Official Sony VW885ES / VW760ES Owner's Thread - Page 54 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 3113Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1591 of 4731 Old 01-29-2018, 06:17 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Javs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 7,849
Mentioned: 475 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6792 Post(s)
Liked: 6418
Quote:
Originally Posted by markmon1 View Post
Try playing the beginning of Lucy with the custom gamma vs stock HDR10. With the custom curves its ok but with the built in you get that HDR shimmer especially on the scene where lucy is talking with her boyfriend in the beginning and the sunlight hits.
Lucy is a 1000 nit film.

If I have been reading correctly, some of the Sony HDR built in settings can clip well under 1000 nits, and the custom curves are very likely clipping 1000+ nits depending what you chose. It would explain the highlight differences.

You should ascertain what clipping point you are at in order for that comparison have any frame of reference.

You are likely experiencing a clipping point far lower on one than the other leading to brighter highlights.

JVC X9500 (RS620) | 120" 16:9 | Marantz AV7702 MkII | Emotiva XPA-7 | DIY Modular Towers | DIY TPL-150 Surrounds | DIY Atmos | DIY 18" Subs
-
MadVR Settings | UHD Waveform Analysis | Arve Tool Instructions + V3 Javs Curves
Javs is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1592 of 4731 Old 01-30-2018, 12:20 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
christoffeldg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,375
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1310 Post(s)
Liked: 526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javs View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by markmon1 View Post
Try playing the beginning of Lucy with the custom gamma vs stock HDR10. With the custom curves its ok but with the built in you get that HDR shimmer especially on the scene where lucy is talking with her boyfriend in the beginning and the sunlight hits.
Lucy is a 1000 nit film.

If I have been reading correctly, some of the Sony HDR built in settings can clip well under 1000 nits, and the custom curves are very likely clipping 1000+ nits depending what you chose. It would explain the highlight differences.

You should ascertain what clipping point you are at in order for that comparison have any frame of reference.

You are likely experiencing a clipping point far lower on one than the other leading to brighter highlights.
Just wondering, but what's so bad at clipping the highlights?

Sure, some screen filling 2 secs explosion might have *some* unimportant detail going to that 1k nits. But 99,9% of the rest of the film will be lucky to reach 500.

Also, the Sony has a slider to adjust the level of clipping. It's the same as the JVC I believe.
Archibald1 likes this.

Video: Sony VPL-VW760ES, Elite screen Aeon 135" Cinewhite + JVC X7900, Magicscreen Reference ALR 120"
Speakers: Bowers and Wilkins 802 D3 front, JBL 580, JBL 520c, JBL 550p
Amplifiers: Lyngdorf stereo TDAI 2170, Lyngdorf SDA 2400, Denon 4300H Home Theatre
Equipment: PC/PS4/Xbox One/Switch/Synology 2415+
christoffeldg is offline  
post #1593 of 4731 Old 01-30-2018, 01:47 AM
Member
 
*Mori*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 193
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 211 Post(s)
Liked: 285
@dmillionz
I agree that you are enlarging the picture compared to the unzoomed 1:1 pixel image. Using more pixels of your screen means you'll rather see more details than less. The question is what the results looks like from your your seating position. I could never detect any disadvantages when comparing. That's why I use the zoom function for 2.35 material.
dmillionz likes this.
*Mori* is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1594 of 4731 Old 01-30-2018, 02:07 AM - Thread Starter
Eyes and Ears Thriller
 
dmillionz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 247
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Liked: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Mori* View Post
@dmillionz
I agree that you are enlarging the picture compared to the unzoomed 1:1 pixel image. Using more pixels of your screen means you'll rather see more details than less. The question is what the results looks like from your your seating position. I could never detect any disadvantages when comparing. That's why I use the zoom function for 2.35 material.
When you use the Zoom function are you actually using more pixels or just increasing the size of the visible pixels? i'm assuming it's the same as in graphic design and you are actually seeing larger pixels instead of numerically more pixels.

