AVS Forum banner

21 - 40 of 76 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,046 Posts
Discussion Starter #21
Thanks guys. Good to have you along. Due to my impatience, I decided to buy the projector early but I will be waiting on a pre/pro or receiver. Those things drop in price quickly. Accessories4less is a great way to pick up Onkyo, Integra, Denon and Marantz stuff for several hundred less than MSRP. Right now a Denon X4300 is $1300 on Amazon. By the end of the year, it will be a 2 year old model but will still have everything I need. 11 channel processing/pre outs (only 9 amplified though), HDMI 2.0, Atmos and DTS:X, and Audyssee Platinum. I foresee models similar to this going for under $1000 very very soon.

Also, due to impatience, as I said in an earlier post, I decided to order the Samsung 4K player this past weekend. The Xbox One S is a really nice player but right now I need 2 HDMI outputs. I'm sure there will be more models next year, but I guess I've taken an early adopter attitude on theater 2.0. Plus, I got it for under $200. I had an Oppo in Theater 1.0, and I'll be honest, I couldn't tell the difference in sound or video quality between it, a PS4, or a 4 year old LG blu ray player, so, I decided I'm not dropping $500 on a player when one for $200 gets the job done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,827 Posts
OK, just now coming up for a gasp of air with sufficient time to post. Last weekend could be summed up in two words: projectile vomit. Ahhhh...the joy of young kids, right?

A best practice for HVAC is supply at the front and return at the rear. Given your room layout and supply ducts, I would absolutely shorten them so they discharge near the front of the room. You need to use a diffuser which blows away from the screen so the screen material itself doesn't act like a sail and 'flap' in the HVAC movement. If you are using two 7" flex supplies in the front, a single 8" return line will be sufficient in most cases (hard to say exactly without measurements and full detail of your system). Put the rear return slightly behind the seating area and off to either one side or another.

Your response to Tedd above confuses me since your home is a single level and you have full access to the theater ceiling from the attic above. Your supply and return takeoffs would attach to the main trunk lines, go into the attic and down through the theater ceiling. Easy peasy.

Are you looking to enclose the projector as a way of removing projector heat from the room? If so, there are stand-alone systems to force ventilate the box, discharging outside the theater...OR...you can attach a 4" flex duct extension off the new return air box to pull the heat into your HVAC's return system. This is what I am doing, FYI. I can get into more detail later, but you will need to introduce an in-line damper to tailor the amount of air you are pulling through the projector box with the HVAC system.

For speakers, I'd highly recommend 1099s for your LCRs. You would be hard-pressed to find any better for the price. Volt 6s or Volt 10s for sides / rears...assuming you can build them into your room to meet your goal of all speakers being hidden. This also makes them tough to use for Atmos if your goal is to hide the speakers. The bottom line is you may want to consider exposing the Atmos speakers so you can get the proper positioning toward the MLP. Otherwise you are left with some very pricey in-ceiling speakers which have the necessary polar response / dispersion to properly do Atmos while pointing straight down and flush with the ceiling.

For the screen, have you considered a constant image area screen size of 2.0:1. This will give you the best of both worlds....the largest 16:9 image possible in your room and the largest cinemascope image possible in your room. Going with a 2.40:1 screen is going to limit the size of your 16:9 image. Since you game and watch a lot of TV, this could be a big minus. Just something for you to consider before selecting your next screen.

How do you plan to get the power to your new powered reclining chairs?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,046 Posts
Discussion Starter #23 (Edited)
OK, just now coming up for a gasp of air with sufficient time to post. Last weekend could be summed up in two words: projectile vomit. Ahhhh...the joy of young kids, right?

A best practice for HVAC is supply at the front and return at the rear. Given your room layout and supply ducts, I would absolutely shorten them so they discharge near the front of the room. You need to use a diffuser which blows away from the screen so the screen material itself doesn't act like a sail and 'flap' in the HVAC movement. If you are using two 7" flex supplies in the front, a single 8" return line will be sufficient in most cases (hard to say exactly without measurements and full detail of your system). Put the rear return slightly behind the seating area and off to either one side or another.

Your response to Tedd above confuses me since your home is a single level and you have full access to the theater ceiling from the attic above. Your supply and return takeoffs would attach to the main trunk lines, go into the attic and down through the theater ceiling. Easy peasy.

Are you looking to enclose the projector as a way of removing projector heat from the room? If so, there are stand-alone systems to force ventilate the box, discharging outside the theater...OR...you can attach a 4" flex duct extension off the new return air box to pull the heat into your HVAC's return system. This is what I am doing, FYI. I can get into more detail later, but you will need to introduce an in-line damper to tailor the amount of air you are pulling through the projector box with the HVAC system.

For speakers, I'd highly recommend 1099s for your LCRs. You would be hard-pressed to find any better for the price. Volt 6s or Volt 10s for sides / rears...assuming you can build them into your room to meet your goal of all speakers being hidden. This also makes them tough to use for Atmos if your goal is to hide the speakers. The bottom line is you may want to consider exposing the Atmos speakers so you can get the proper positioning toward the MLP. Otherwise you are left with some very pricey in-ceiling speakers which have the necessary polar response / dispersion to properly do Atmos while pointing straight down and flush with the ceiling.

For the screen, have you considered a constant image area screen size of 2.0:1. This will give you the best of both worlds....the largest 16:9 image possible in your room and the largest cinemascope image possible in your room. Going with a 2.40:1 screen is going to limit the size of your 16:9 image. Since you game and watch a lot of TV, this could be a big minus. Just something for you to consider before selecting your next screen.

