AVS Forum banner

201 - 220 of 336 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
539 Posts
Thank you for your kind reply. This makes good sense. Especially services like Netflix er quite often pixelated in darker scenes because of the relatively low bitrate in normal HD programs. Haven’t played with the 4K variant yet though. Only have an 1080 SXRD pj for now. Planning on getting a much more light capable pj than the current 1600 lumen Sony I have. How much light would you recommend for a 405cm screen width? Should this be in the 2000+ range?


I am not seeing that reply you are referring to for some reason, but I have been using a JVC DLA-X5900 / RS440 for a long while in my own 1:1 seating distance (3m / 10ft) / screen width (3,3m / 11ft) cinema, but I do use the 4K E-shift on that unit to avoid visible screen door. As such, the X-series JVC´s are great in my opinion, while the Epson LCD, even with E-shift activated, would work better at a 1,5x seating distance or somewhere in those whereabouts... :) The 4K native JVC´s or the Sony 4K´s would work fine on 1:1 in my opinion - at least in terms of screen door.



Then it’s certainly also a matter of content quality, I see Netflix was mentioned, and although their overall quality has improved over the years, I agree that low bandwidth material might often be an issue with low seating-to-screen widths ratios. One solution as such would be to use a masking frame, and mask your 2.40:1 native image down to a smaller (in width that is) 16:9 when using sources like Netflix. One issue in terms of Netflix specifically though, is their aspect ratio being neither 16:9 nor 2.40:1, but somewhere in between, so our 2.40:1 masking screens that uses a fixed width of the masking panels to keep cost down would not be "perfect". Still, the new JVC N-series (native 4K), for example, has a very nice, new feature now that allows for custom digital masking for each format chosen, so that you can clip off some of the pixels at each side of the image when masking to 16:9. I mean, other masking solutions with adjustable side masking would be more flexible in such regards, but also cost quite a bit more, so it´s all give and take - and in my opinion keeping it as simple as possible in terms of overall operations of the system is also an important factor (i.e. not having to adjust the masking for a bunch of formats all the time).



As for light output, a 4m wide screen is certainly a large one, so if you would want to hit HDR levels brightness it would require quite a lot of light. However, in my opinion that is, a proper tone mapping or outputting SDR converted HDR material, would compensate a whole lot for brightness requirements. We just did a 3,5m wide 2.40:1 screen at the Alcons Pro-Ribbon Immersive Experience at ISE in Amsterdam using a JVC DLA-N7 and a DCR lens. The N7 outputs about 1800 lumens while the DCR adds another 30% or so, so in total about 2300 lumens on that setup. It did look quite smashing as far as I am concerned, even at HDR, and we were using the new internal tone mapping system of the JVC for that purpose. However, the Panasonic UB420 / UB820 / UB9000 UHD players also has a very nice tone mapping system if your projector does not support it properly internally (which is the case for the 4K Sony projectors as far as I am concerned at least, i.e. they require external mapping...). MadVR and a PC is another option, even dynamic HDR support (frame-by-frame) being launched these days if using a PC as your source is acceptable...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Played a bit with the newest Panasonic uhd player at a friends house who has a Sony VPL-VW360ES pj and never really got the hdr tone mapping feature to work properly. I’ll be doing a bit more testing and research. He just ordered the new VW570ES. The old didn’t work with a dcr lens on 4K material. The pj couldn’t cope with the vertical stretching on 4K. The newer models supposedly can do this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
I’m a bit concerned about total lumens or nits when using a large AT screen. Eventually I’ll be buying a new pj and hopefully they will have more sufficient light output than my current HW55ES. In your opinion would it be a good option to buy an anamorphic lens regardless of the pj I end up with? Which lenses are good enough and capable of doing 4K without loosing too much detail in the extra layers of glass? I’ve been looking at Prismasonic for some time but never played around with it myself. They’re much cheaper than than Schneider optics and other high end variants.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
539 Posts
I’m a bit concerned about total lumens or nits when using a large AT screen. Eventually I’ll be buying a new pj and hopefully they will have more sufficient light output than my current HW55ES. In your opinion would it be a good option to buy an anamorphic lens regardless of the pj I end up with? Which lenses are good enough and capable of doing 4K without loosing too much detail in the extra layers of glass? I’ve been looking at Prismasonic for some time but never played around with it myself. They’re much cheaper than than Schneider optics and other high end variants.
I have quite a nice span of experience with both Schneider and Prismasonic and have to say that I would not recommend neither of those right now. The Schneider is certainly nice, and if you can get ahold of one used for a low price it might be an option, but even then, especially in rooms where you push the throw, in my experience even the medium ISCO-lenses might be somewhat problematic in terms of chromatic abberation. The best lens I have ever fiddled with is certainly the Panamorph DCR. It´s a smarter approach in terms of reducing the barrel effect, and also the lens that would provide you with the most possible light output combined with one of the 4K 4096 width panels from either Sony or JVC. It´s not perfect either, some barrel will occur in most circumstanced, but I was unable to see chromatic issues, and the sharpness also seems quite good. "Only" issue is the cost...... :)