AVR: Denon AVR-X7200WA | 4K: Oppo UDP-203 | Media: Ryzen 1800X 32GB DDR4 HCPC, Synology DS3615xs 172TB | Gaming: PS4 Pro/PSVR 10TB, PS3 | Speakers: Polk LSiM: 1x706c, 2x707, 4x900LS, 4x702F/X | Subs: 2xSVS PB4000, 2xSVS PC12+, 5xButtkicker BK-LFE | Vid: Sony VPL-VW885ES | Amp: Emotiva XPA7 Gen 3, Parasound 2125, 2xQSC GX3 | Power: 3xFurman Elite 20 PFi | UPS: APC SMT3000, 2xSMT2200 | Screen/Misc: 138" 2.35:1 Stewart CIMA Neve, Harmony Elite
dmillionz is offline  
post #1595 of 4731 Old 01-30-2018, 02:20 AM
Member
 
*Mori*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 193
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 211 Post(s)
Liked: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by BakeApples View Post
That`s interesting. I also have the 550/675 and use the custom gamma curves from the German fellows here. For me, they do a much better job than the standard HDR gamma curve which looks very dull and also darker than the custom ones. And after i told some users on a Swedish forum, they also reported that the custom curves looked much better than the stock.
I have tested those curves on my VW760 on several movies incl. Lucy and The R. Masciola Test Footage pictures (e.g landscape).
Yes, these curvs look brighter and not so dull. You'll get much better shadow details. The problem with those curves are the highlights. Clouds burn out: these appear often undifferentiated. Many details and the 3D effect is nearly gone in the R. Masciala picture "landscape". That is because the curve rises obviously too steep in order to get more brightness. With Lucy you will notice that in front of the hotel, the face of Lucy has sometimes no proper contrast to the background when this also bright. The guys hat looses its distinct structure. Generally with brighter curves you have to be careful not to loose the great HDR contrast by washing the picture out.
Last but not least: Remember that these curves were made for the smaller VW260/360. The VW760 has more lightoutput and so you can make the curves less steep. Then you should still have the generell brightness and differentiation near black but also in the very bright areas. I found it a good idea to clip titels like Lucy ("1000 nits titels"), not at 1000 nits or below but a bit higher.
Spizz, roxiedog13 and Javs like this.
*Mori* is offline  
post #1596 of 4731 Old 01-30-2018, 02:39 AM
Member
 
*Mori*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 193
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 211 Post(s)
Liked: 285
@dmillionz
You use more pixel of the panel which is 4096 x 2160. The original material is 3840x 2160 pixels. With the zoom function you will use the native resolution of the Sony true 4K panel. That's how I understand it.
*Mori* is offline  
post #1597 of 4731 Old 01-30-2018, 03:04 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Mori* View Post
You use more pixel of the panel which is 4096 x 2160. The original material is 3840x 2160 pixels. With the zoom function you will use the native resolution of the Sony true 4K panel. That's how I understand it.
That is certainly how the diagrams in the manual put it. From the test pattern (and the specs which you quote) it is quite clear a 2.35:1 picture is not using all the pixels actually available.

Of course it's a fair point that, as mentioned already, this means the pixel mapping will no longer be 1:1 and some scaling is going on in the unit.

I have settled on the position / size of my own set up yet. I set it up initially expecting the test image width to be correct and have now realised my wide screen films will be shown narrower than I expected on that basis. Fortunately I have a little more 'give' in the zoom to increase the image size.

Sony VW760ES, Yamaha RX-A 3070, Pansonic UB820, Missions 702e (part of 5.1 setup)
trollbubba is offline  
post #1598 of 4731 Old 01-30-2018, 07:49 AM
Member
 
Peak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 190
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by trollbubba View Post
That is certainly how the diagrams in the manual put it. From the test pattern (and the specs which you quote) it is quite clear a 2.35:1 picture is not using all the pixels actually available.

Of course it's a fair point that, as mentioned already, this means the pixel mapping will no longer be 1:1 and some scaling is going on in the unit.

I have settled on the position / size of my own set up yet. I set it up initially expecting the test image width to be correct and have now realised my wide screen films will be shown narrower than I expected on that basis. Fortunately I have a little more 'give' in the zoom to increase the image size.
I am not using the 2.35:1 zoom function to fill out all 4096 pixels, since this introduces scaling and inherently some "defects" that you will not get if pixel mapping what's on the disc 1:1 to the display on the 3840x2160 pixels and leaving the rest of the panel black. That I believe is called Normal in the zoom setting.