How do you plan to get the power to your new powered reclining chairs?
Tim, thank you for taking the time to advise me. I know how busy life gets with 2 youngsters puking everywhere. Don't worry, though. The next 18 years will fly by. And then they'll be puking for other reasons. And hopefully that's not on the way home in a cop car like me. Or teen pregnancy like, well, me and my wife (we got lucky that we actually like each other after 20 years so it worked out ok for the Voth family). But that's enough about my life. Now down to business.

My plan for the return in the back of the room is what I was hoping would be a best practice so I'm good there. @Tedd's suggestion was confusing to me. I hope he chimes back in because he's always very helpful as well. I'm not sure what the purpose of cutting into the main trunk would be in my situation so I've redrawn my HVAC plan. I have 2 lines going into the room already that I've pretty much converted to flex so I don't see the need to cut into the trunk and move lines around. Ted said I could shrink the soffits on one side. I don't have soffits in this room. Maybe I'm not understanding what he meant by soffits. I could move the lines if need be but I'm not sure I see why I would want to go through with that. I'm just wanting to cut some flex duct here and there and add little where needed but again, I'm willing to listen if there are better ways than what I'm thinking.





Also, do remember that I don't have a return trunk in the attic. I have a central return in a hallway and the inside a/c unit is in a bedroom closet. There is no reasonable way for me to tie into it all. Here are pictures of what I have.

Main Return


First closet in bedroom. You can see the riser that is actually the return. Yeah, it's weird.

Yes that's Santiago the chinchilla. He's good people.

Second closet in bedroom with A/C unit

It's hard to see the unit but its behind the clothes.

In my mind, the only thing I can do is to run a return from the theater room as shown in the drawing, to this location right above my main return and put an inline duct fan on the line to ensure that the air gets pulled out of the room.


I want to use some sort of Insteon controller to turn it on/off. Maybe the Insteon hub can do if/then statements. We'll have to see.

It will be essentially, a forced air return. The air will be pulled from the theater, to right where the return is in the hallway. Is it the best way to do it? I would say probably not. But I don't know of any other way to have a decent amount of return air in a room that is almost sealed off from the rest of the house. Every other room has a good sized gap under the door or no door at all. I hope the pictures make sense so you can tell if I'm headed in the right direction.

As far as the projector, I'm not really set up for a hush box in this room. I could modify my removable panels that cover up my shelves in the back of the room but I wasn't planning on building a box in my room.

Speakers - Still not sure what I'm doing there. I may keep my M&K surrounds since they don't look bad by any means. They are actually stylish and modern looking even though they are 15 years old. I do like those 1099's like you suggested for the LCR's. But there are a lot of good looking products from DIY Soundgroup so I'm going to have to agonize over the speaker quandary for a while it seems.

Screen - I'm going to research more about the CIA setup. I know it will be a bit more expensive because of the extra masking panels but that may not matter. I also have to ensure that if I go 16:9 or CIA, that the screen won't so tall that heads get in seats, get in the way. I don't think it will be a problem for CIA but it may be a problem for 16:9.

Seating - power recliners aren't a necessity. I would like them but it may not be in the cards. In order to get power to the chairs, I would buy super fancy looking end table and place it on the far side of the room (essentially blocking an aisle) and hiding the cord under that or possibly buying a sectional.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,827 Posts
I dusted off and upgraded my TMcGoogle(R) SketchUp software to make you this drawing...uh....I mean, rendering....:



Here's what I would do, which mirrors @Tedd suggestions:
  • Remove all rigid pipe for your two current supplies
  • Reuse the existing take off on the right side (of the drawing) by converting to 7" flex directly from the main trunk line
  • Close off the second (left) supply at the main trunk line and remove all the rigid and flex line
  • Cut a new 7" take off in the supply trunk line for the left supply. Use a short run of 7" flex attached to this take off
  • Run 8" flex from your source location (see additional comments below) to a new 14x14 box in your theater ceiling at the suggested location. 8" flex can approach the duct box from the top or the side

Also, do remember that I don't have a return trunk in the attic. I have a central return in a hallway and the inside a/c unit is in a bedroom closet. There is no reasonable way for me to tie into it all. Here are pictures of what I have.


Yes that's Santiago the chinchilla. He's good people.

In my mind, the only thing I can do is to run a return from the theater room as shown in the drawing, to this location right above my main return and put an inline duct fan on the line to ensure that the air gets pulled out of the room.
I know you are trying to do this on the cheap and dirty, but I strongly urge you to consider this suggestion....in the back corner of this closet cut in an 8" rigid pipe into the return air plenum, running it straight up the back of the closet and into the attic. Convert to 8" flex once in the attic and run to your new 14"x14" theater return box. You can enclose this 8" pipe in the closet with basic framing and drywall...OR....simply insulate this rigid duct with insulative pipe wrap (silver stuff). This approach also allows for you to include a mechanical damper to tailor the amount of return coming from the theater room so it is in-balance with the amount of supply.

I believe you have a NEST thermostat in the hallway, correct? Well, you can easily turn on the HVAC fan (or the system itself) using your NEST app which will force-ventilate the theater room, even if the heating or cooling isn't running. Forget the Insteon switch, in-line Fantech fan, getting high voltage to this fan and all the other installation considerations you have to deal with. Force ventilating through the HVAC system is the overwhelmingly preferred option.