Played a bit with the newest Panasonic uhd player at a friends house who has a Sony VPL-VW360ES pj and never really got the hdr tone mapping feature to work properly. I’ll be doing a bit more testing and research. He just ordered the new VW570ES. The old didn’t work with a dcr lens on 4K material. The pj couldn’t cope with the vertical stretching on 4K. The newer models supposedly can do this.
Sure, HDR is certainly hard to display properly, I am very pleased with both JVC N-series and actually the new Epson TW9400 (Pro Cinema 6050 in the US) in terms of internal HDR mapping, and I agree the Panasonics UHD players at times does come out a bit "off"...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
Hi, looking to do a DIY AT 140" diag 2:39:1 screen for either the JVC NX7 or NX5. Not sure which one to go with yet. The throw distance is 16 ft and the viewing to first row of seats is about 10 feet. How would I mount the DreamScreen Ultraweave AT on 1 x 4 poplar boards? Staple? Or another mounting method. It will be a frame less setup as the screen will be surrounded by false panels wrapped in SY Fabrics Triple Black Velvet. The room is a bat cave, 100% light controlled. Will I have any issues with lumens? I wasn't going to install a Paladin DCR lens so hopefully the light output would be ok.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
539 Posts
Hi, looking to do a DIY AT 140" diag 2:39:1 screen for either the JVC NX7 or NX5. Not sure which one to go with yet. The throw distance is 16 ft and the viewing to first row of seats is about 10 feet. How would I mount the DreamScreen Ultraweave AT on 1 x 4 poplar boards? Staple? Or another mounting method. It will be a frame less setup as the screen will be surrounded by false panels wrapped in SY Fabrics Triple Black Velvet. The room is a bat cave, 100% light controlled. Will I have any issues with lumens? I wasn't going to install a Paladin DCR lens so hopefully the light output would be ok.
Hi @den110! A friend of mine just did a test on the N5 at our Norwegian site AVforum.no, and although he owns a NX9 himself he was quite impressed. The Google translated version of the test can be found here: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=https://avforum.no/forum/avnews/?p=297. As for N7, you might get a bit more contrast, but the advantages - at least in my opinion, are less when using a large screen like yours as you would probably not engage the colour filter and run with both irises open. Anyhow...! :)

As for the UltraWeave; we always recommend using our grip rails. It makes proper tension much easier to obtain and is custom designed to be used with our fabrics. Rails are required if you´re installing one of the new TextileShield versions as the layers buildup on that version requires continuous tension, while rails are optional for the regular V6 (the non-textileshield). The rails are easily glued onto just about any surface, and you can also add some additional nails to secure 100% if needed be. We also recommend using out custom made installation tool (even has fancy name too; the one and only UltraTucker) to get that fabric properly down into the rails.

As for lumens and a 140" wide V6, I guess you´d end up with about 20fl or so using the N5 / N7, but due to the internal tone mapping the light from these N-series JVC´s produce far more pleasing images than those figures normally might entail. My personal opinion is that it would look great in a bat cave like yours. Sure, you could drop AT and do a positive 1.3 gain PVC, you´d be able to pull the light up to 27 or so fl, but you´d still need to properly tone map the image and you would forfeit AT and also have potentially speckle and/or sheen. You can also hope for those DCR lenses going on sale at some point and basically "null" the gain difference... I guess it´s all about priorities, but my honest opinion at least - is that HDR at 140" width with the V6 + N5 / N7 would look very dynamic and pleasing for most viewers. SDR, of course, would be at reference level... :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
511 Posts
plus it produces cool-looking aesthetics to the extent that I even use specialist rectangular framing lighting to illuminate them when the projector is not in use, as shown in these illustrations for example... So why hide your awesome looking big 18" subs behind the screen when you can show them off in an 'In-Your-Face' design style! ;):D:cool::





Two questions:

1 - Where can I find this lighting?
2 - Do you do anything to 'hide' the subs when the projector is on? Or do you rely on the absence of light in the room?