I then project these non lit pixels outside of the screen.

To be honest, the difference is probably very marginal, but it would certainly be noticed on a pixel pattern.

Sony VPL-VW760ES | Stewart Filmscreen StudioTek 130 G3 2.35:1 138" | Yamaha Aventage CX-A5100 | Yamaha Aventage MX-A5000 | Bowers & Wilkins CM9 (2) - CMCenter2 (1) - DS3 (4) - CCM684 (4) - ASW10CM (1) | Panasonic DP-UB9000 | Oppo BDP-203 | Toshiba HD-EP10 | Pioneer DVL-919 | Yamaha ADP-1 | Nvidia Shield Android TV | Apple TV 4K | Xbox One X | PS4
Peak is offline  
post #1599 of 4731 Old 01-30-2018, 08:52 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
roxiedog13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North 48 °
Posts: 3,893
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2754 Post(s)
Liked: 1429
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmillionz View Post
When Chad B was here, I was using the 2.35:1 zoom function as it was the only way to fill my 2.35:1 screen perfectly. I thought this was strange because I used the Sony 2.35:1 guidelines to size the image. Even when doing this it required the zoom. Chad spoke against using the zoom due to it artificially enlarging the image and providing lower resolution than the unzoomed 1:1 pixel image. He demonstrated this on a pattern where the zoomed image was not as clear on the 1x1 and 2x2 pixel graphs but was dead on for the unzoomed image. The 1x1 and 2x2 charts resolved perfectly. Is there something else I can do to zoom the image to fill the screen and eliminate blank space on the sides and keep a true pixel perfect 4K image? I have no room left to move the projector back to fill the screen otherwise.

To answer your question I guess the only way to make the image larger and not zoom with the lens you have to move the projector back until it fills the screen . You are finding a best (sweet spot) for resolution by locking the focus , moving the projector to get the image size necessary . This is not practical, nor the way most install, projectors have zoom range for a reason . One option is use a anamorphic lens , anamorphic stretch mode on the projector. In fact the anamorphic stretch method utilizes more of the SXRD panel giving even more detail than the 2.35:1 zoom method you are using now, by 25-30% . You'll get increased resolution and brightness , more if you use the FULL SXRD panel ( 17:9) combined with the Paladin DCR lens . Only your VW885 and VW5000 have 1.24X stretch which when combined with the new Paladin DCR lens ,another 5% realized . Others will have to use a Lumagen to stretch 1.24X , I'm not sure if any player is capable .

When Chad suggested , avoid enlarging the image with lens zoom to retain perfect image resolution , I assume he is referring to a sweet spot somewhere in the mid zoom range. No doubt this is what many do when checking resolution on a pattern to check resolution and uniformity , the majority of users never are in this sweet spot . If you want the very best resolution possible , focus remains in the sweet spot , you accept the image size on screen or move the projector to the position with fixed fixed zoom to get the image size you want , accept the brightness and contrast outcome from that position .


Projector position is always a compromise , you have to work out the what strength most important for you . Best resolution , brightness and contrast are never in the same place , most figure out something in the middle or other variables dictate .Anamorphic lens , high gain screens, ALR screens and high contrast grey screens all help to compensate when a projector is weak in certain areas . I wouldn't worry to much about a little zoom deviation anyway ,it's only at the extreme end of the zoom range do we see a little softness in the image or loss of detail at the corners . You'll need a pattern to even see this most of the time and nose to the screen .


This is a good point for all to remember though . If you want to check the "best" resolution for your projector you have to know what zoom position that is ,even then you'll have to tweak it . Most that are unaware simply throw up a pattern to check resolution , the zoom is not ideal . In these cases the test can reveal less than the best resolution possible on a 1 pixel test , owners unknowingly make the assumption the projector has issues .

