NEW JVC RS3000/NX9 RS2000/N7 RS1000/N5 Native 4K Projectors Anticipation Thread - Page 378 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 13017Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #11311 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 07:39 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
Industry Insider
 
Cleveland Plasma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 24,546
Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6669 Post(s)
Liked: 6663
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankiy View Post
So back to this threads' initial purpose... has there been any other news of a schedule for these new beasts?
Hopefully in Jan
Cleveland Plasma is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #11312 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 07:42 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles R View Post
Rather I think our vision is horizontally challenged based on the ratio of screens. As the screen size increases we lose the ability to see horizontally before vertically.


Doesn't matter if the 16:9 screen is at your widest possible viewing angle.


I place my seating at the maximum distance I can comfortably view the screen/image. Since the width is the hard limit using a 16:9 screen gives me the largest image I can see regardless of ratio. If some don't care to view the largest image fine.

As an example I have a 43" 16:9 monitor. If I move my head as close as possible and still be able to read the text as the top of the screen (just moving my eyes) there is no way I can read the text at the sides of the screen without moving my head. Now if I move my head back to where I can read the text on the sides without moving my head I can easily read the text at the top.
This all seems counter intuitive.

If you place your hands in front of your face, one on top of the other, then slowly move them apart so that one goes up and the other down, you will see that the hand you are raising disappears very quickly from view as it goes above your head, but the lower hand remains visible for a while longer, down to around your stomach, and comfortable viewing angles in the vertical for watching movies is much the same - the height is usually the limiting factor.

If you do the same thing but move your hands to the sides, they will stay in view pretty much until your hands are at arms length, like you're explaining how large your last fish you caught was.

That's because we have around 120 degrees of binocular vision, so you don't have to move your head horizontally when watching a movie, and why scope was designed to be wider, not taller. With recommendations of no more than a 15 degree viewing angle, and a 60 degree horizontal viewing angle you can see that a comfortable viewing ratio is more like 4:1 than 1.37 (4:3)

Although we can look up, forcing your eyes to look up for long periods can be fatiguing and can make you crane you neck, and then neck fatigue can set in. If you have your eyes nearer the top of the screen that would make things more comfortable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #11313 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 07:46 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
Neither, because we do not have production units to test with. Also need more than one comparison, because a statistical measurement of one is not very reliable.
Well yeah, but hopefully you get the point I was making

I'd go with the direct comparison over anecdotal evidence from shows given the choice, but of course the more reviews, the more data points we have to go on. Ultimately though, I only go on what I see and don't take anyone else word for things if I'm actually going to be buying something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #11314 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 07:50 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
brazensol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Posts: 1,623
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 752 Post(s)
Liked: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctormyeyes View Post
Unless, of course, you have a cyclovertical paresis, in which case your preferred viewing side depends on your Bielschowsky Head Tilt test.

Now you've all really got something new to obsess about!
Well, I thought that was so obvious it wasn't worth mentioning...

Now, I must get back to doing the litmus configuration test on my $20.00 bills!
doctormyeyes likes this.

Denali Cinema
JVC-RS540, 124" Wide 2.40:1 DIY Screen, Denon 8500H, Denon 6200W, Panasonic UB820 UHD Player, (3) iNuke 6000DSP; (2) iNuke NX3000D; (3) HTM-12; (14) RSL C34e surrounds; (2) 18" DA RSS460HO-4 Subwoofers; (1) DA UM18-22 18" Ultimax Subwoofer; (4) DA RSS390HO-4 15" Reference HO Subwoofers; BOSS Platform - (12) 12" Subwoofers
brazensol is offline  
post #11315 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 07:58 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1054
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Time will tell. IMAX is trying to increase it's presence. And most of the cheap multiplexes are being put up with 1.85:1 (which is really close to 16:9) since they can fit more theaters in. There are still premium theaters being put in with scope as well. Our local Flix is all scope. The last 2 Alamo's I went to are scope. The thing is even in the face of commodity theaters going with narrower aspect ratios, we still have a roughly 50/50 split between 2.35:1 and 1.85:1. More and more premium TV shows are going 2.0:1 and some (like Star Trek Discovery Season 2) are going full 2.35:1. The thing is I'm perfectly happy with 1.85:1/16:9 on my screen so a movement away from wider wouldn't bother me much. But oddly despite the theater trends we are actually seeing more content going wider. That may swing the other way too. It's just impossible to say.

On a side note Stranger Things certainly looks better on the 2.0 lens preset than it does constrained to 1.78:1.
Unfortunately, because tv and multiplexes are the norm, and very few people seem to understand the history or intent of scope (just look at some of the comments here and this is supposed to be avscience) I wouldn't be surprised if people get their wish and everything becomes 16:9 in the future. That would be a real shame.

There was an article a while back which seemed to be saying that some theatres were going to start using much larger screens to compete with IMAX, but still show normal 16:9 content on them, just much larger. Not sure what kind of seating arrangements they'll be using or if there will be any attempt to ensure good quality 4K presentations, otherwise it could be a bit of a soft looking image.