Bottom line...Santiago may be good people, but he'll have to take one for the team to help heal your Level 5 swamp a$$.

Speakers - I do like those 1099's like you suggested for the LCR's. But there are a lot of good looking products from DIY Soundgroup so I'm going to have to agonize over the speaker quandary for a while it seems.
I've done the research. You'll end up at 1099s....or at least you *should* end up at 1099s. For your size of room and performance with your new subs, they are the perfect fit and extremely good sound quality.

Screen - I'm going to research more about the CIA setup. I know it will be a bit more expensive because of the extra masking panels but that may not matter. I also have to ensure that if I go 16:9 or CIA, that the screen won't so tall that heads get in seats, get in the way. I don't think it will be a problem for CIA but it may be a problem for 16:9.
I'm with you on heads interfering with the bottom of the picture, but 99% of the time you are front row in the big recliners. Overflow is in the back, but even then heads are staggered. It's a compromise I would make for the relatively limited time you'll have a packed house and have someone complain that the very bottom of a 16:9 image is slightly chopped off by someone's head. If the people in the front are even slightly reclining or relaxing in the seat, heads will definitely not be in the way. To save a few bucks you could get the CIA screen now and then pop for the manual masking panels down the road.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,046 Posts
Discussion Starter #25 (Edited)
Okay, I see what you're saying now Tim. Thank you for upgrading TMcGoogle(R) before posting, btw. It made a huge difference in the rendering.

In any case, I was in fact trying to avoid cutting into the return riser but I think it may be easier than running power to an inline fan, etc, now that you've explained it to me. It's probably just a few hours worth of work and it would be done the right way. I'm probably not going to drywall over the 8" rigid duct in the closet so I don't have to tape, float and try to match texture. I would just frame it, insulate it, cover with a nice smooth faced plywood caulk and paint it. My youngest is moving off to Austin to go to UT this summer so I could just work on it then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,484 Posts
For the screen, have you considered a constant image area screen size of 2.0:1. This will give you the best of both worlds....the largest 16:9 image possible in your room and the largest cinemascope image possible in your room. Going with a 2.40:1 screen is going to limit the size of your 16:9 image. Since you game and watch a lot of TV, this could be a big minus. Just something for you to consider before selecting your next screen.
I actually disagree with that assertion as-stated, since maximizing the size of any particular ration within the confines of a physical screen size is entirely dependent on the physical size of the room. That is to say, there's no one screen size ratio that is always going to be the best of both worlds.

For instance, let's say we have a room where we are going to use the entire front wall as the potential screen -- no stages, no soffits, nothing to get in the way. Let's compare a 2.0:1, 16:9, and 2.35:1 physical screen with both a 16:9 and 2.35:1 image projected onto it.

Wall Size: 15' x 8' - Slightly bigger than this theater

2.0:1 Screen Size: 15' x 7'-6" (112 sq ft)
16:9 Image: 13'-4" x 7'-6" (100 sq ft)
2.35:1 Image: 15' x 6'-5" (96 sq ft)

16:9 Screen Size: 14'-2" x 8' (113 sq ft)
16:9 Image: 14'-2" x 8' (113 sq ft)
2.35:1 Image: 14'-2" x 6' (85 sq ft)

2.35:1 Screen Size: 15' x 6'-5" (96 sq ft)
16:9 Image: 11'-4" x 6'-5" (73 sq ft)
2.35:1 Image: 15' x 6'-5" (96 sq ft)

What we see in this case is that a 2.0:1 screen has a notably bigger scope image than a 16:9 screen and only marginally smaller 16:9 image. Thus, if most of the video played in this hypothetical theater were scope movies, then a 2.0:1 screen could make the most sense.

Wall Size: 11' x 8' - More realistic for this theater

2.0:1 Screen Size: 11' x 5'-6" (60 sq ft)
16:9 Image: 9'-9" x 5'-6" (54 sq ft)
2.35:1 Image: 11' x 4'-8" (51 sq ft)

16:9 Screen Size: 11' x 6'-2" (68 sq ft)
16:9 Image: 11' x 6'-2" (68 sq ft)
2.35:1 Image: 11' x 4'-8" (51 sq ft)

2.35:1 Screen Size: 11' x 4'-8" (51 sq ft)
16:9 Image: 8'-3" x 4'-8" (39 sq ft)
2.35:1 Image: 11' x 4'-8" (51 sq ft)

Now we're into a maximum screen size that is more in line with JVoth's specific dimensions. Because of the room's width constraint, we see that a scope image is identical regardless of the physical screen size. But if we are watching a 16:9 source, then the 2.0:1 screen only allows for a substantially smaller image than a 16:9 screen. Therefore, regardless of the majority content played in this theater, a 16:9 physical screen will always permit the largest possible image.

If you have a room that's wider than 19' (assuming 8' height), then a scope screen will always give the most bang for the buck.

But maybe there are restrictions like stages or soffits or maybe there are columns in the way or speakers or maybe the height is actually 10' and not 8' or maybe the screen material is limited to 5'... and on and on. Every physical restriction creates new bounds for the math and each bound will create differently optimized sizes.

TL;DR - there is no "best of both worlds" screen size for all room sizes -- it's all math given physical constraints.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,046 Posts
Discussion Starter #27
I actually disagree with that assertion as-stated, since maximizing the size of any particular ration within the confines of a physical screen size is entirely dependent on the physical size of the room. That is to say, there's no one screen size ratio that is always going to be the best of both worlds.