Dedicated Theater: Sony VPL VW 885ES , Panamorph DCR & ISCO III L Anamorphic Lens, Draper TecVision XT1800X Screen, 2.40:1 134" diagonal curved , Denon AVR-X8500 , 9.2.6 Atmos, Panasonic UB900, Oppo 203, Lumagen Pro 4440 , (3) Paradigm CI Elite E7-L+C+R fronts, , (2) CI Pro P80-IW Rear, (2) Paradigm SA-ADP In-wall Surround, (6) SIG-1.5R-30 v.3 In-Ceiling, Subwoofers: (2) SVS SB-16 Ultra , SVS PC13-Ultra .
roxiedog13 is offline  
post #1600 of 4731 Old 01-30-2018, 09:06 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: 1053
Are some people confusing the electronic zoom, going from UHD res (3840 X 2160.) to the wider 4K res (4096 x 2160) for 2.40:1 movies, which involves scaling (and so will soften a UHD yest pattern) vs using the optical zoom which enlarges or reduces the image optically, retaining 1:1 pixel mapping?
scyto 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  
post #1601 of 4731 Old 01-30-2018, 10:38 AM
Senior Member
 
scyto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Seattle / Eastside
Posts: 243
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 146 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archibald1 View Post
Could I ask anyone with an 885, to check the label on the side of the unit to see where it has been made please?
will do when i get home on Friday / Saturday

A projector, some seats, a screen, oh a receiver and some speakers i guess, and a few consoles, an AT-AT, and a Millenium Falcon i need to unbox and have a display table made...
scyto is offline  
post #1602 of 4731 Old 01-30-2018, 01:32 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Archibald1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,048
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1858 Post(s)
Liked: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by scyto View Post
will do when i get home on Friday / Saturday
Many thanks.
Archibald1 is offline  
post #1603 of 4731 Old 01-30-2018, 02:03 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Is the picture from the 885 eye fatiguing in anyway compared to traditional lamps like the 675?
AudioQuestions is offline  
post #1604 of 4731 Old 01-30-2018, 02:23 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jlanzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,430
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 453 Post(s)
Liked: 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmillionz View Post
When Chad B was here, I was using the 2.35:1 zoom function as it was the only way to fill my 2.35:1 screen perfectly. I thought this was strange because I used the Sony 2.35:1 guidelines to size the image. Even when doing this it required the zoom. Chad spoke against using the zoom due to it artificially enlarging the image and providing lower resolution than the unzoomed 1:1 pixel image. He demonstrated this on a pattern where the zoomed image was not as clear on the 1x1 and 2x2 pixel graphs but was dead on for the unzoomed image. The 1x1 and 2x2 charts resolved perfectly. Is there something else I can do to zoom the image to fill the screen and eliminate blank space on the sides and keep a true pixel perfect 4K image? I have no room left to move the projector back to fill the screen otherwise.

I followed all the responses to this but still confused. So Chad spoke against filling a 2.35 screen with a 2.35 movie aspect by zooming the image, and demonstrated on pixel graphs that it lost resolution? If so, as others responded , did this result in real video image loss of resolution comparatively from other than nose to screen distance? Did Chad advise then that A-lens was the best way to fill a 2.35 screen, if not an a A lens and not considering putting the projector on a slide to move it back then what was his solution?
jlanzy is offline  
post #1605 of 4731 Old 01-30-2018, 03:25 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by trollbubba View Post
If I got up very close to the screen on high contrast white letters on a black background I could see the letters were not pure white and had a tiny inner green shadow, is that what people are generally seeing? ....
Had a muck about today and experimented with the panel alignment settings. Not entirely sure what I'm doing but I assume on the RGB test you are adjusting red and blue to try and get pure white lines on the test pattern? I drove myself mad trying to do it and ended up making negative V changes on both B/R.

I think that actually improved the green inner glow. It's not gone but it's much less noticeable. Now I can see it when very close on white lettering against black but not really on the random white lights I was looking at on the film.

Guess I need to get a professional to calibrate it! I assumed I should wait till I get a screen though but I guess that makes no difference to panel alignment issues.