The trouble is, if like some people here, the only thing that sells is the size, not the quality or implementation, then I can imagine more people buying tickets - cinema takings were down and dropping until the multiplexes became a thing, so in one respect that was good I guess, but unfortunately presentation and quality went out of the window. Things seem to be going in a similar direction by the sound of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #11316 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 07:59 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,044
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4269 Post(s)
Liked: 3275
Quote:
Originally Posted by markmon1 View Post
Why can't Game of Thrones, Star Trek Discovery, The Expanse, etc which are all in DD5.1 be just as immersive as any movie? Especially when star trek discovery has the budget and effects of a movie.
The first season of Star Trek: Discovery was 2.0:1 aspect ratio. The second season will be 2.35:1. A growing number of TV shows are moving to wider than 16:9 aspect ratios (here's a thread tracking them) because their creators want their series to be more cinematic and more immersive, just like movies.

Watching Discovery on 16:9 screen unavoidably reduces its scope and impact to be less than The Bachelor or The Price Is Right.

Josh Z
Home Theater Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
Josh Z is online now  
post #11317 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 08:04 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,044
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4269 Post(s)
Liked: 3275
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolgeek View Post
As the format of Cinema becomes the format of TVs, I bet more and more 'bluray' releases would be in 16:9.. or, more and more films will be shot in that format in the future...
People have been saying this since the VHS revolution started in the 1980s. "Movies are going to start being 1.33:1 so that they'll fit our TV screens better!" Guess what, that didn't happen. Quite the opposite, TV screens got wider and TV shows did too. The big-budget visual spectacle blockbuster movies are still overwhelmingly shot in 2.35:1 ratio every year with no sign of that changing, and the new trend is for TV shows to move in that direction too.

Josh Z
Home Theater Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
Josh Z is online now  
post #11318 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 08:12 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,044
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4269 Post(s)
Liked: 3275
Here's a post I wrote a couple years ago with pictures to illustrate (some small edits made for context):

Composition is precisely the reason why Constant Height display is important. The rules of composition, regarding the relative sizes of objects in the frame, are the same between 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. The only difference between the two is that 2.35:1 has more picture on the sides.

Here are a pair of images from two similar movies: The Avengers (1.85:1) and Iron Man 2 (2.35:1). Both images are medium shots of the same character. When displayed in Constant Height format, you'll notice that the character is basically the same size, and he's framed similarly in both shots from the top of his head to his waist.

This is the intent of scope composition. You start at the same size you would in 1.85:1, and then add extra width.



However, if you display these same images in Constant Width format, suddenly the 2.35:1 movie is greatly shrunken and diminished in impact. The character looks much smaller, and the scene is less involving.



That's not the case in Constant Height. Iron Man is the same size in both movies in Constant Height. He fills the same amount of your vision. The Avengers is not compromised or diminished in Constant Height. When done properly, 1.85:1 movies are as large as they're ever going to be on your screen. Then scope movies are even wider for added immersiveness, as intended.

Constant Width, unfortunately, will always diminish 2.35:1 movies. They will always be shrunken down so that all objects on the screen are smaller than the same objects in 1.85:1 movies. That is not how they were composed.

A Constant Width screen starts from the premise that scope movies are less important than and inferior to 1.85:1 movies. If you believe that's true, take a look at the types of movies that are photographed in each aspect ratio. Year after year after year, the directors of big budget, visual spectacle, eye candy movies overwhelmingly choose to shoot them in scope ratio. Consistently, 70% or more of that type of movie are photographed in scope.

Before you stammer, "Bu... bu... but... Why is The Avengers 1.85:1, then?" That was the decision the director of that movie made. The Avengers is one movie in a long franchise in which most of the other entries are 2.35:1. Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, Captain America, Captain America 2, Thor, Thor 2, The Incredible Hulk, even Avengers 2... All of those movies are 2.35:1.

Scope composition adds more breadth and dimension to the image. It gives the characters more room to move around. 1.85:1 doesn't do that, not even if you project it extra large on an IMAX screen. All that does is zoom up the whole picture and make everything oversized. Proportionally to the way objects in the frame are composed, the characters are still boxed in by limited width.

Constant Image Area projection does not solve this problem. Constant Height is the only scenario in which Iron Man appears the same size in both of these movies.
BigScreen, Toe, DavidHir and 4 others like this.

Josh Z
Home Theater Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
Josh Z is online now  
post #11319 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 08:28 AM
Advanced Member
 
tommarra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 620
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 632 Post(s)
Liked: 373
I don't get why would you compare 16:9 and 2:35 aspect ratio.

It's not like you are watching both aspects as the same time ... Except for few cases when the content changes aspect ratio on you?