For instance, let's say we have a room where we are going to use the entire front wall as the potential screen -- no stages, no soffits, nothing to get in the way. Let's compare a 2.0:1, 16:9, and 2.35:1 physical screen with both a 16:9 and 2.35:1 image projected onto it.

Wall Size: 15' x 8' - Slightly bigger than this theater

2.0:1 Screen Size: 15' x 7'-6" (112 sq ft)
16:9 Image: 13'-4" x 7'-6" (100 sq ft)
2.35:1 Image: 15' x 6'-5" (96 sq ft)

16:9 Screen Size: 14'-2" x 8' (113 sq ft)
16:9 Image: 14'-2" x 8' (113 sq ft)
2.35:1 Image: 14'-2" x 6' (85 sq ft)

2.35:1 Screen Size: 15' x 6'-5" (96 sq ft)
16:9 Image: 11'-4" x 6'-5" (73 sq ft)
2.35:1 Image: 15' x 6'-5" (96 sq ft)

What we see in this case is that a 2.0:1 screen has a notably bigger scope image than a 16:9 screen and only marginally smaller 16:9 image. Thus, if most of the video played in this hypothetical theater were scope movies, then a 2.0:1 screen could make the most sense.

Wall Size: 11' x 8' - More realistic for this theater

2.0:1 Screen Size: 11' x 5'-6" (60 sq ft)
16:9 Image: 9'-9" x 5'-6" (54 sq ft)
2.35:1 Image: 11' x 4'-8" (51 sq ft)

16:9 Screen Size: 11' x 6'-2" (68 sq ft)
16:9 Image: 11' x 6'-2" (68 sq ft)
2.35:1 Image: 11' x 4'-8" (51 sq ft)

2.35:1 Screen Size: 11' x 4'-8" (51 sq ft)
16:9 Image: 8'-3" x 4'-8" (39 sq ft)
2.35:1 Image: 11' x 4'-8" (51 sq ft)

Now we're into a maximum screen size that is more in line with JVoth's specific dimensions. Because of the room's width constraint, we see that a scope image is identical regardless of the physical screen size. But if we are watching a 16:9 source, then the 2.0:1 screen only allows for a substantially smaller image than a 16:9 screen. Therefore, regardless of the majority content played in this theater, a 16:9 physical screen will always permit the largest possible image.

If you have a room that's wider than 19' (assuming 8' height), then a scope screen will always give the most bang for the buck.

But maybe there are restrictions like stages or soffits or maybe there are columns in the way or speakers or maybe the height is actually 10' and not 8' or maybe the screen material is limited to 5'... and on and on. Every physical restriction creates new bounds for the math and each bound will create differently optimized sizes.

TL;DR - there is no "best of both worlds" screen size for all room sizes -- it's all math given physical constraints.
Granroth, room width is 11' and height is indeed 8' so you hit the nail on the head there. I love the research all of you guys put into stuff because it makes a real impact on how people design a room. I am going to follow TMcG's advice on the return air and probably the 1099's as well. Thanks @TMcG! Screen size though, I'm still super nervous about because I've already made one mistake by getting a 2.40:1, 100" wide screen. Way too small. Then I went to 16:9. Still too small but still pretty freakin good. The 10' 16:9 may be too big. I know that "too big" may not sound feasible in today's HT landscape but I just thought about the bottom of the image if I'm reclined in the front row, which is 90% of the time. I think my feet may get in the way instead of my head. In fact, I just tested it, and mine or anyone else sitting in the front row will have that problem if it is actually a problem. Is that an issue you think or is it really nothing to worry about?

10' Wide Screen
16:9 = 120" x 68" - What I really want and least expensive due to Elite Screens' offering. I would rather a Seymour like I have now but we'll see how cash flows at that time.
CIA = 120" x 60" - Excellent but expensive compromise due to masking panels and the fact that I have to use Seymour. Not really a bad thing but they are about a grand more than Elite.
2.37:1 = 120" x 51" - We watch a ton of movies but 16:9 content suffers greatly so probably not happening.

Granroth, by the way, I took a page out of your book and did a little testing today. I'll share in the following posts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,717 Posts
For the screen, have you considered a constant image area screen size of 2.0:1. This will give you the best of both worlds....the largest 16:9 image possible in your room and the largest cinemascope image possible in your room. Going with a 2.40:1 screen is going to limit the size of your 16:9 image. Since you game and watch a lot of TV, this could be a big minus. Just something for you to consider before selecting your next screen.
I use a 2.0 ratio screen and love it. You are absolutely right; scope images lose the "Wow!" on a standard 16:9, and 16:9 images seem tiny on a scope screen. A fixed area screen ratio is the answer. I am surprised 2.0 screens are not more popular, but I guess high end installs would require 4-way masking and more average builds are looking for a more off the shelf solution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,046 Posts
Discussion Starter #29 (Edited)
Monoprice Luxe Series Cable Test