Sony VW760ES, Yamaha RX-A 3070, Pansonic UB820, Missions 702e (part of 5.1 setup)
trollbubba is offline  
post #1606 of 4731 Old 01-30-2018, 03:27 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by AudioQuestions View Post
Is the picture from the 885 eye fatiguing in anyway compared to traditional lamps like the 675?
I remember my Infocus In81 dazzling me properly with bright white lights in some scenes and I didn't really notice that with the Sony 760, however I did feel my eyes were strained after watching Bladerunner (1982) last night. I may have just been tired... or perhaps it was as the screen was so much larger.

Sony VW760ES, Yamaha RX-A 3070, Pansonic UB820, Missions 702e (part of 5.1 setup)
trollbubba is offline  
post #1607 of 4731 Old 01-30-2018, 03:29 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peak View Post
I am not using the 2.35:1 zoom function to fill out all 4096 pixels, since this introduces scaling and inherently some "defects" that you will not get if pixel mapping what's on the disc 1:1 to the display on the 3840x2160 pixels and leaving the rest of the panel black. That I believe is called Normal in the zoom setting.

I then project these non lit pixels outside of the screen.

To be honest, the difference is probably very marginal, but it would certainly be noticed on a pixel pattern.
I suspect this is what I'll end up doing, i.e. project the nonlit pixels off the side of a screen.

Sony VW760ES, Yamaha RX-A 3070, Pansonic UB820, Missions 702e (part of 5.1 setup)
trollbubba is offline  
post #1608 of 4731 Old 01-30-2018, 03:34 PM - Thread Starter
Eyes and Ears Thriller
 
dmillionz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 247
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Liked: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlanzy View Post
I followed all the responses to this but still confused. So Chad spoke against filling a 2.35 screen with a 2.35 movie aspect by zooming the image, and demonstrated on pixel graphs that it lost resolution? If so, as others responded , did this result in real video image loss of resolution comparatively from other than nose to screen distance? Did Chad advise then that A-lens was the best way to fill a 2.35 screen, if not an a A lens and not considering putting the projector on a slide to move it back then what was his solution?
I can definitely see with actual content how the zoomed image isn't quite as sharp as the unzoomed image. It's not dramatic but is noticeable for sure. In my particular situation, I'm stuck with a dilemma. Go unzoomed and have about a 2 inch border all the way around the image and perfect 1:1 mapping or Zoom it in to fill the screen and have a very slightly not so crisp image. I've been finding myself watching content unzoomed and for some reason I don't mind and even pay attention to the empty space. I do zoom it however also from time to time. I guess it just depends on what I'm watching. We didn't discuss anamorphic lenses at all probably because I don't have the space to properly use one.

AVR: Denon AVR-X7200WA | 4K: Oppo UDP-203 | Media: Ryzen 1800X 32GB DDR4 HCPC, Synology DS3615xs 172TB | Gaming: PS4 Pro/PSVR 10TB, PS3 | Speakers: Polk LSiM: 1x706c, 2x707, 4x900LS, 4x702F/X | Subs: 2xSVS PB4000, 2xSVS PC12+, 5xButtkicker BK-LFE | Vid: Sony VPL-VW885ES | Amp: Emotiva XPA7 Gen 3, Parasound 2125, 2xQSC GX3 | Power: 3xFurman Elite 20 PFi | UPS: APC SMT3000, 2xSMT2200 | Screen/Misc: 138" 2.35:1 Stewart CIMA Neve, Harmony Elite
dmillionz is offline  
post #1609 of 4731 Old 01-30-2018, 04:17 PM - Thread Starter
Eyes and Ears Thriller
 
dmillionz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 247
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Liked: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archibald1 View Post
Many thanks.
My 885 says Made In China. And so are my SVS PB4000s and Polk LSiMs. Very impressive quality and workmanship. I never would have thought this projector or any of these other high-end items were made there.