Given the viewing distance, immersion, , audio, seating etc. You would want to maximize the size of the movie you are watching at that point of time. For two movies at different points of time it makes no sense to say you would have 16:9 smaller than 2:35 even though you have vertical space to accommodate a 16:9

Unless of course in your particular situation 16:9 and 2:35:1 require drastically different seating - which I don't think won't be the case or else movie theatres would be built with portable seats



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gear: Fronts: B&W 803D3 | Center: B&W HTM2D3 | Surrounds: B&W 705S2 | Backs: B&W DM601S3 | Heights: Definitive Techonlogy ProCinema 1000 | Receiver & Amps: Anthem MRX 720 + Emotiva BasX-5 | Projector: JVC NX7 | Source: HTPC with Nvidia 2070, Kodi + External Player: MPC-HC with MadVR (for Blu-ray rips), Nvidia Shield (for streaming content)
tommarra is offline  
post #11320 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 08:43 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,106
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2070 Post(s)
Liked: 1368
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommarra View Post
I don't get why would you compare 16:9 and 2:35 aspect ratio.

It's not like you are watching both aspects as the same time ... Except for few cases when the content changes aspect ratio on you?

Given the viewing distance, immersion, , audio, seating etc. You would want to maximize the size of the movie you are watching at that point of time. For two movies at different points of time it makes no sense to say you would have 16:9 smaller than 2:35 even though you have vertical space to accommodate a 16:9

Unless of course in your particular situation 16:9 and 2:35:1 require drastically different seating - which I don't think won't be the case or else movie theatres would be built with portable seats


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A 1.78:1 (16:9) screen will never "maximize" a wider aspect ratio. However a wider screen doesn't have to (and really shouldn't) decrease the impact of a narrower AR. Having said that, there are certainly other factors that influence what you end up going with in your own home theater.

Movie theaters engineer the audio and video presentation "sweet spot" for the center of the theater generally just past the halfway point. If the theater is employing a 1.85:1 screen then sitting in this sweet spot when viewing a scope film penalizes the visual experience due to the greatly reduced picture size. Moving up several rows can compensate for the much smaller picture, but puts you out of the optimal audio zone. So in essence the same compromises exist in the theater when using a CIW setup that we have at home.

jeahrens is online now  
post #11321 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 08:45 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 26,505
Mentioned: 241 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12531 Post(s)
Liked: 10143
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSony4KRises View Post
This is where the carousel is headed...8K....whether you wish to stay on or off is entirely up to you and me and the rest of us
I remember reading an interview with one of the Sony 1000es engineers in 2012 that they were looking forward to R&Ding 16K and 32K resolutions at some point in the future!

I may not live to see that but still.....this is a ride that goes on and on----it is just the passengers that change(you and me).

I too have my eye on the Z1, NX9 as well as the 995es...although I will probably not purchase for another 12 months(if not more) at least.

My hunch is that Sony and JVC have a native 8K up their sleeves.

I want to see what those can do before outlaying on at least 20gs worth of cash
I would much rather see Sony and JVC move to brighter 4K laser projectors, than 8K. I think that offers a significantly larger picture improvement compared to 8K. Now if the offering is native 8K with brighter laser, that would be great, but I suspect the cost would exclude many of us.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #11322 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 09:00 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,044
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4269 Post(s)
Liked: 3275
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommarra View Post
I don't get why would you compare 16:9 and 2:35 aspect ratio.

It's not like you are watching both aspects as the same time ... Except for few cases when the content changes aspect ratio on you?

Given the viewing distance, immersion, , audio, seating etc. You would want to maximize the size of the movie you are watching at that point of time. For two movies at different points of time it makes no sense to say you would have 16:9 smaller than 2:35 even though you have vertical space to accommodate a 16:9
By this logic, you should be perfectly fine watching a movie on your phone, and you'll never notice that it's smaller than watching TV shows on your projector. Is that the case? Of course not.

When you watch content day after day after day at a certain size, you become accustomed to the evening news, Reality shows, and sitcoms being the biggest and most immersive things you watch. That becomes the standard at which you expect all content to measure against. Then when you switch to a scope movie, its diminished size is inevitably disappointing. You don't have to watch them back-to-back for this to affect you. It's an unavoidable consequence of a 16:9 screen.
BigScreen likes this.

Josh Z
Home Theater Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
Josh Z is online now  
post #11323 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 09:13 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 16,332
Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6976 Post(s)
Liked: 8245
Quote:
Originally Posted by markmon1 View Post
7 feet 4 inches from my forehead to the screen just measured it. If I recline further back then it could approach 8 feet depending on how far I recline. The picture at 4K is fantastic from this distance.
What about Blu-rays though? Since we will be watching 1080p along side 4K for many years.

[email protected] JVC RS4500, Lumagen Radiance Pro, Panamorph Paladin DCR lens, Stewart Luxus Model A ElectriScreens - 128" diagonal 2.35:1 ST130 & 122" diagonal 16:9 Cima Neve, Denon X8500, Parasound A 52+ amp, Martin Logan Motion series 9.4 speakers, four SVS subs, Panasonic UB820, Oppo 203, PFP M1500 UPS
Craig Peer is online now  
post #11324 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 09:17 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 16,332
Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6976 Post(s)
Liked: 8245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Cutter View Post
This drives me crazy when they do this since I have a scope screen. Why can't they also produce a version that stays in the scope aspect ratio? How do others deal with this issue?
You can use the masking feature on the new JVC projectors ( hows that for a tie in to the original intent of this thread ) and make it scope. Problem solved. I myself watched it with my DCR lens last night which also made it a scope movie.