As you know the purpose of this thread is to upgrade my existing theater with more modern sound and video formats. The first phase has been to upgrade to 4K or Faux K and HDR. I bought an Epson Pro 4040 that I'm so far, very happy with. My source was going to be an Xbox One S. The only problem with that, I discovered, was that the Xbox has only one HDMI output and my Marantz receiver/pre pro is not 4K compatible. So, I had to buy the Samsung K8500 4K player. It was an unexpected purchase but it was under $200 so no big deal. At least I thought. Along with that, I had to buy a new HDMI cable that could supply the projector with the full HDMI 2.0 signal. I went to Monoprice, trusted their specs, and purchased a Luxe Series 40' HDMI cable that could pass [email protected]/18GB. After reading some more, I found out that HDMI cable manufacturers are like speaker cable manufacturers. In other words, they aren't exactly honest about their claims. Some guys have posted on AVS the results from an article about HDMI 2.0 cable specs and whether they actually meet the specifications they claim to. Turns out, there a few that do meet the specs and many that do not. The only issue with the article as someone pointed out in Brolicbeast's thread, is that the cable lengths are all inconsistent. Needless to say, I was a little nervous about possibly wasting a bunch of time and $50 on a cable that may not work. As I stated earlier, my new cable is 40' long and advertised to pass the full HDMI 2.0 workload. My previous cable is a Monoprice Redmere 40 footer. It will pass 4K but not HDR, at least at that length, so I had to replace it. I climbed up in the attic and fished this down the wall. It was not easy. I have no idea how one guy could do this without someone down there receiving the wire. I bought some Klein fish rods and the job would not have been possible without them. It's a highly recommended purchase for those that DIY (or try to) jobs like this.

Got it finished, and fired up the Xbox and ran the little test it provides. Previously, it said I was capable of [email protected] Now it's saying [email protected] so I know the cable made some kind of difference, however, no HDR, no 10 bit video. Weird. I tried everything. The Xbox and Epson just won't work together as far as I know.

I decided it was time to fire up, for the first time, my new dedicated K8500 and see what happens. It turns out these things have a lot of bugs, latest firmware or not. It did send my projector into HDR mode though. Finally!

Here's what I got from the Epson's Info Screen:



It looks like it didn't pass 4:4:4 up sampling but got other things right. With the Samsung it did not pass 60Hz but did pass 10 bit color depth. It says 12 but that's not a true 12 according to Epson. The Xbox passed 60Hz but nothing else. It does actually say "SDR" under Color Format with the Xbox, so another oddity. I have everything set to Auto on the Samsung source so I'll try different settings later to see what I can get. However things go, HDR is what I was truly after.

Like many others, I have an inconclusive test here. I have 4K and HDR but not the Chroma Upsampling (not that I could tell either way). I have 2 different players that seem to do 2 different things. I couldn't imagine it's the cable though. @lovingdvd said in another thread that different sources and different AVR's mean different results. I would have to agree here. I will say that I don't think it's the cable though. I think the main thing that I have taken from this, is that HDMI 2.0 isn't quite stable.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,827 Posts
The dirty little secret of front projection this side of $60,000 is that the projectors are not bright enough - and therefore not capable - of producing HDR. All of the projectors fall substantially short. You're much better off focusing on wide color gamut than anything else. It will bring you the most meaningful difference over standard HD signals. @lovingdvd can tell you all about it in greater detail. The bottom line is your projector may have the ability to recognize when it is receiving HDR and tell you as much on the info display....but you are definitely NOT reaching even the minimum HDR specs of 1000 nits.

One last comment regarding the screen....If you get the largest 2.40 screen you can, your 16:9 size will still be limited. CIA is the only aspect which allows you the possibility of getting the largest images of each. I can understand if you are FULLY reclined and specifically looking over your toes how part of the screen could be visually interrupted. But just like your theater is not filled to capacity 99% of the time, so too do you not watch most of your content fully reclined. Perhaps partially reclined, but your head is still well above your feet and giving you proper sight lines. Plus, even if there was a very minor disruption, is that any worse than a concert, public movie or live event??? Right now it seems you are ruling it out because of one extreme seating position which is almost never used for sustained watching.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,040 Posts
As you know the purpose of this thread is to upgrade my existing theater with more modern sound and video formats. The first phase has been to upgrade to 4K or Faux K and HDR. I bought an Epson Pro 4040 that I'm so far, very happy with. My source was going to be an Xbox One S. The only problem with that, I discovered, was that the Xbox has only one HDMI output and my Marantz receiver/pre pro is not 4K compatible. So, I had to buy the Samsung K8500 4K player. It was an unexpected purchase but it was under $200 so no big deal. At least I thought. Along with that, I had to buy a new HDMI cable that could supply the projector with the full HDMI 2.0 signal. I went to Monoprice, trusted their specs, and purchased a Luxe Series 40' HDMI cable that could pass [email protected]/18GB. After reading some more, I found out that HDMI cable manufacturers are like speaker cable manufacturers. In other words, they aren't exactly honest about their claims. Some guys have posted on AVS the results from an article about HDMI 2.0 cable specs and whether they actually meet the specifications they claim to. Turns out, there a few that do meet the specs and many that do not. The only issue with the article as someone pointed out in Brolicbeast's thread, is that the cable lengths are all inconsistent. Needless to say, I was a little nervous about possibly wasting a bunch of time and $50 on a cable that may not work. As I stated earlier, my new cable is 40' long and advertised to pass the full HDMI 2.0 workload. My previous cable is a Monoprice Redmere 40 footer. It will pass 4K but not HDR, at least at that length, so I had to replace it. I climbed up in the attic and fished this down the wall. It was not easy. I have no idea how one guy could do this without someone down there receiving the wire. I bought some Klein fish rods and the job would not have been possible without them. It's a highly recommended purchase for those that DIY (or try to) jobs like this.