AVR: Denon AVR-X7200WA | 4K: Oppo UDP-203 | Media: Ryzen 1800X 32GB DDR4 HCPC, Synology DS3615xs 172TB | Gaming: PS4 Pro/PSVR 10TB, PS3 | Speakers: Polk LSiM: 1x706c, 2x707, 4x900LS, 4x702F/X | Subs: 2xSVS PB4000, 2xSVS PC12+, 5xButtkicker BK-LFE | Vid: Sony VPL-VW885ES | Amp: Emotiva XPA7 Gen 3, Parasound 2125, 2xQSC GX3 | Power: 3xFurman Elite 20 PFi | UPS: APC SMT3000, 2xSMT2200 | Screen/Misc: 138" 2.35:1 Stewart CIMA Neve, Harmony Elite
dmillionz is offline  
post #1610 of 4731 Old 01-30-2018, 05:07 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Kris Deering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,618
Mentioned: 186 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3763 Post(s)
Liked: 6421
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlanzy View Post
I followed all the responses to this but still confused. So Chad spoke against filling a 2.35 screen with a 2.35 movie aspect by zooming the image, and demonstrated on pixel graphs that it lost resolution? If so, as others responded , did this result in real video image loss of resolution comparatively from other than nose to screen distance? Did Chad advise then that A-lens was the best way to fill a 2.35 screen, if not an a A lens and not considering putting the projector on a slide to move it back then what was his solution?
I think people are getting confused because of the word "zoom". Chad was saying not to use the 2.35 zoom aspect option in the menu, as this involves scaling to use a bit more of the projector's SXRD panel. He was NOT referring to actually zooming with the lens if you have a scope screen (this would keep the 1:1 image preserved). A-Lens requires scaling again, but everything has its trade offs. You would NOT slide the projector to adjust image, you would just change the zoom on the LENS.

My Home Theater UPDATED DEC 2017
Technical Editor/Writer Sound and Vision Magazine
Deep Dive AV - Calibration, Consulting and Education
Kris Deering is online now  
post #1611 of 4731 Old 01-30-2018, 06:13 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
roxiedog13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North 48 °
Posts: 3,893
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2754 Post(s)
Liked: 1429
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmillionz View Post
I can definitely see with actual content how the zoomed image isn't quite as sharp as the unzoomed image. It's not dramatic but is noticeable for sure. In my particular situation, I'm stuck with a dilemma. Go unzoomed and have about a 2 inch border all the way around the image and perfect 1:1 mapping or Zoom it in to fill the screen and have a very slightly not so crisp image. I've been finding myself watching content unzoomed and for some reason I don't mind and even pay attention to the empty space. I do zoom it however also from time to time. I guess it just depends on what I'm watching. We didn't discuss anamorphic lenses at all probably because I don't have the space to properly use one.

You don't need much room for the anamorphic lens , the new Paladin is super light weight with a plate mounted on the top, it hangs in front, no other mount necessary . It will actually increase resolution and brightness, avoids the issue you were concerned about . The Lumagen is another tool that can custom stretch the image though I don't think it retains 1:1, check it out . One more alternative is a couple of masking panels for the borders , certainly the cheapest , you probably won't notice a inch or so missing on the sides.

Dedicated Theater: Sony VPL VW 885ES , Panamorph DCR & ISCO III L Anamorphic Lens, Draper TecVision XT1800X Screen, 2.40:1 134" diagonal curved , Denon AVR-X8500 , 9.2.6 Atmos, Panasonic UB900, Oppo 203, Lumagen Pro 4440 , (3) Paradigm CI Elite E7-L+C+R fronts, , (2) CI Pro P80-IW Rear, (2) Paradigm SA-ADP In-wall Surround, (6) SIG-1.5R-30 v.3 In-Ceiling, Subwoofers: (2) SVS SB-16 Ultra , SVS PC13-Ultra .
roxiedog13 is offline  
post #1612 of 4731 Old 01-30-2018, 06:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jlanzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,430
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 453 Post(s)
Liked: 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post
I think people are getting confused because of the word "zoom". Chad was saying not to use the 2.35 zoom aspect option in the menu, as this involves scaling to use a bit more of the projector's SXRD panel. He was NOT referring to actually zooming with the lens if you have a scope screen (this would keep the 1:1 image preserved). A-Lens requires scaling again, but everything has its trade offs. You would NOT slide the projector to adjust image, you would just change the zoom on the LENS.

