[joquito]

Below is a link to Canon's website on their new LcOS projector. Retailing for $3999, and 1400 lines of resolution, I would expect to read more on this forum about this. IF any one hears anything please post.


http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...&modelid=10678

 

[Tryg]

We're all waiting.... for the two year backorder

 

[LoveMovies]

Backorder? How do you do that? I noticed on the linked page above that there is a shopping cart with the words "buy now" on it, so I tried it. No dealers in my zip code, or Phoenix, oops or Los Angeles!

 

[Brandon B]

No one has any yet. It will be at least a week or 2 or 3 or 4. I would bet, though, that whoever does get one will be barraged upon admitting possession.


BB

 

[shodoug]

I bet the store closest to me will be AVS.


Best Regards,

Doug

 

[Pete]

What's all the excitement about? This looks like a short-throw business projector that uses some bastard chip (not 720 or 1080). I'm sure Canon could make a good HT projector if they wanted to. I doubt this is it.

 

[Ohlson]

Pete

Are you Pete Putnam
http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages/lcosgame.htm


The excitement is about the lumens they get from the little bulb in a very small package.

The point of the illumination system is light output is it not? In that way if they live up to numbers this is a step in the right direction.


They compare with projectors of a similar size or prize or resolution. In that respect it is a fair comparison.


For HT

It has light output, couple it with an auto-iris

The resolution is high

Color is usuallly good with lcos

It is small and good looking

It would have to be 800-1000:1 to be super interesting

 

[Brandon B]

Bastard chip?


So now everything without a 720 or 1080 chip is a bastard projector? That will come as a shock to a lot of people here.


BB

 

[shodoug]

Whats all the excitement?


I have a 1.78 and a 2.35 panamorph so I am not afraid of 4:3. I figured that a used JVC would be my next projector.


If this pj delivers similar performance as the JVC's I was considering, I would go for it. The 1.7 zoom (unfortunately manual, but I bet i could do something about that if it was the only drawback) gives enough to have a constant height, varying width for 2.35 and 16:9, given a fixed pj position, which I may or may not like.


A three year warranty is nice, too.


I doubt this pj will appeal to those who want the latest and greatest from JVC (assuming you think a 4:3 panel masked to give 16:9 aspect ratio is greatest...) but it does appeal to me, provided it gives overall performance on par witha JVC G15.


If I already had a JVC, I believe I would be interested in hearing about the canon, but doubt I would be interested in buying it.


Best Regards,

Doug

 

[Pete]

Mattias,

I'm not Pete Putnam, but his review makes some interesting observations. Thanks for sharing it.


Brandon,

I guess my "bastard chip" comment came off sounding like it's a bad thing. My bias is for less scaling.


There are lots of bright business projectors floating around. I guess we'll see soon enough how well it does in the contrast/color department. I'm also suspicious of short-throw optics. They tend to resolve poorly at the outer boundaries.

 

[Ohlson]

One thing that should not be downplayed is the fact that the projector uses d-ila panels. Any ordinary business light cannon can use simple dmds or lcds.

High fill factor is good

The smooth film look is good

No rainbow is good

Contrast could be somewhat limiting at 1000:1 but with an auto-iris it could offer something great for a really big screen. It has both lumens and resolution.

 

[sfogg]

Doug,


"I have a 1.78 and a 2.35 panamorph so I am not afraid of 4:3. "


You have a lens that goes from 1.33 to 2.35? What make/model is it?


Thanks,


Shawn

 

[gpshumway]

Quote:

Originally posted by sfogg Doug, "I have a 1.78 and a 2.35 panamorph so I am not afraid of 4:3. " You have a lens that goes from 1.33 to 2.35? What make/model is it? Thanks, Shawn

I'm just guessing, but he's probably got the older liquid filled panamorph model which squeezes 1.33 to 2.35. It's been out of production for some time. I believe it was discontinued before the liquid filled 1.33 to 1.78 model.

 

[Brandon B]

Quote:

Originally posted by Pete Brandon, I guess my "bastard chip" comment came off sounding like it's a bad thing. My bias is for less scaling.

OK, that I can get behind.


My excitement for this thing is due to it being, in this order:


DILA

Bright

Cheap

And lastly, CR that is at least higher than what I already have (20HD)


BB

 

[matthewv]

ohlson-


what do you define as a really big screen when you referenced that possibly requiring auto-iris?


Thanks

 

[Ohlson]

My point is that with a high resolution you can use a big screen. With lots of lumens you can light up a big screen. With a big screen the black level becomes lower and with an auto-iris the black level and the dynamic range will satisfy most.

 

[shodoug]

Quote:

Originally posted by gpshumway I'm just guessing, but he's probably got the older liquid filled panamorph model which squeezes 1.33 to 2.35. It's been out of production for some time. I believe it was discontinued before the liquid filled 1.33 to 1.78 model.

Shawn, gpshumway is right. If I recall correctly, it was called a 561 Panamorph. It was rather expensive and risky to preorder. From time to time they show up in videogon.


It is not perfect, that is for sure, but from the times I have used it, it satisfies me and my crowd. {Still using an LT-150, to give a frame of reference }


I would have to experiment to see if I would prefer to use it or just always leave the 16:9 in front of the pj and just use black bars, masking, and maybe zoom to get the aspect ratios.


I am not sure if DIY liquid filled lense discussion is allowed around here, but I understand that materials can be rather inexpensive, and I recall seeing some techniques to cancel out barrel distortion.


Also, I just want to add that I did not intend to slight any pjs in my earlier post with the comment about just masking a 4:3 chip to make it 16:9. From what I have read, they made other improvements to the models that make them well worth consideration, and I would be very happy to have one.


As far as cr, my theater is a black hole, so I would imagine that might make my actual pj cr requirements a little less, to achieve the same black level.


Berklines are on the way, and I do not want to do anything too permanent when locating the LT-150 on the ceiling, where it will have to go. I would really prefer to upgrade before doing anythign to affix the lt-150 to the ceiling.


Best Regards,

Doug

 

[sfogg]

Doug,


Thanks for the info, I didn't know that there was a Panamorph that did that type of aspect ratio changing.


"I would have to experiment to see if I would prefer to use it or just always leave the 16:9 in front of the pj and just use black bars, masking, and maybe zoom to get the aspect ratios."


I run a constant height setup with a JVC G10 and a Lumagen scaler on a 2.35 screen. I have an ISCO II to get to 1.78 (at 1360x1024). For 2.35 material I feed it (1360x768, top aligned) and use the projectors optical zoom to fill the screen.


Shawn

 

[David Chin]

The specs published by Canon say the fan noise is 37DB(Normal)/34dB(Silent). Isn't this relatively high compared to the crops of new projectors available? Will the fan noise be a problem?


David

 

[Ursa]

It is high for the latest generation, and it could be a problem for some. This is the biggest known weakness of this thing so far.


Later,

Bill