Cheers
 

·
ABSOLUTE ULTIMATE AV
Joined
·
5,006 Posts
[/SPOILER]

Two questions:

1 - Where can I find this lighting?
2 - Do you do anything to 'hide' the subs when the projector is on? Or do you rely on the absence of light in the room?

Cheers
Since this is off topic, I have sent you an email :)

:wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
Hi, looking to do a DIY AT 140" diag 2:39:1 screen for either the JVC NX7 or NX5. Not sure which one to go with yet. The throw distance is 16 ft and the viewing to first row of seats is about 10 feet. How would I mount the DreamScreen Ultraweave AT on 1 x 4 poplar boards? Staple? Or another mounting method. It will be a frame less setup as the screen will be surrounded by false panels wrapped in SY Fabrics Triple Black Velvet. The room is a bat cave, 100% light controlled. Will I have any issues with lumens? I wasn't going to install a Paladin DCR lens so hopefully the light output would be ok.
Hi Den. I'm going for a very similar setup in a new build - NX7, batcave, 16' throw, 10"-12" viewing distance - and would be very interested in what you go for and any impressions. I'd offer the same but am about a year or so away from completion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
Then it’s certainly also a matter of content quality, I see Netflix was mentioned, and although their overall quality has improved over the years, I agree that low bandwidth material might often be an issue with low seating-to-screen widths ratios. One solution as such would be to use a masking frame, and mask your 2.40:1 native image down to a smaller (in width that is) 16:9 when using sources like Netflix. One issue in terms of Netflix specifically though, is their aspect ratio being neither 16:9 nor 2.40:1, but somewhere in between, so our 2.40:1 masking screens that uses a fixed width of the masking panels to keep cost down would not be "perfect". Still, the new JVC N-series (native 4K), for example, has a very nice, new feature now that allows for custom digital masking for each format chosen, so that you can clip off some of the pixels at each side of the image when masking to 16:9. I mean, other masking solutions with adjustable side masking would be more flexible in such regards, but also cost quite a bit more, so it´s all give and take - and in my opinion keeping it as simple as possible in terms of overall operations of the system is also an important factor (i.e. not having to adjust the masking for a bunch of formats all the time).

Evidently Netflix uses an aspect ratio of 2:1 for much of it's original content. It will be interesting to see if the other online creators use that ratio, and if so it may become more and more relevant as they create more content. In the future a 2:1 screen with 4 way masking out to 2.40:1 and 16:9 may be the way to go. Crazy...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,145 Posts
Evidently Netflix uses an aspect ratio of 2:1 for much of it's original content. It will be interesting to see if the other online creators use that ratio, and if so it may become more and more relevant as they create more content. In the future a 2:1 screen with 4 way masking out to 2.40:1 and 16:9 may be the way to go. Crazy...
Like we needed another aspect ratio. I have two films in 2.00:1 - Green Book, and A Simple Favor. I watched them both in scope just to spite 2.00:1 ! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
539 Posts
Evidently Netflix uses an aspect ratio of 2:1 for much of it's original content. It will be interesting to see if the other online creators use that ratio, and if so it may become more and more relevant as they create more content. In the future a 2:1 screen with 4 way masking out to 2.40:1 and 16:9 may be the way to go. Crazy...
Sure, a 4-way certainly gives most options, but is also the - by far - most complex mechanical screen setup as well (i.e. higher risk of defectives, more complex to install, higher price ++). A "simple" 1-way masked 16:9 / 1.77:1 native frame, like our MotoMask PRO´s, would also accommodate 2.0:1 (aka Netflix) and 2.40:1, for example, by simply lowering that basic masking panel from the top. Any weird in-between format I´d personally prefer to just digitally mask off, fortunately the new JVC´s and the new Epsons has memory positions that store digital masking positions for any scope format... The really esoteric solution would be a projector that automatically outputs what pixels are in use at any time and a frame that masks accordingly. Barco actually has this functionality, powered by a DT screens frame that masks accordingly. Certainly impressive, I´d give them that for sure, but it does come at a cost! AND, and I´d say not the least, in my humble opinion - few - if any - of the other screen manufacturers, even the "esoteric" ones, offers the unique set of qualities the patented UltraWeave features; i.e. the combination of reference acoustical transparency, neutral D65 tracking, zero speckle, ultra fine structural appearance and as such very high image sharpness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
A "simple" 1-way masked 16:9 / 1.77:1 native frame, like our MotoMask PRO´s, would also accommodate 2.0:1 (aka Netflix) and 2.40:1, for example, by simply lowering that basic masking panel from the top.
So the one way mask can be adjusted for the width of the respective aspect ratio? Good to know, thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
539 Posts
So the one way mask can be adjusted for the width of the respective aspect ratio? Good to know, thanks.


