PM or email.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #579 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 06:32 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 28,541
Mentioned: 289 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14004 Post(s)
Liked: 11680
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMartin56 View Post
That won't work (I just happen to know the math on that one as it's similar to my setup). You be short by a few inches of throw. My 2.35 screen is 120 inches wide and minimum throw with zoom method is around 14.5 feet.

A lens would allow you to do what you need to but personally I didn't care for he pincushion with my setup.
Yes, it will work. With 14' of throw, he will be able to shoot a 123.5294" wide image, so 122" wide is no problem.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #580 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 06:42 AM
 
AMartin56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,750
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2166 Post(s)
Liked: 1152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
Yes, it will work. With 14' of throw, he will be able to shoot a 123.5294" wide image, so 122" wide is no problem.
Okay. Thanks for the correction.
AMartin56 is offline  
post #581 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 07:04 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 28,541
Mentioned: 289 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14004 Post(s)
Liked: 11680
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMartin56 View Post
Okay. Thanks for the correction.
No problem. Did not want him to have to pass on a projector that would work for him.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #582 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 07:42 AM
Advanced Member
 
DJR662's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 913
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 666 Post(s)
Liked: 441
So right now I am in a position where I am able to order either one. I'm leaning towards the 385 right now mainly because the DI is apparently functional when viewing HDR content. Still the price difference between the 285 and 385 is massive, so I'm still contemplating... Decisions, decisons...
DJR662 is offline  
post #583 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 07:47 AM
 
AMartin56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,750
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2166 Post(s)
Liked: 1152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
No problem. Did not want him to have to pass on a projector that would work for him.
So his math is correct?

(Per Sony 675ES manual page 67)

1.217856 x 140 -1.7084 = 168.7914 inches or 14.06 ft

140 being the diagonal size of a 16:9 image that is 122 inches wide.

Interesting that Projector Central says you need six more inches of throw. I've learned to take their brightness claims with a grain of salt but always assumed the math was correct.
AMartin56 is offline  
post #584 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 07:50 AM
Advanced Member
 
Yves Smolders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 698
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 24
OK, I'm a bit confused - is there smoothmotion (FI) on the VW385ES when using 4K? Thanks.

Yves
Yves Smolders is offline  
post #585 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 07:53 AM
 
AMartin56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,750
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2166 Post(s)
Liked: 1152
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJR662 View Post
So right now I am in a position where I am able to order either one. I'm leaning towards the 385 right now mainly because the DI is apparently functional when viewing HDR content. Still the price difference between the 285 and 385 is massive, so I'm still contemplating... Decisions, decisons...
If money is tight and you are set on a Sony I think you'd be pleased with the image on a 285. The lack of iris may not impact you much unless you have a treated room.

I prefer the characteristics of a Sony personally but if you are open to other brands a JVC 440 would save you some coin considering its street price but of course is Eshift etc.

Last edited by AMartin56; 09-20-2017 at 07:57 AM.
AMartin56 is offline  
post #586 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 07:55 AM
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 10,827
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5167 Post(s)
Liked: 2595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yves Smolders View Post
OK, I'm a bit confused - is there smoothmotion (FI) on the VW385ES when using 4K? Thanks.
No only the 885ES, 5000ES and JVC projectors offer this functionality.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #587 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 07:55 AM
 
AMartin56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,750
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2166 Post(s)
Liked: 1152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yves Smolders View Post
OK, I'm a bit confused - is there smoothmotion (FI) on the VW385ES when using 4K? Thanks.
No frame interpolation with 4k sources. Black frame insertion (What Sony calls Impulse) only. And I believe it's restricted to 4k60 only. I imagine it induces flicker with 24fps.
AMartin56 is offline  
post #588 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 08:04 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMartin56 View Post
If money is tight and you are set on a Sony I think you'd be pleased with the image on a 285. The lack of iris may not impact you much unless you have a treated room.
Hi

Would you say 1500 lumen in a batcave watching a 100 inch screen without iris turns out too bright.

Any hands on experience is welcom, I ordered the VW260(285)
BeamerFreak is offline  
post #589 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 08:06 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 28,541
Mentioned: 289 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14004 Post(s)
Liked: 11680
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMartin56 View Post
So his math is correct?

(Per Sony 675ES manual page 67)

1.217856 x 140 -1.7084 = 168.7914 inches or 14.06 ft

140 being the diagonal size of a 16:9 image that is 122 inches wide.

Interesting that Projector Central says you need six more inches of throw. I've learned to take their brightness claims with a grain of salt but always assumed the math was correct.
Keep in mind the lens in the 385 is different than what originally came in the 675. The 675 is listed as 1.38 and the 385 is listed as 1.36.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #590 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 08:11 AM
 
AMartin56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,750
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2166 Post(s)
Liked: 1152
I've always had projectors with 1800 lumens before. So I've been doing some research in case I feel the need to change anything in my setup after the dimmer 385es arrives.