[email protected] JVC RS4500, Lumagen Radiance Pro, Panamorph Paladin DCR lens, Stewart Luxus Model A ElectriScreens - 128" diagonal 2.35:1 ST130 & 122" diagonal 16:9 Cima Neve, Denon X8500, Parasound A 52+ amp, Martin Logan Motion series 9.4 speakers, four SVS subs, Panasonic UB820, Oppo 203, PFP M1500 UPS
Craig Peer is online now  
post #11325 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 09:27 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
DLCPhoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mooresville, NC
Posts: 2,394
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1592 Post(s)
Liked: 714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
You can use the masking feature on the new JVC projectors ( hows that for a tie in to the original intent of this thread ) and make it scope. Problem solved. I myself watched it with my DCR lens last night which also made it a scope movie.
I'm sorry, but "on-topic" posts will need to be reported!!

JVC RS400, Marantz SR7010, Screen Innovations 160" 2.35:1 Screen
Front L/R: Duntech Sovereigns, powered by 2 bridged Adcom GFA-555
Center: Revel C208 powered by Cambridge Audio Azur 851W
Dolby Bed (4): Sony Core SS-CS5, Atmos (4): Ascend Acoustics CBM-170 SE
Subwoofer: DIY 8' sub with 4 18" SI Drivers, powered by iNuke 6000
DLCPhoto is offline  
post #11326 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 09:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 6,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 1532
NEW JVC RS3000/NX9 RS2000/N7 RS1000/N5 Native 4K Projectors Anticipation Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by DLCPhoto View Post
I'm sorry, but "on-topic" posts will need to be reported!!


This thread moves so fast.
There was discussion a few days back on Lasik, it caught my attention .
I had LASIK 20 years ago, was 36 then, eyes really “bad” like -5.75, since surgery I was 20/15 for 15 years and now “better” than 20/20 still at 56 years old. It was life changing, being very active in multiple sports. Heck waking up and seeing the clock at 5am clearly was a wow thing.
What caught me was the claim it took away contrast. I do need readers past 3 years, a +1.5.

How can I confirm my eyes ability for contrast?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Last edited by mtbdudex; 12-12-2018 at 09:42 AM.
mtbdudex is offline  
post #11327 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 09:52 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
DLCPhoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mooresville, NC
Posts: 2,394
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1592 Post(s)
Liked: 714
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post
This thread moves so fast.
There was discussion a few days back on Lasik, it caught my attention .
I had LASIK 20 years ago, was 36 then, eyes really “bad” like -5.75, since surgery I was 20/15 for 15 years and now “better” than 20/20 still at 56 years old. It was life changing, being very active in multiple sports. Heck waking up and seeing the clock at 5am clearly was a wow thing.
What caught me was the claim it took away contrast. I do need readers past 3 years, a +1.5.

How can I confirm my eyes ability for contrast?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, in the right situation, with proper expectations, and absent any significant complications, people can be very happy with the results.

As for the contrast issue, that actually is something that I would need to research to determine if it has been objectively defined, reported, or explained. The procedure does alter corneal shape in general, and so there could be subtle differences beyond just the acuity of one's central vision. But with regards to contrast (which always needs to be defined, as it can refer to different things in different contexts), I'll do some digging and see what I can uncover.
doctormyeyes and mtbdudex like this.

JVC RS400, Marantz SR7010, Screen Innovations 160" 2.35:1 Screen
Front L/R: Duntech Sovereigns, powered by 2 bridged Adcom GFA-555
Center: Revel C208 powered by Cambridge Audio Azur 851W
Dolby Bed (4): Sony Core SS-CS5, Atmos (4): Ascend Acoustics CBM-170 SE
Subwoofer: DIY 8' sub with 4 18" SI Drivers, powered by iNuke 6000
DLCPhoto is offline  
post #11328 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 09:53 AM
Member
 
doctormyeyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked: 68
My first screen, was an 80" wide x 45" high 16:9 screen with a 480p projector and anamorphic lens. Always liking widescreen movies, my next added 24" to the width, to 104", maintaining the 45" height. I had moved up to a 720p projector, and now used the anamorphic lens for 'scope movies. Several projectors later, (now on an RS540), I have kept the screen this size, as I still enjoy 'opening up' the image to 2.35. I have thought about going larger, and maximizing the size of a 16:9 screen, as my room would support it, but have chosen not to (partly because my screen is irreplaceable). I still like seeing 2.35 movies larger than 16:9 movies, even if those could be viewed larger with a new screen. Letterbox is not a cinema experience, and defeats the grin that accompanies the widening of a screen to cinemascope ratio. When I really want to see a 'bigger' 16:9 image (greater visual angle), I pull down my roll down HP screen to its lower preset, and pull up a pillow on the carpet to sit up close. Very comfortable and gives me the best of both worlds.