Ah, I didn't realize that the 2.35 menu position was scaling the image but only zooming the lens. Now I understand better. Is this then what is referred to a lens memory on the Sony? Or is there a setting that will just zoom the lens to predetermined amount? When using lens zooming for a 2.35 aspect, are the black bars on top/bottom or left/right? Next scope movie I get I'll have to try just using the lens zoom and see if I can see any loss of resolution from the seated position compared the 2.35 menu position choice.
jlanzy is offline  
post #1613 of 4731 Old 01-30-2018, 07:07 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jlanzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,430
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 453 Post(s)
Liked: 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmillionz View Post
I can definitely see with actual content how the zoomed image isn't quite as sharp as the unzoomed image. It's not dramatic but is noticeable for sure. In my particular situation, I'm stuck with a dilemma. Go unzoomed and have about a 2 inch border all the way around the image and perfect 1:1 mapping or Zoom it in to fill the screen and have a very slightly not so crisp image. I've been finding myself watching content unzoomed and for some reason I don't mind and even pay attention to the empty space. I do zoom it however also from time to time. I guess it just depends on what I'm watching. We didn't discuss anamorphic lenses at all probably because I don't have the space to properly use one.

I've always had an A lens, but you say that the unzoomed image you are referring to using the lens zoom and not the 2.35 menu option to fill your 2.35 screen with a 2.35 aspect movie, right? Why don't you zoom the image until the top and bottom meet your frame to eliminate those black borders which would just leave black borders on the sides or is there some other geometry issue going on when using the lens zoom of a 2.35 aspect film?
jlanzy is offline  
post #1614 of 4731 Old 01-30-2018, 09:52 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 15,802
Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6625 Post(s)
Liked: 7701
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlanzy View Post
Ah, I didn't realize that the 2.35 menu position was scaling the image but only zooming the lens. Now I understand better. Is this then what is referred to a lens memory on the Sony? Or is there a setting that will just zoom the lens to predetermined amount? When using lens zooming for a 2.35 aspect, are the black bars on top/bottom or left/right? Next scope movie I get I'll have to try just using the lens zoom and see if I can see any loss of resolution from the seated position compared the 2.35 menu position choice.
Once again it isn't using lens memory or zooming the picture for 2.35:1 or 16:9 being referred to - it's using internal scaling to use the entire chip ( 4096 pixels x 2160 ) vs 3840x2160 pixels that consumer 4K UHD uses.
Craig Peer is online now  
post #1615 of 4731 Old 01-31-2018, 01:23 AM
.NET Solution Architect
 
SoulOfUniverse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Chigwell, Essex, UK
Posts: 844
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Liked: 484
Guys, where are moderators? Why this forum is not cleaned?????

Video: Synology 416Play 24TB / OPPO UDP-203 / Zidoo X9S -> Lumagen Radiance Pro 4444 -> SONY VPL-VW760ES -> Elite Screen 135'' 16:9 1.1 Max White;
Audio: DENON X3500H -> Dali Zensor 7.1 Dolby Atmos (7, 1, E12F, Vokal, Dolby Alteco C1)
SoulOfUniverse is offline  
post #1616 of 4731 Old 01-31-2018, 01:27 AM - Thread Starter
Eyes and Ears Thriller
 
dmillionz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 247
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Liked: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlanzy View Post
I've always had an A lens, but you say that the unzoomed image you are referring to using the lens zoom and not the 2.35 menu option to fill your 2.35 screen with a 2.35 aspect movie, right? Why don't you zoom the image until the top and bottom meet your frame to eliminate those black borders which would just leave black borders on the sides or is there some other geometry issue going on when using the lens zoom of a 2.35 aspect film?
No the 2.35 zoom option is the zoom I've been referring to. The Lens zoom is maxed out because I'm at the minimum throw distance of the 885 for my screen size. There is no room to move it further from the screen. Not even an inch.

