Are there any down sides to D'ILA???
-
Now Available: Tech Talk Podcast with Scott Wilkinson, Episode 19 Click here for details.
- Status
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
The negatives are as follows
1. Noise: A Hushbox is highly recommended. The units produce about 54 db of noise. I used mine about a year before installing it into a hushbox. It was ok without the hushbox considering I set the sound on my receiver at 70bd. However, if you have the ability to install it in a hushbox, do so, it is much better.
2. Heat: These suckers do put out a lot of heat. If your room permitts, I would recommend ducting the output of the hushbox to another place so you are not dumping the heat into your theater room. I have a room that is 13.5' x 26'. About half way into the movie the room became quite warm. If this is an option for you, you can order the Whisperflow from Dave with no fans or openings. This way it is totally sealed other than the intake.
3. Bulb: Some people really shy on the bulb cost. To me this is a very minor expense in the realm of things. Lets face it, FPTV is no cheap hobby.
Those are the only negatives I could come up with.
Would I do it again? Absolutly! If something happened to my projector today, I would be purchasing another DILA tomarrow.
1. Noise: A Hushbox is highly recommended. The units produce about 54 db of noise. I used mine about a year before installing it into a hushbox. It was ok without the hushbox considering I set the sound on my receiver at 70bd. However, if you have the ability to install it in a hushbox, do so, it is much better.
2. Heat: These suckers do put out a lot of heat. If your room permitts, I would recommend ducting the output of the hushbox to another place so you are not dumping the heat into your theater room. I have a room that is 13.5' x 26'. About half way into the movie the room became quite warm. If this is an option for you, you can order the Whisperflow from Dave with no fans or openings. This way it is totally sealed other than the intake.
3. Bulb: Some people really shy on the bulb cost. To me this is a very minor expense in the realm of things. Lets face it, FPTV is no cheap hobby.
Those are the only negatives I could come up with.
Would I do it again? Absolutly! If something happened to my projector today, I would be purchasing another DILA tomarrow.
Joined
·
51 Posts
I own a D-ILA and the other posts are correct. I do not have an anamorphic lens and the picture is great. However, in the quest for perfection--I have one on order. Not necessary but I would like to optimize the system
An anamorphic lens will create an even smoother image due to the extra pixels. It will also create a brighter picture while watching 16:9 images since the whole panel will be in use instead of just a portion.
You will have to decide if you would want the lens always in place or if you wanted to have it slide/move back and forth. Sliding the Panamorph out of the way give you an image that would not be centered in the same place. I plan on keeping the Panamorph in place.
-=-
Mark
You will have to decide if you would want the lens always in place or if you wanted to have it slide/move back and forth. Sliding the Panamorph out of the way give you an image that would not be centered in the same place. I plan on keeping the Panamorph in place.
-=-
Mark
thebland,
The anamorphic lens isn't necessary - but helps.
An anamorphic lens does two things - it allows you to use the entire resolution of the D-ILA panel, and
gives you a brighter picture since you don't have 25% of your pixels "projecting black" when watching
a 16:9 aspect ration movie in letterbox.
Even if you throw away 25% of your pixels - the D-ILA is still competitive in terms of resolution
because the D-ILA has more pixels than most PJs to start with.
The D-ILAs are also real "light cannons" - they are fairly bright - so even if you throw away 25%
of its brightness capability - it is still respectable.
So the D-ILA doesn't need the anamorphic lens - but it is better if you have one.
With a 30 foot throw, the minimum screen width would be about 9.7 feet [ corresponding to the
D-ILA's maximum throw ratio of 3.1 ]. That gives you about a 57 square foot 16:9 aspect ratio screen, and about 70.5 square feet for a 4:3 ratio.
Assuming an 1100 lumen output for a calibrated G15 - that means you are putting about 15 or 16 foot-lamberts
on a 4:3 screen, which is at the low end of the acceptable range.
If you use an anamorphic lens - so that you can
get the full 1100 lumens on a 16:9 screen - then
it's 21 foot-lamberts.
So if you want a throw 30 ft, and can accomodate a 10 ft. wide screen - I would suggest using an
anamorphic lens.
Greg
The anamorphic lens isn't necessary - but helps.
An anamorphic lens does two things - it allows you to use the entire resolution of the D-ILA panel, and
gives you a brighter picture since you don't have 25% of your pixels "projecting black" when watching
a 16:9 aspect ration movie in letterbox.
Even if you throw away 25% of your pixels - the D-ILA is still competitive in terms of resolution
because the D-ILA has more pixels than most PJs to start with.
The D-ILAs are also real "light cannons" - they are fairly bright - so even if you throw away 25%
of its brightness capability - it is still respectable.