This, however, is not a religious issue, and if I grew up watching 16:9 at my local cinema, I probably would be maximizing my 16:9 screen size, and would be annoyed by 2.35. Whatever works for you.
brazensol likes this.
doctormyeyes is offline  
post #11329 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 09:54 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dkersten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Billings, MT
Posts: 1,124
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 700 Post(s)
Liked: 1212
Quote:
Originally Posted by markmon1 View Post
Why can't Game of Thrones, Star Trek Discovery, The Expanse, etc which are all in DD5.1 be just as immersive as any movie? Especially when star trek discovery has the budget and effects of a movie.
Like I said, I get it to some extent, not just with those movies but with Netflix as well. There are a lot of good Netflix movies out now that are in that odd slightly wider than 16:9 format (small black bars on top and bottom in 16:9), and they are in 4k UHD with decent sound.

It still seems that CIH makes more sense in general, but I can't fault anyone who is happy with their theater.

Really the only reason I responded to this stuff is to point out that you can get yourself in trouble if you take any one person's advice as solid fact. There are potential drawbacks to every screen ratio and every screen size.

It wasn't as easy for me as just making my preferred 16:9 image wider. Depending on how you look at it, the cost went up anywhere from 10x to 40x over what I was expecting, and even at the top end there are drawbacks. I can see the same thing happening for anyone who just decides to make the whole wall their screen and use masking to do CIA.

These new JVC projectors with tone mapping will ease a lot of those potential issues and make it much easier to find a happy medium. I feel like the days of needing massive gain or massive lumens for a larger screen could be coming to an end. This is very good for anyone who wants to maximize all the different screen ratios.
dkersten is online now  
post #11330 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 09:54 AM
Senior Member
 
laguna_b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Los Gatos Mntns. California
Posts: 367
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkersten View Post
I get the feeling that tone mapping and native resolution are not important to you, but I think for many that is the reason they are pulling the trigger on this model year vs others. For me that is 100% the case.

I had a choice last year to go with the 640, or go with a cheap Epson 5040. Both were in my budget so cost wasn't much of a factor. But while some might think I was crazy for choosing the Epson, the fact is I had to choose between two projectors that would not work for HDR content, one expensive, one cheaper. It ended up being about which would be easier to sell in a year or two when either a brighter projector came out that could do HDR on a 150" wide screen, or some kind of tone mapping came out that was in the projector and didn't require an external processor.

As the year went on, the panasonic 820 came out, and it wasn't like there weren't other options for HDR without the lumens before that. But none of the options were a good fit for me.
  • Panasonic 820 - works if you only watch HDR content on a disc. Might work for Netflix HDR content but pretty sure it doesn't for Amazon HDR, and won't work at all with media stored on hard drives played back with Kodi or Plex.
  • MadVR - works with media stored on hard drives, but not for discs, Netflix, Amazon, etc., plus requires watching on an HTPC.
  • Lumagen Pro - works with everything, but costs more than the projector.
  • Custom Luminance Curve - The cost of flying someone into Montana who could do this is prohibitive, and if the projector needed to be replaced, you are out the cost.
  • 2.4 gain screen - Definitely not for me, I have a hard enough time with 1.3 gain.

If my screen was 120" or smaller, then I would probably already have a 640 and wouldn't be participating in this thread at all because I would be satisfied.

Frankly, the only reasons I am upgrading to the RS2000 are tone mapping and 18gbps HDMI. Everything else is gravy and not truly important to me over what the Epson can do. Don't get me wrong, gravy is good, just not the reason I eat. If Epson had released a statement saying a 5050 was coming out in the Spring with 18gbps hdmi and built in tone mapping, it is very possible I would have saved myself $4k and stuck with Epson. And if JVC said they were releasing a firmware update to the RSx40 line that added tone mapping, I would probably consider waiting to pick up a used rs540 or rs640.

As much as some might not understand how contrast isn't playing a role for me, I don't understand how anyone could think that tone mapping isn't the single biggest upgrade for these projectors over last year. It's all about perspective.
Actually I am not in disagreement with you. Tone mapping is my big thing now. The extra resolution of 4K for real is much less important since I sit ~12' from 123" Stewart Cima and likely would not see much change. Sadly I read that Oppo is not planning to fix Tone Mapping and we know JVC is not going to add it to the 640.

My comments before were really about adding in the cost factor. For me, it would be a $10k upgrade if I could get best pricing for the NX9 and still sell my 640 for $4k. The $10k is not going to get me that much better off to be worth it for ME. If I had a $20k- $50k of play money I might pull the trigger. Remember Tone mapping will only be critical for HDR content so it reduces its value. It is like going anamorphic and paying a bunch of money for something that only is useful for scope format.

Bottom line is it is a matter of what level of cost for what level of upgrade one gets. (and how tight cash might be)

Past: CRTs NEC/Runco, Barco 1208, 1209 Current: JVC RS-640, Stewart Cima Neve 123" Screen 92" Da-Lite
laguna_b is offline  
post #11331 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 09:56 AM
Senior Member
 
laguna_b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Los Gatos Mntns. California
Posts: 367
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleveland Plasma View Post
My favorite position

Maybe, but if someone was giving away Sony 695ES's would you take one even if you promised to never sell it?
You need a rotating screen me thinks

Past: CRTs NEC/Runco, Barco 1208, 1209 Current: JVC RS-640, Stewart Cima Neve 123" Screen 92" Da-Lite
laguna_b is offline  
post #11332 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 09:57 AM
Member
 
nameneeded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Calgary Alberta, Canada
Posts: 118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Have we gotten any updates as to release dates yet?