Got it finished, and fired up the Xbox and ran the little test it provides. Previously, it said I was capable of [email protected] Now it's saying [email protected] so I know the cable made some kind of difference, however, no HDR, no 10 bit video. Weird. I tried everything. The Xbox and Epson just won't work together as far as I know.

I decided it was time to fire up, for the first time, my new dedicated K8500 and see what happens. It turns out these things have a lot of bugs, latest firmware or not. It did send my projector into HDR mode though. Finally!

Here's what I got from the Epson's Info Screen:



It looks like it didn't pass 4:4:4 up sampling but got other things right. With the Samsung it did not pass 60Hz but did pass 10 bit color depth. It says 12 but that's not a true 12 according to Epson. The Xbox passed 60Hz but nothing else. It does actually say "SDR" under Color Format with the Xbox, so another oddity. I have everything set to Auto on the Samsung source so I'll try different settings later to see what I can get. However things go, HDR is what I was truly after.

Like many others, I have an inconclusive test here. I have 4K and HDR but not the Chroma Upsampling (not that I could tell either way). I have 2 different players that seem to do 2 different things. I couldn't imagine it's the cable though. @lovingdvd said in another thread that different sources and different AVR's mean different results. I would have to agree here. I will say that I don't think it's the cable though. I think the main thing that I have taken from this, is that HDMI 2.0 isn't quite stable.
I had the same issue when I first got my setup going. I bought a 50' Fusion 4K HDMI cable that was listed as capable of delivering the full bandwidth. However, like you, I could only get 4K24 4:2:2 out of it. And because this was all new to me at the time, I had to spend a lot of time researching it, figuring out if I should care (yes) and figuring out where the problem was (I didn't think it was my cable either, but it was). I spent dozens of hours on it. Total waste of time. I replaced my cable with the Celerity fiber cable and viola, 4K24 444 and 4K60 444 (that's full 18 Gbps bandwidth 600Mhz) came through just fine. With hindsight the extra $ for the cable would have paid for itself several times over compared to the complete utter waste of time this caused me.

Have you been able to pass 4K 60 444 to your display from your UHD player or from something like the Roku?

In your case I can't say for sure that's what it is, but I'd say there's an 80-90% chance that if you replaced your cable with a fiber one that you would not be having that issue. Now is 4K 24 444 vs 422 worth it to you? Maybe not. To me it was. The short of it is that the content on the UHD discs is in 420. So it must be converted (chroma sampled) from 420 to 444. This is either done by the source player (aka Oppo or UB900) or by your projector (I assume you have a JVC but am not sure). If you remember back in the days of DVDs there were all sorts of issues with chroma upscaling issues. Those are not likely these days. However, some equipment does this upscaling better than others. Manni did testing and found that the UB900 did a marginally better job and could see a difference, although it was subtle. With everything I've put into my system I wanted to be sure to have it at its absolute best so I was not settling for something that was even just slightly degraded. Sum of the parts type of thing - if I start settling for a little smidge of imperfection here and there, those things start to add up. So I replaced the cable and very happy with that choice. Plus I can also do 4K 60 444 for sources like Netflix HDR.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,040 Posts
The dirty little secret of front projection this side of $60,000 is that the projectors are not bright enough - and therefore not capable - of producing HDR. All of the projectors fall substantially short. You're much better off focusing on wide color gamut than anything else. It will bring you the most meaningful difference over standard HD signals. @lovingdvd can tell you all about it in greater detail. The bottom line is your projector may have the ability to recognize when it is receiving HDR and tell you as much on the info display....but you are definitely NOT reaching even the minimum HDR specs of 1000 nits.

One last comment regarding the screen....If you get the largest 2.40 screen you can, your 16:9 size will still be limited. CIA is the only aspect which allows you the possibility of getting the largest images of each. I can understand if you are FULLY reclined and specifically looking over your toes how part of the screen could be visually interrupted. But just like your theater is not filled to capacity 99% of the time, so too do you not watch most of your content fully reclined. Perhaps partially reclined, but your head is still well above your feet and giving you proper sight lines. Plus, even if there was a very minor disruption, is that any worse than a concert, public movie or live event??? Right now it seems you are ruling it out because of one extreme seating position which is almost never used for sustained watching.
I need to clear up a couple of things here... You most definitely can get some benefits from HDR on a projector. You just need to have at least 100 nits peak white. Its not exactly true HDR but with proper calibration and a proper custom curve (the subject of a month's worth of studying) you can fake HDR pretty good on a projector and have it looks significantly better than SDR BT2020. This was not the case a month ago when the JVC forced it poor Gamma D on you and gave you no auto iris with HDR, but due to some very recent developments all this can be worked around and makes HDR doable. But again, to really start to get the benefits of it you need at least 100 nits. I have a 140" w 2.37 AR 0.95 gain (AT) screen when zoomed out for 2.40 movies to fill the screen I only get 42 nits. I've done some trickery to get some HDR-like effects, but it requires crushing some details in brighter scenes (not the case if you have 100+ nits).

I'm not too concerned about not having enough nits right now because projectors just keep getting brighter and brighter. Eventually x years from now we'll likely have 3000-5000 lumens )(like the $30k-50k JVC/Sony lasers can do) which will do the trick for me, enabling me to "grow into" the setup I have now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,040 Posts
I actually disagree with that assertion as-stated, since maximizing the size of any particular ration within the confines of a physical screen size is entirely dependent on the physical size of the room. That is to say, there's no one screen size ratio that is always going to be the best of both worlds.