So the D-ILA doesn't need the anamorphic lens - but it is better if you have one.
With a 30 foot throw, the minimum screen width would be about 9.7 feet [ corresponding to the
D-ILA's maximum throw ratio of 3.1 ]. That gives you about a 57 square foot 16:9 aspect ratio screen, and about 70.5 square feet for a 4:3 ratio.
Assuming an 1100 lumen output for a calibrated G15 - that means you are putting about 15 or 16 foot-lamberts
on a 4:3 screen, which is at the low end of the acceptable range.
If you use an anamorphic lens - so that you can
get the full 1100 lumens on a 16:9 screen - then
it's 21 foot-lamberts.
So if you want a throw 30 ft, and can accomodate a 10 ft. wide screen - I would suggest using an
anamorphic lens.
Greg
Greg,
Thanks for the response. Actually, the screen is to be 10'3" wide, 2.35 aspect.
Tell me, with the anamorphic lens, are all aspect ratios converted to whatever the lens is designed to output (in terms of aspect ratio - e.g. a 2.35 aspect lens, for example).
If so, what are the down sides when you run pictures with different aspect ratios than the lens is designed to output (e.g. 1.85, 1.78. 1.33, etc. aspect movies). How does the lens handle these ratios or does the lens need to be removed for other aspect ratios?
How does a scaler (e.g. Rock + fit into all this?)
I am a CRT guy moving to digital and I'm riding the learning curve.
thanks for the spoon-feeding.
Jeff
Thanks for the response. Actually, the screen is to be 10'3" wide, 2.35 aspect.
Tell me, with the anamorphic lens, are all aspect ratios converted to whatever the lens is designed to output (in terms of aspect ratio - e.g. a 2.35 aspect lens, for example).
If so, what are the down sides when you run pictures with different aspect ratios than the lens is designed to output (e.g. 1.85, 1.78. 1.33, etc. aspect movies). How does the lens handle these ratios or does the lens need to be removed for other aspect ratios?
How does a scaler (e.g. Rock + fit into all this?)
I am a CRT guy moving to digital and I'm riding the learning curve.
thanks for the spoon-feeding.
Jeff
Quote:
Huh? that's about what movie theaters are. Isn't that what we are trying to emulate?
I have 10' wide 16:9 with G1000. I probably get 10-12ft lamberts and i'm happy as a clam.
Lighting plays a big roll of course. See a demo and do some calculations.
| Originally posted by Morbius Assuming an 1100 lumen output for a calibrated G15 - that means you are putting about 15 or 16 foot-lamberts on a 4:3 screen, which is at the low end of the acceptable range. |
I have 10' wide 16:9 with G1000. I probably get 10-12ft lamberts and i'm happy as a clam.
Lighting plays a big roll of course. See a demo and do some calculations.
Joined
·
46 Posts
At the risk of being a smart alec, the only downside for me when I purchased my JVC G-11: it ruined me for all other projectors. HDTV is stupifyingly good. With an anamorphic lens (on order) one third more pixels will compose the image over even the new 1280x720 DMDs. With an 80" high-power screen, even after calibrating the black level, the image is brighter than my HD-RPTV. Certainly someday soon a greyhawk screen will improve the black level--I'm picky about blacks, but even so it's worth the tradeoff. The fan you get used to, and the heat comes in handy on cold winter nights.
Quote:
Of course not. We are trying build the most enjoyable video experience. That is typically not going to be a movie theater.
Higher light levels makes the picture appear sharper and more vibrant in color. Those higher light levels raise the power bill in movie theaters and it is an easy cost to cut.
Its the same when you listen to audio. Low volume audio does not sound as good as higher volume audio (up to a point). Theaters keep the sound low to keep it from being heard in the adjacent theater.
I don't want to sit in a movie theater chair no matter how plush it is. I prefer a couch where I have the option of sitting up, laying down, or putting papers, etc next to me.
I don't want the low light levels of theater because I am usually doing other things when the TV is on. I certainly don't want theater quality speakers. Its easy to do better than that.
Us your imagination. Put together what you want. Imitation is just a sign that you are not thinking.
| Originally posted by Tryg Huh? that's about what movie theaters are. Isn't that what we are trying to emulate? |
Higher light levels makes the picture appear sharper and more vibrant in color. Those higher light levels raise the power bill in movie theaters and it is an easy cost to cut.
Its the same when you listen to audio. Low volume audio does not sound as good as higher volume audio (up to a point). Theaters keep the sound low to keep it from being heard in the adjacent theater.
I don't want to sit in a movie theater chair no matter how plush it is. I prefer a couch where I have the option of sitting up, laying down, or putting papers, etc next to me.