This thread has gotten so messy and off topic it's a bit of a chore to navigate at this point.
nameneeded is offline  
post #11333 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 09:57 AM
Member
 
doctormyeyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLCPhoto View Post
Yes, in the right situation, with proper expectations, and absent any significant complications, people can be very happy with the results.

As for the contrast issue, that actually is something that I would need to research to determine if it has been objectively defined, reported, or explained. The procedure does alter corneal shape in general, and so there could be subtle differences beyond just the acuity of one's central vision. But with regards to contrast (which always needs to be defined, as it can refer to different things in different contexts), I'll do some digging and see what I can uncover.
I'm not aware of any lasik related contrast issues, either, though things like dry eye (which can follow lasik) can affect contrast. In my experience contrast issues are more common with multifocal lenses, both contacts and implants, but, again, I have not been aware of this p lasik.
DLCPhoto, console and mtbdudex like this.
doctormyeyes is offline  
post #11334 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 09:59 AM
Senior Member
 
laguna_b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Los Gatos Mntns. California
Posts: 367
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffR1 View Post
You need a fibre optic cable, there is a supplier in someone's signature here, I'll have a look.

EDIT:
It was the link in Arrow's signature.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/168-h...l#post52755273
I used couple of RUIPRO cables. I got one slightly used off eBay for a song.
Renerator likes this.

Past: CRTs NEC/Runco, Barco 1208, 1209 Current: JVC RS-640, Stewart Cima Neve 123" Screen 92" Da-Lite
laguna_b is offline  
post #11335 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 10:35 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dkersten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Billings, MT
Posts: 1,124
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 700 Post(s)
Liked: 1212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
if you didn't mind moving your seats closer, you can increase the horizontal viewing angles so the screen is visibly wider though not physically wider - you don't necessarily need a wider screen. But that all depends on how you feel about doing that.
I'm not trying to pick on you, I promise, I just wanted to point something out.

The point you are pushing hardest in this thread seems to be that you can change the immersion by moving your seating distance, but in practice this is not necessarily a viable solution. The reason is for anyone with a dedicated theater that was purpose built, this is most likely not an option.

Moving my seats forward would risk putting me in the center of the room with all the issues room modes bring at the dead center of a room. Also, my first reflection point treatments would need to be moved, not an easy task considering there are columns in the way that may need to be rebuilt. Then there is the fact that my riser would need to be rebuilt as well to move the rear row forward. Finally, I can't move my Atmos and surround speakers, they are built into the walls and ceiling of the sound proof shell, so changing my main viewing position would put me out of the sweet spot in the audio system. I can't move my screen forward without moving my door, vents behind the soundproof shell, and rebuilding the stage and baffle wall. In other words, I would need to completely redesign and rebuild my theater to move my seating, completely compromising all my audio design.

Granted, my case is not as common as the typical media room with a projector and a screen and some dark paint. However, I still bet most of the people here would have issues with moving their seating related to audio and acoustics.

To your point, any theater planning should involve considering the viewing angles and various ratios you are trying to optimize. I had those covered, I just didn't know that brightness on HDR would be such a big issue, and as UHD edges closer to being the standard, it isn't something you can ignore forever. Anyone planning a dedicated theater room today should be thinking about it, but not many talk about it. Hopefully between tone mapping and future laser light sources, we can expect brighter projectors that are better at handling the demands of HDR on larger screens. This new line is a step in the right direction.
dkersten is online now  
post #11336 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 10:39 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,044
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4269 Post(s)
Liked: 3275
Quote:
Originally Posted by laguna_b View Post
Sadly I read that Oppo is not planning to fix Tone Mapping and we know JVC is not going to add it to the 640.
Can someone please summarize what's wrong with the tone mapping in the OPPO 203? I see lots of references to it being broken, but I don't follow the OPPO 203 owner's thread and my attempts to search proved fruitless.

Thanks.
laguna_b likes this.

Josh Z
Home Theater Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
Josh Z is online now  
post #11337 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 10:50 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,916
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1932 Post(s)
Liked: 1226
Just to Post On-Topic

Mike and others,

Has there been any new information as to the next announcement date for JVC?

I guess we are waiting on JVC to give us a shipping date. Has anyone heard when JVC expects to announce this date?

I would just like to know if the report that JVC projectors would be shipping locally in Japan in mid-January meant that the issue has been resolved and that soon JVC would announce a firm shipping date for the US.
GregCh is offline  
post #11338 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 10:51 AM
Senior Member
 
BigScreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: WI USA
Posts: 449
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 295 Post(s)
Liked: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Here's a post I wrote a couple years ago with pictures to illustrate (some small edits made for context):

Composition is precisely the reason why Constant Height display is important. The rules of composition, regarding the relative sizes of objects in the frame, are the same between 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. The only difference between the two is that 2.35:1 has more picture on the sides.