AVR: Denon AVR-X7200WA | 4K: Oppo UDP-203 | Media: Ryzen 1800X 32GB DDR4 HCPC, Synology DS3615xs 172TB | Gaming: PS4 Pro/PSVR 10TB, PS3 | Speakers: Polk LSiM: 1x706c, 2x707, 4x900LS, 4x702F/X | Subs: 2xSVS PB4000, 2xSVS PC12+, 5xButtkicker BK-LFE | Vid: Sony VPL-VW885ES | Amp: Emotiva XPA7 Gen 3, Parasound 2125, 2xQSC GX3 | Power: 3xFurman Elite 20 PFi | UPS: APC SMT3000, 2xSMT2200 | Screen/Misc: 138" 2.35:1 Stewart CIMA Neve, Harmony Elite
dmillionz is offline  
post #1617 of 4731 Old 01-31-2018, 01:29 AM - Thread Starter
Eyes and Ears Thriller
 
dmillionz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 247
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Liked: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
Once again it isn't using lens memory or zooming the picture for 2.35:1 or 16:9 being referred to - it's using internal scaling to use the entire chip ( 4096 pixels x 2160 ) vs 3840x2160 pixels that consumer 4K UHD uses.
This can't be right because when you use the 2.35:1 zoom function the image gets both wider and taller so it must be going beyond 2160 vertical.

AVR: Denon AVR-X7200WA | 4K: Oppo UDP-203 | Media: Ryzen 1800X 32GB DDR4 HCPC, Synology DS3615xs 172TB | Gaming: PS4 Pro/PSVR 10TB, PS3 | Speakers: Polk LSiM: 1x706c, 2x707, 4x900LS, 4x702F/X | Subs: 2xSVS PB4000, 2xSVS PC12+, 5xButtkicker BK-LFE | Vid: Sony VPL-VW885ES | Amp: Emotiva XPA7 Gen 3, Parasound 2125, 2xQSC GX3 | Power: 3xFurman Elite 20 PFi | UPS: APC SMT3000, 2xSMT2200 | Screen/Misc: 138" 2.35:1 Stewart CIMA Neve, Harmony Elite
dmillionz is offline  
post #1618 of 4731 Old 01-31-2018, 03:20 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Archibald1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,048
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1858 Post(s)
Liked: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmillionz View Post
My 885 says Made In China. And so are my SVS PB4000s and Polk LSiMs. Very impressive quality and workmanship. I never would have thought this projector or any of these other high-end items were made there.
Hi.
Although there is still mucho tat that is made in China, if big corporations go there and get the attention to detail and QC right, the goods they make in China can match or surpass the quality coming from Japan.

Interesting factoid here though is, it would look like the 760's and 885's are indeed made at the same place, so any green bleed issues that have been experienced, hopefully stem from something other than manufacturing issues.
dmillionz likes this.
Archibald1 is offline  
post #1619 of 4731 Old 01-31-2018, 04:31 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jlanzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,430
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 453 Post(s)
Liked: 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
Once again it isn't using lens memory or zooming the picture for 2.35:1 or 16:9 being referred to - it's using internal scaling to use the entire chip ( 4096 pixels x 2160 ) vs 3840x2160 pixels that consumer 4K UHD uses.

So whether you use the 2.35 menu option or leave it as a smaller image on a 2.35 screen your saying your not getting 1:1 mapping anyhow....it seemed that Chad implied that you only lose the 1:1 mapping ( and advised against it) if you use the 2.35 menu option as he showed 1:1 without it, so he was able to turn off the internal scaling?
dmillionz likes this.
jlanzy is offline  
post #1620 of 4731 Old 01-31-2018, 05:11 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
coolgeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,348
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1620 Post(s)
Liked: 892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archibald1 View Post
Hi.
Although there is still mucho tat that is made in China, if big corporations go there and get the attention to detail and QC right, the goods they make in China can match or surpass the quality coming from Japan.

Interesting factoid here though is, it would look like the 760's and 885's are indeed made at the same place, so any green bleed issues that have been experienced, hopefully stem from something other than manufacturing issues.
China is now the manufacturing center of the world... even the iphone is made there.. this whole idea that if it's made in china, it can't be good argument is rubbish... I go to china dozens of times over the last 20 years... and i can see the improvements over the years... it's all about how much you're willing to pay and what sort of QC you do there... The same manufacturer could produce the best of class products for company A and also the worse of products for company B...
dmillionz and Archibald1 like this.
coolgeek is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)

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