I don't want the low light levels of theater because I am usually doing other things when the TV is on. I certainly don't want theater quality speakers. Its easy to do better than that.
Us your imagination. Put together what you want. Imitation is just a sign that you are not thinking.
Joined
·
4,525 Posts
The biggest problem with D-ILA? The lack of an upgrade path!!!
The G1000 came out at what, $18,000? And was retired when the price to remain competitive got so low that there was no profit in manufacturing or selling it.
The G11 was also $18,000 at introduction. When the new price started to get down into the $7K range, it also was discontinued as not profitable.
Now, the G15 is also starting to get "low" in price. In the $9K range. To prevent retiring it, I have heard that the price may be going UP! Since when does the price go up in consumer electronics?
They can be beautiful projectors and if I had to upgrade my G11 tomorrow, the G15 would certainly be at the top of the list. However, if the price goes up, I'm afraid that they are going to price themselves right out of the HT market completely.
Those $3500 G1000s are not all that easy to find. And the $6K G11s are becoming pretty rare as well.
The new G150HT is already over $20K (I believe) and the Madrigal D-ILA (based on the G15) is $26K. These are marketed to the HT crowd, so maybe that accounts for the price difference, but if the G15 price also heads in that direction (> $20K), it is going to guarantee that only a select few will ever get to enjoy them.
D-ILAs are going to end up being the "rich man's digital projector" if this trend continues.
Sorry for the rant. I just don't like this trend one bit.
The G1000 came out at what, $18,000? And was retired when the price to remain competitive got so low that there was no profit in manufacturing or selling it.
The G11 was also $18,000 at introduction. When the new price started to get down into the $7K range, it also was discontinued as not profitable.
Now, the G15 is also starting to get "low" in price. In the $9K range. To prevent retiring it, I have heard that the price may be going UP! Since when does the price go up in consumer electronics?
They can be beautiful projectors and if I had to upgrade my G11 tomorrow, the G15 would certainly be at the top of the list. However, if the price goes up, I'm afraid that they are going to price themselves right out of the HT market completely.
Those $3500 G1000s are not all that easy to find. And the $6K G11s are becoming pretty rare as well.
The new G150HT is already over $20K (I believe) and the Madrigal D-ILA (based on the G15) is $26K. These are marketed to the HT crowd, so maybe that accounts for the price difference, but if the G15 price also heads in that direction (> $20K), it is going to guarantee that only a select few will ever get to enjoy them.
D-ILAs are going to end up being the "rich man's digital projector" if this trend continues.
Sorry for the rant. I just don't like this trend one bit.
The black level is not perfect. I've seen DILA a few times and I think they need to improve the black level before I purchase one for HT use. I'm used to watching HDTV on a high resolution monitor which has extremely good black level in a totally dark room.
Joined
·
4,967 Posts
1) Fan Noise
2) Bulb only lasts 1000 Hrs and costs 800.00 (and loses 50% of its brightness over the span of its life).
3) You need to have it professionally calibrated for at least 500.00 to get the best colors, which cuts the brightness output by at least 25%.
4) Can have stuck "on" pixels so you have a permanent red dot, or blue dot, or green dot in your image. Depending on location it can be very annoying.
-- Cain
All that having been said, the folks who have these projectors typically love them, and are more than willing to put up with these disadvantages to enjoy their projected output.
Go look at projectors before you buy one, that is really the only way to tell if it will be good for YOU.
2) Bulb only lasts 1000 Hrs and costs 800.00 (and loses 50% of its brightness over the span of its life).
3) You need to have it professionally calibrated for at least 500.00 to get the best colors, which cuts the brightness output by at least 25%.
4) Can have stuck "on" pixels so you have a permanent red dot, or blue dot, or green dot in your image. Depending on location it can be very annoying.
-- Cain
All that having been said, the folks who have these projectors typically love them, and are more than willing to put up with these disadvantages to enjoy their projected output.
Go look at projectors before you buy one, that is really the only way to tell if it will be good for YOU.
Jeff,
A lens will always alter the image in the same manner.
For example, what is called a "16:9" lens, like the ISCO I and ISCO II ; will stretch the image
horizontally by 33%. That will convert a 4:3 AR into a 16:9 AR. Coincidentally, it will also
convert a 16:9 AR into a 2.35 AR.
A lens that is labeled as a "2.35 AR" lens or a so-called "scope" lens takes a 4:3 AR into a 2.35 AR.
You have a 2.35 AR screen. The D-ILA has a 4:3 AR panel - so you could use a 2.35 "scope" lens to
alter the 4:3 image coming out of the projector to make the 2.35 image for the screen.