Here are a pair of images from two similar movies: The Avengers (1.85:1) and Iron Man 2 (2.35:1). Both images are medium shots of the same character. When displayed in Constant Height format, you'll notice that the character is basically the same size, and he's framed similarly in both shots from the top of his head to his waist.

:


Scope composition adds more breadth and dimension to the image. It gives the characters more room to move around. 1.85:1 doesn't do that, not even if you project it extra large on an IMAX screen. All that does is zoom up the whole picture and make everything oversized. Proportionally to the way objects in the frame are composed, the characters are still boxed in by limited width.

Constant Image Area projection does not solve this problem. Constant Height is the only scenario in which Iron Man appears the same size in both of these movies.

Thanks for providing this visual and descriptive overview for this topic, as it does a great job of illustrating (literally) the issues relating to CIH and CIW setups.


A little background: I'm a bit of an OAR (original aspect ratio) purist. I don't like cropped movies when they're shown on channels that don't know better or don't care. I don't like zoom or stretch settings on TV's and I admit to fixing them whenever I get the chance (I make no apologies to family or friends I have done this to, I'm only looking out for your best interests). I watched letterboxed movies on VHS whenever possible, and the advent of DVD was a great thing, as was the end of a 4:3 TV in my living room. I'm a big believer that choosing an aspect ratio isn't an accidental decision by the director, and I want to see the movie I am watching with that decision intact. I also don't watch colorized movies, for much the same reason.


I used a 1.78:1 "screen" for many years, where that screen was a white square painted on a wall. I did this intentionally, because I knew that getting a real screen was going to be an investment, and I needed to wait until I could afford it. It also made it very easy for me to choose between a 2.35:1 and a 1.85:1 screen when the time came.


When I finally could afford to get a real screen, I did a bunch of measuring and calculating based on my projector and my room, and then painted a wider area of the wall to emulate the size of the widest scope screen possible (118" wide). This ended up causing a slight reduction in the height of the "screen" compared to what I had been using, but not much (maybe 6" total?). I lived with that for a while and watched a variety of 2.35:1 and 1.85:1 movies, as well as some football games in 1.78:1 (I don't watch prime-time TV in this room).


I ended up buying a 2.35:1 Carada screen from AVS. That was 7 years ago.


2.35:1 movies are meant to have an impact; using the width of the image to convey part of the story the director is telling. Composition is important, or it wouldn't be different. Everyone would have normalized to 1.33:1 before HDTV was popular, and they would have normalized to 1.78:1 since then, if filling the screen was the most important thing. The same would be true if filmmakers were going to cater to the lowest common denominator of movie theaters that are installing narrow screens, especially without masking. That says everything about the theater and how much it cares about presentation. One of the big reasons we are all in this hobby is the likeliness that we wish to not only replicate the theatrical experience, but to exceed it whenever possible.


I can attest to the phenomenon that Josh and Gary are talking about. Scope movies on my setup have the impact that I think the filmmakers intended. I don't feel like I'm "missing" something when I'm watching a 1.85:1 movie. Those tend to be more "talkative" movies that emphasize personal interactions than using a large landscape to tell part of the story. I don't need someone's head to be huge when they're talking on-screen.



I don't care much for the "IMAX" scenes included on home video releases. I consider them to be an annoying gimmick. I'm sure they fill a particular need for those that have chosen to go the CIW route, because now their entire screen is being filled, but I have great difficulty with the notion that it somehow approximates the impact of those scenes on an IMAX screen (even the smaller MPX screens that are now being used). That effect is intended to overfill the normal screen, to give you the same type of feeling that old-school IMAX documentaries did, when that hangglider flies over the edge of the canyon and you have that "whoa" feeling as your brain tries to come to terms with the feeling of vertigo that results. I'm looking forward to the day when I can upgrade my projector to an RS-2000 to one that has the ability to mask those "IMAX" scenes off (hey, look, on-topic reference!).



All that said, this is a personal hobby. We all use our own money to achieve our personal goals. The results are a reflection of our choices and our priorities. Everyone is free to deviate from established norms and guidelines to suit themselves, but it would be nice for there to be an appreciation for those norms and guidelines, and a recognition that our deviations were our choice, and not that everyone who disagrees with those choices is wrong or "idiots."


Personally, I really like the effect that having a CIH setup has on my experience in my setup. I like that scope movies are shown wider than flat movies, which are wider than TV shows. I think it's line with the intentions of the different formats.
Josh Z and dimi123 like this.

Publisher - The BigScreen Cinema Guide
DTS:X Resources | Dolby Atmos Resources
Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons, the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas. - Henry Thomas Buckle - historian and author
BigScreen is online now  
post #11339 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 10:54 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,106
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2070 Post(s)
Liked: 1368
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkersten View Post
I'm not trying to pick on you, I promise, I just wanted to point something out.

The point you are pushing hardest in this thread seems to be that you can change the immersion by moving your seating distance, but in practice this is not necessarily a viable solution. The reason is for anyone with a dedicated theater that was purpose built, this is most likely not an option.