For instance, let's say we have a room where we are going to use the entire front wall as the potential screen -- no stages, no soffits, nothing to get in the way. Let's compare a 2.0:1, 16:9, and 2.35:1 physical screen with both a 16:9 and 2.35:1 image projected onto it.

Wall Size: 15' x 8' - Slightly bigger than this theater

2.0:1 Screen Size: 15' x 7'-6" (112 sq ft)
16:9 Image: 13'-4" x 7'-6" (100 sq ft)
2.35:1 Image: 15' x 6'-5" (96 sq ft)

16:9 Screen Size: 14'-2" x 8' (113 sq ft)
16:9 Image: 14'-2" x 8' (113 sq ft)
2.35:1 Image: 14'-2" x 6' (85 sq ft)

2.35:1 Screen Size: 15' x 6'-5" (96 sq ft)
16:9 Image: 11'-4" x 6'-5" (73 sq ft)
2.35:1 Image: 15' x 6'-5" (96 sq ft)

What we see in this case is that a 2.0:1 screen has a notably bigger scope image than a 16:9 screen and only marginally smaller 16:9 image. Thus, if most of the video played in this hypothetical theater were scope movies, then a 2.0:1 screen could make the most sense.

Wall Size: 11' x 8' - More realistic for this theater

2.0:1 Screen Size: 11' x 5'-6" (60 sq ft)
16:9 Image: 9'-9" x 5'-6" (54 sq ft)
2.35:1 Image: 11' x 4'-8" (51 sq ft)

16:9 Screen Size: 11' x 6'-2" (68 sq ft)
16:9 Image: 11' x 6'-2" (68 sq ft)
2.35:1 Image: 11' x 4'-8" (51 sq ft)

2.35:1 Screen Size: 11' x 4'-8" (51 sq ft)
16:9 Image: 8'-3" x 4'-8" (39 sq ft)
2.35:1 Image: 11' x 4'-8" (51 sq ft)

Now we're into a maximum screen size that is more in line with JVoth's specific dimensions. Because of the room's width constraint, we see that a scope image is identical regardless of the physical screen size. But if we are watching a 16:9 source, then the 2.0:1 screen only allows for a substantially smaller image than a 16:9 screen. Therefore, regardless of the majority content played in this theater, a 16:9 physical screen will always permit the largest possible image.

If you have a room that's wider than 19' (assuming 8' height), then a scope screen will always give the most bang for the buck.

But maybe there are restrictions like stages or soffits or maybe there are columns in the way or speakers or maybe the height is actually 10' and not 8' or maybe the screen material is limited to 5'... and on and on. Every physical restriction creates new bounds for the math and each bound will create differently optimized sizes.

TL;DR - there is no "best of both worlds" screen size for all room sizes -- it's all math given physical constraints.
Yes. I originally considered a 2.0 CIH screen but quickly dismissed it. I had about 14' to work with on the front wall. I wanted a screen that was as big as possible of course, but not to the point where the bottom of the screen was too close to the floor and or too hard to see the bottom of the screen from the 2nd row over the heads of those seated in the front row (I have limited ceiling height so my riser could not be more than 6" high).

I wound up going with a 140" wide 2.37 AR screen. This is perfect because almost all of the 4K UHD movies are in 2.40 format (only a few exceptions I can think of). I couldn't go any wider really because I wanted about a foot on each side of the screen and also didn't want the screen to be any closer to the floor. This gives me about a 155" wide picture for 2.40 movies and about 120" for 16:9 HDTV. If I went with CIH I wouldn't have gained anything here and in fact would have lost size in both directions. Another consideration is that if you are using an AT screen with speakers behind it, you need to have the screen wide enough so the speakers can be far enough apart to create the ideal listening environment/angles at your MLP. Since my seating is purposely close (12.5') this meant I needed to have the speakers as wide apart as possible, which meant the screen needed to be as wide as possible. As it worked out the L/R speakers are about 22.5 degrees off-axis to the MLP, which is the minimum recommended by Dolby IIRC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,510 Posts
Why not an "almost constant area" screen set up, and tailor ALL screen sizes, to the room and front speaker layout?
Push the 16x9 to slightly bigger status and call it about sports, tv show, and concert content....

Why not nix the stage and soffits entirely?

A laced in AT screen, could have a simple upper mask, (garage storage lift at $200?) and a pair of sliding side masks
could mask down various scope content, in a constant height scope setup.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,040 Posts
Why not an "almost constant area" screen set up, and tailor ALL screen sizes, to the room and front speaker layout?
Push the 16x9 to slightly bigger status and call it about sports, tv show, and concert content....

Why not nix the stage and soffits entirely?

A laced in AT screen, could have a simple upper mask, (garage storage lift at $200?) and a pair of sliding side masks
could mask down various scope content, in a constant height scope setup.
I don't have time to review the details of his build, but in general - why not just make the screen as wide as he possibly can (assuming he wants the largest screen he can reasonably fit) using a 2.37 AR and then that's his size for 2.40 movies and for HDTV 16:9 he is constrained to whatever maximum height he gets from that setup?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,046 Posts
Discussion Starter #36
I had the same issue when I first got my setup going. I bought a 50' Fusion 4K HDMI cable that was listed as capable of delivering the full bandwidth. However, like you, I could only get 4K24 4:2:2 out of it. And because this was all new to me at the time, I had to spend a lot of time researching it, figuring out if I should care (yes) and figuring out where the problem was (I didn't think it was my cable either, but it was). I spent dozens of hours on it. Total waste of time. I replaced my cable with the Celerity fiber cable and viola, 4K24 444 and 4K60 444 (that's full 18 Gbps bandwidth 600Mhz) came through just fine. With hindsight the extra $ for the cable would have paid for itself several times over compared to the complete utter waste of time this caused me.