Well, width would be constant, but height adjusted to correspond to the various formats for the 16:9 native 1-way systems. We accomodate three storage points, so for example 16:9, 2.0:1 and 2.40:1. Plus manual adjustment or alternating the memories that is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
Hi Lygren,

I’ve a Sony vpl-vw260es and currently 120” base screen (lumene with gain 1.. according to the spec) in a home theater (box I the box) with a THX wall. One year that I’m searching for a new screen until my vendor see you during CES if I’m not wrong.
Do you think the V6 ultra with this projector will be ok for a 120” or 126” screen base?
As the gain is 0.81, I’m not sure that for such base the Sony will still be ok in terms of image brightness as it is today with my current screen.
What do you think, did you have the opportunity to test this projector ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
539 Posts
Hi Lygren,



I’ve a Sony vpl-vw260es and currently 120” base screen (lumene with gain 1.. according to the spec) in a home theater (box I the box) with a THX wall. One year that I’m searching for a new screen until my vendor see you during CES if I’m not wrong.

Do you think the V6 ultra with this projector will be ok for a 120” or 126” screen base?

As the gain is 0.81, I’m not sure that for such base the Sony will still be ok in terms of image brightness as it is today with my current screen.

What do you think, did you have the opportunity to test this projector ?


Hi Dave! The VW260 has a typically output of about 1500 lumens (minus some for D65 correction), and a little less in eco mode. We used a VW260 for a long time on a 10ft wide / 130» diagonal cinescope screen at our showroom and for the first 200 hours it looked sufficiently lit, but after some drop in output on the lamp it did appear a bit dim after that. We replaced the screen with a 122» diagonal cinescope, and it looked like a better fit.

As for gain values, unfortunately, quite few are accurate. In general, the more course PVC thread weaves like xyscreen and XD are in reality about 0.9, while most regularly woven or knitted screens are in the 0.7-0.8 neighborhood. We have tested and been able to increase gain up to 0.9 with our patented tech as well, so it is possible while still retaining all image-related qualities, but AT is reduced too much as far as we see it. We are not willing to sacrifice a whole lot of AT to obtain 10% more light reflection, audio is simply too important to us. On that note, we will certainly continue trying to improve gain but in general, our opinion is that the last possible 10% or so before hitting either speckle, move off of unity gain (i.e. full viewing width, we really don’t like the trade offs higher gain entails) is really not that critical, although every amount of reflected light is always appreciated.

Another important point is how HDR is processed. VW260 does not tone map, so you would need a good external mapping device such as the Pannu UB820.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ericglo

·
Registered
Joined
·
539 Posts
Thanks a lot Lygren,

Did you use the vw260 in eco mode?

On my side the base is 120” (137“ diagonal) in 16/9 so I think it’s too short for me (diagonal)


We ran it in regular mode, and the current 122» would be 129» in 16:9, which does work quite well. 137» is a bit larger for sure, but it might still work out OK, but you would probably need to void eco mode at least. The JVC N-series would add about 20% additional light though, and would probably work better if you need to run it in eco mode. The new Epson tw9400 /6050 is also very powerful in terms of light output, even moreso than the JVC’s, but lacks 4k native and the blacks.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ericglo

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
We ran it in regular mode, and the current 122» would be 129» in 16:9, which does work quite well. 137» is a bit larger for sure, but it might still work out OK, but you would probably need to void eco mode at least. The JVC N-series would add about 20% additional light though, and would probably work better if you need to run it in eco mode. The new Epson tw9400 /6050 is also very powerful in terms of light output, even moreso than the JVC’s, but lacks 4k native and the blacks.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks a lot for all those information ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
340 Posts
@Lygren whats the lowest amount of lumens you would say was acceptable to be able to do HDR justice on a 150" Scope screen.

I bought one of the 150" Dreamscreen V6+ frame from you guys earlier this year, new theater is under construction atm, and want to get a projector that will be able to do HDR justice on this monster.

Room is 100% light controlled, and am building a HTPC for Dynamic Tone Mapping with MadVr
 
201 - 220 of 336 Posts
Top