Moving my seats forward would risk putting me in the center of the room with all the issues room modes bring at the dead center of a room. Also, my first reflection point treatments would need to be moved, not an easy task considering there are columns in the way that may need to be rebuilt. Then there is the fact that my riser would need to be rebuilt as well to move the rear row forward. Finally, I can't move my Atmos and surround speakers, they are built into the walls and ceiling of the sound proof shell, so changing my main viewing position would put me out of the sweet spot in the audio system. I can't move my screen forward without moving my door, vents behind the soundproof shell, and rebuilding the stage and baffle wall. In other words, I would need to completely redesign and rebuild my theater to move my seating, completely compromising all my audio design.

Granted, my case is not as common as the typical media room with a projector and a screen and some dark paint. However, I still bet most of the people here would have issues with moving their seating related to audio and acoustics.

To your point, any theater planning should involve considering the viewing angles and various ratios you are trying to optimize. I had those covered, I just didn't know that brightness on HDR would be such a big issue, and as UHD edges closer to being the standard, it isn't something you can ignore forever. Anyone planning a dedicated theater room today should be thinking about it, but not many talk about it. Hopefully between tone mapping and future laser light sources, we can expect brighter projectors that are better at handling the demands of HDR on larger screens. This new line is a step in the right direction.
I don't think Gary or anyone else is saying in a purpose built room that you can always easily move seating. The idea of changing seating with relation to the screen in a dedicated room would likely have to be done in the planning stages. It's mainly to get people to understand that image size/immersion is more than just the measurement of the physical screen.

You're spot on with HDR. I try to steer people into the <150" screen size for just that reason. It's easy to get caught up in overall size and not really consider image brightness. I do think laser and other light sources will eventually help us here. But for now the compromise is a real concern.
David Mathews likes this.


Last edited by jeahrens; 12-12-2018 at 11:01 AM.
jeahrens is online now  
post #11340 of 13653 Old 12-12-2018, 11:05 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1054
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkersten View Post
I'm not trying to pick on you, I promise, I just wanted to point something out.

The point you are pushing hardest in this thread seems to be that you can change the immersion by moving your seating distance, but in practice this is not necessarily a viable solution. The reason is for anyone with a dedicated theater that was purpose built, this is most likely not an option.

Moving my seats forward would risk putting me in the center of the room with all the issues room modes bring at the dead center of a room. Also, my first reflection point treatments would need to be moved, not an easy task considering there are columns in the way that may need to be rebuilt. Then there is the fact that my riser would need to be rebuilt as well to move the rear row forward. Finally, I can't move my Atmos and surround speakers, they are built into the walls and ceiling of the sound proof shell, so changing my main viewing position would put me out of the sweet spot in the audio system. I can't move my screen forward without moving my door, vents behind the soundproof shell, and rebuilding the stage and baffle wall. In other words, I would need to completely redesign and rebuild my theater to move my seating, completely compromising all my audio design.

Granted, my case is not as common as the typical media room with a projector and a screen and some dark paint. However, I still bet most of the people here would have issues with moving their seating related to audio and acoustics.

To your point, any theater planning should involve considering the viewing angles and various ratios you are trying to optimize. I had those covered, I just didn't know that brightness on HDR would be such a big issue, and as UHD edges closer to being the standard, it isn't something you can ignore forever. Anyone planning a dedicated theater room today should be thinking about it, but not many talk about it. Hopefully between tone mapping and future laser light sources, we can expect brighter projectors that are better at handling the demands of HDR on larger screens. This new line is a step in the right direction.
I don't think you're picking on me at all! Nice to be able to discuss it like rational Human beings

Yeah, I get your point things being difficult if a room has already been built, and as you say, ideally those things are addressed in the planning stage. Unfortunately with new tech etc we can get caught out as they try and sell us new stuff. Cutting holes in your ceiling for Atmos must have rattled quite a few feathers too.

With respect to HDR, I've yet to see it implemented well enough with a projector for me to want to actually have it - and I've seen every implementation since the first JVCs etc to the latest with custom curves and even the JVC N5 (yay! On topic!) with auto tone mapping using the disk data, (if it has it, and many don't so you're back to manual tweaking or custom curves). So I'm happy with everything being tone mapped to SDR and not having to run it at 30fL. But that's just me and my personal preference - when I go to a theatre to see a new release (which isn't often any more and when it is it's more for the social aspect), I don't see them in HDR so I'm not bothered about seeing it as HDR at home. I know others are different and like it but I'm not one of them. Not yet at least.

I'm not even sure it's always a 'directors intent' either or more of a gimmick. I believe 2001s latest 4K release is also HDR, and Kubrik is no longer here so we've no idea if he would want that or if he did, how he would have implemented it. Some scenes may be obvious, but others less so perhaps. We'll never know. As it is, I'll watch the UHD with WCG but no HDR.

I'm sure you're right and have said so myself about HDR being here to stay (unlike 3D it seems), and I'll eventually have to have it no doubt, but until then I'm more than happy without it and seeing things more like they are at the cinema rather than on a flat panel tv. Of course, with DV cinemas that may change as well eventually, but I'll have to wait and see.
rak306 likes this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
eshift , Jvc , native 4k , projector , uhd

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