If the professional review sources are correct there seems to be very little difference between the CALIBRATED lumens on the 385es and the other projectors I've had in the house that have 1800 peak brightness listed on their marketing materials. I wouldn't have expected them to be so close.

My current 45es is permanently zoomed for 2.35 using a Lumagen to shrink 16:9. It's on high lamp.

My RS420 required High lamp when zoomed. Low lamp for 16:9.

Since the calibrated lumens all seem similar for the 385es and the projectors above it looks like my results with the 385es will be similar.

So I'm still considering a 1.3 gain screen at some point for a little more wiggle room but the ones that have little fall off in the 5-10 degree seating angle I require aren't cheap (and definitely too risky financially with a toddler in the house).

But I'm starting to think I'll have the brightness I want without additional gain. Especially since I don't watch 3D.
AMartin56 is offline  
post #591 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 08:28 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 17,997
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8050 Post(s)
Liked: 10615
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMartin56 View Post
I've always had projectors with 1800 lumens before. So I've been doing some research in case I feel the need to change anything in my setup after the dimmer 385es arrives.

If the professional review sources are correct there seems to be very little difference between the CALIBRATED lumens on the 385es and the other projectors I've had in the house that have 1800 peak brightness listed on their marketing materials. I wouldn't have expected them to be so close.

My current 45es is permanently zoomed for 2.35 using a Lumagen to shrink 16:9. It's on high lamp.

My RS420 required High lamp when zoomed. Low lamp for 16:9.

Since the calibrated lumens all seem similar for the 385es and the projectors above it looks like my results with the 385es will be similar.

So I'm still considering a 1.3 gain screen at some point for a little more wiggle room but the ones that have little fall off in the 5-10 degree seating angle I require aren't cheap (and definitely too risky financially with a toddler in the house).

But I'm starting to think I'll have the brightness I want without additional gain. Especially since I don't watch 3D.
I was going to recommend the StudioTek 130 G3, until I saw " toddler in the house ".
Craig Peer is online now  
post #592 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 08:31 AM
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 10,827
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5167 Post(s)
Liked: 2595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
I was going to recommend the StudioTek 130 G3, until I saw " toddler in the house ".
If he can manage the forum he can manage a Studiotek 130.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #593 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 08:33 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 17,997
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8050 Post(s)
Liked: 10615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
If he can manage the forum he can manage a Studiotek 130.
Fence 'em in !

TheBrandon and Reddig like this.
Craig Peer is online now  
post #594 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 08:37 AM
 
AMartin56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,750
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2166 Post(s)
Liked: 1152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
I was going to recommend the StudioTek 130 G3, until I saw " toddler in the house ".
Well I would like to continue to love her as much as I do now and I believe that is a $3000+ screen in my size (130 2.35). If she damaged it I'm sure my attitude towards her would change temporarily. Too many projectiles and swinging arms and legs right next to my current screen as it is.
AMartin56 is offline  
post #595 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 08:37 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Excuse me 94 ich.

I calculated 28ftl with the calculator.

So 975 lumen (after cal and low lamp mode) a gain of 1. And a creen of 94 by 53 inch.

The advise is low ambient light.....
BeamerFreak is offline  
post #596 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 08:38 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Cleveland Plasma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 26,380
Mentioned: 92 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7616 Post(s)
Liked: 7684
Quote:
Originally Posted by sahil0909 View Post
Any idea when we can see the reviews start coming in?
These being released in full swing will help, lol. Amazon let a few go thru, I wonder how they even got them....This Forum here, will be writing a review pretty soon ......
TheBrandon likes this.
Cleveland Plasma is online now  
post #597 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 08:57 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 13,230
Mentioned: 187 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5681 Post(s)
Liked: 6261
The HW45 was ~1250 @ D65. RS420 is 1600+ @ D65.

The 385 will likely have the same calibrated lumens as the HW45 based on Cine4home's early info. same lamp wattage 225w.
TheBrandon likes this.
zombie10k is online now  
post #598 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 09:04 AM
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 10,827
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5167 Post(s)
Liked: 2595
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post
The HW45 was ~1250 @ D65. RS420 is 1600+ @ D65.

The 385 will likely have the same calibrated lumens as the HW45 based on Cine4home's early info. same lamp wattage 225w.
Their early report says 1250 D65 lumens for both the 285 and 385.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #599 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 09:07 AM
 
AMartin56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,750
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2166 Post(s)
Liked: 1152
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post
The HW45 was ~1250 @ D65. RS420 is 1600+ @ D65.

The 385 will likely have the same calibrated lumens as the HW45 based on Cine4home's early info. same lamp wattage 225w.
Projector review has a lower number for a RS400.
AMartin56 is offline  
post #600 of 3718 Old 09-20-2017, 09:09 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 13,230
Mentioned: 187 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5681 Post(s)
Liked: 6261
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMartin56 View Post
Projector review has a lower number for a RS400.
I'll trust cine4home and my T10, had several 400's here. The RS600 was 1820 OOTB @ D65, 1250 low lamp. any extra lumens will help with HDR.
DavidHir likes this.
zombie10k is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off