This is where the HTPC comes in. A 2.35 AR movie has an aspect ratio of 2.35, of course. The D-ILA
has this 4:3 panel that you want to use all of. The HTPC stretches the 2.35 image vertically, so
that it fills the 4:3 panel - people would look tall and thin. This image is put through the lens,
which stretches horizontally, thus restoring the original aspect ratio - and you have a 2.35 AR image
on your 2.35 AR screen.
Now if you have a 16:9 image - the HTPC will again stretch it vertically to fill the panel - but since
it is not as wide as a 2.35 image, it won't fill the panel horizontally, so when your scope lens
expands it horizontally it won't fill the 2.35 screen either - and you will have black pillars
left and right. Same for 4:3 - but the pillars are even thicker.
The above assumes you have a 2.35 lens. You could
also do the same with a 16:9 lens. For your 2.35
movies - you would use a 16:9 AR subset of your D-ILA pixels and have the HTPC compress the 2.35
image to fit into that. Then when the lens exanded it - it would be back to 2.35 AR. A 16:9
AR movie would use the whole panel of the D-ILA, but would not fill the whole 2.35 screen.
Although both movies would come out looking correct in both these scenarios - a 2.35 AR movie
using a 2.35 lens would use all the D-ILA pixels whereas the 16:9 AR movie would use a subset.
If you use a 16:9 lens, the 16:9 AR movie will use all the pixels, while the 2.35 AR movie will use a
subset.
So if you want to get best performance on 2.35 AR movies, and a little less on 16:9 movies, then get
the 2.35 "scope" lens. If you want best performance on 16:9 AR movies, and a little less on
2.35 AR movies - then get a 16:9 lens.
Since you have a 2.35 screen, I would guess that the former option is the one you would prefer
[ otherwise you would have a 16:9 screen ].
The choice of lens is based on which AR ratio you want to do "best". Get the lens for that AR.
For all other aspect ratios, the HTPC can scale and stretch the image so that what ever aspect
ratio the image starts with - it will come out of your chosen lens with the proper aspect ratio.
Greg
A lens will always alter the image in the same manner.
For example, what is called a "16:9" lens, like the ISCO I and ISCO II ; will stretch the image
horizontally by 33%. That will convert a 4:3 AR into a 16:9 AR. Coincidentally, it will also
convert a 16:9 AR into a 2.35 AR.
A lens that is labeled as a "2.35 AR" lens or a so-called "scope" lens takes a 4:3 AR into a 2.35 AR.
You have a 2.35 AR screen. The D-ILA has a 4:3 AR panel - so you could use a 2.35 "scope" lens to
alter the 4:3 image coming out of the projector to make the 2.35 image for the screen.
This is where the HTPC comes in. A 2.35 AR movie has an aspect ratio of 2.35, of course. The D-ILA
has this 4:3 panel that you want to use all of. The HTPC stretches the 2.35 image vertically, so
that it fills the 4:3 panel - people would look tall and thin. This image is put through the lens,
which stretches horizontally, thus restoring the original aspect ratio - and you have a 2.35 AR image
on your 2.35 AR screen.
Now if you have a 16:9 image - the HTPC will again stretch it vertically to fill the panel - but since
it is not as wide as a 2.35 image, it won't fill the panel horizontally, so when your scope lens
expands it horizontally it won't fill the 2.35 screen either - and you will have black pillars
left and right. Same for 4:3 - but the pillars are even thicker.
The above assumes you have a 2.35 lens. You could
also do the same with a 16:9 lens. For your 2.35
movies - you would use a 16:9 AR subset of your D-ILA pixels and have the HTPC compress the 2.35
image to fit into that. Then when the lens exanded it - it would be back to 2.35 AR. A 16:9
AR movie would use the whole panel of the D-ILA, but would not fill the whole 2.35 screen.
Although both movies would come out looking correct in both these scenarios - a 2.35 AR movie
using a 2.35 lens would use all the D-ILA pixels whereas the 16:9 AR movie would use a subset.
If you use a 16:9 lens, the 16:9 AR movie will use all the pixels, while the 2.35 AR movie will use a
subset.
So if you want to get best performance on 2.35 AR movies, and a little less on 16:9 movies, then get
the 2.35 "scope" lens. If you want best performance on 16:9 AR movies, and a little less on
2.35 AR movies - then get a 16:9 lens.
Since you have a 2.35 screen, I would guess that the former option is the one you would prefer
[ otherwise you would have a 16:9 screen ].
The choice of lens is based on which AR ratio you want to do "best". Get the lens for that AR.
For all other aspect ratios, the HTPC can scale and stretch the image so that what ever aspect
ratio the image starts with - it will come out of your chosen lens with the proper aspect ratio.
Greg
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
- Status
Join the discussion