Have you been able to pass 4K 60 444 to your display from your UHD player or from something like the Roku?

In your case I can't say for sure that's what it is, but I'd say there's an 80-90% chance that if you replaced your cable with a fiber one that you would not be having that issue. Now is 4K 24 444 vs 422 worth it to you? Maybe not. To me it was. The short of it is that the content on the UHD discs is in 420. So it must be converted (chroma sampled) from 420 to 444. This is either done by the source player (aka Oppo or UB900) or by your projector (I assume you have a JVC but am not sure). If you remember back in the days of DVDs there were all sorts of issues with chroma upscaling issues. Those are not likely these days. However, some equipment does this upscaling better than others. Manni did testing and found that the UB900 did a marginally better job and could see a difference, although it was subtle. With everything I've put into my system I wanted to be sure to have it at its absolute best so I was not settling for something that was even just slightly degraded. Sum of the parts type of thing - if I start settling for a little smidge of imperfection here and there, those things start to add up. So I replaced the cable and very happy with that choice. Plus I can also do 4K 60 444 for sources like Netflix HDR.
I have an Epson Pro 4040 projector. I think you are probably right about the cable. I hate being wrong too. Such is life I guess. I think I will stick with the Monoprice for now until the rest of my upgrades are finished and hopefully cable pricing will come down by then. The real issue I'm having right now, is the brand new Samsung 4K player I bought doesn't read 4K discs. Found out, that's kind of a wide known issue. I have the latest Firmware and everything. Reads blu rays just fine. I got lucky with that screenshot. I was able to get to the Passengers menu screen. I tried 3 different almost new 4K discs and one fresh out of the package and I still have the same issues. Hopefully Samsung will replace this. A lot of Amazon reviews have said Samsung basically does nothing about it. Back to the Xbox for now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,046 Posts
Discussion Starter #37
Why not an "almost constant area" screen set up, and tailor ALL screen sizes, to the room and front speaker layout?
Push the 16x9 to slightly bigger status and call it about sports, tv show, and concert content....

Why not nix the stage and soffits entirely?

A laced in AT screen, could have a simple upper mask, (garage storage lift at $200?) and a pair of sliding side masks
could mask down various scope content, in a constant height scope setup.
Tedd, I have no soffits or stage in my room so there are no constraints from that end. The room is 19x11x8. I'm hoping for a 16:9 curved IMAX style but I'll probably have to put up the traditional blue painters tape and test it out. If I can't do that, then I'll be waffling back and forth for a while on CIA or scope.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,510 Posts
I don't have time to review the details of his build, but in general - why not just make the screen as wide as he possibly can (assuming he wants the largest screen he can reasonably fit) using a 2.37 AR and then that's his size for 2.40 movies and for HDTV 16:9 he is constrained to whatever maximum height he gets from that setup?

Well for one, how does it all become about scope movies? I would argue a media collection might be actually skewed towards 16x9 content when I think about all the Bluray tv series and Bluray concerts one might own. I know my collection still has a ton of 16x9 content, and when I think of some hdtv series numbering fifty hours plus, does scope content actually even have a chance to outnumber 16x9 content on a per hour viewing "scale"?

I basically agree pushing the screen size, but the ergonomics are eyes might not able able to take the whole screen into view, and if one's eyes start to have to jump around the screen, then eye strain might be a result, for some people. And an argument also might be a "standard" is no more then 80% of the front wall as screen. I understand people push this, but maybe the best results also take into consideration the need to capture light coming off the screen.

To me, this is all about pushing screen sizes, but seating layout needs to be considered. And the room size does play into any discussion about the best screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,510 Posts
Why not just hang a white sheet or two, and put the pj to work, and the OP decides what works biggest/best for him? In both 16x9 and scope.

Now do fixed side borders at the maximum scope width, and the bottom of the screen which would define the bottom of scope and 16x9 content.
Now for an upper mask that moves up and down. The scope maxes out on room width, or close to it.

The side masks could be as simple as at The Savoy. :) Guitar picks for the bottom of the mask and a push fit up top.

I actually am coming at this from a position where I consider my 16x9 content max'ed out but there's 8-10" of scope width potential, so
the front AT might see a rebuild.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,046 Posts
Discussion Starter #40 (Edited)
I just watched Beauty and the Beast at my local fairly new Cinemark XD theater. It was the most beautiful looking movie I have ever seen to this point. I was truly wowed and I don't think I get like that at cinemas anymore because of my home theater problem, addiction, hobby or however you want to classify it. I saw Rogue One in the same theater a while back but they didn't have a very memorable XD trailer. At least I don't remember it. I'm not saying it sucked or anything it just was another sound format trailer. This time around, they had one that was really interesting. They had a guy in a lab coat that was introduced as the Cinemark Chief Movieologist. He actually introduced the Barco laser projector and the 11 channel sound system, that I think is format agnostic. I read somewhere that it can reproduce Atmos and Auro which is pretty cool. Then he said something about unicorns and the sound and video started flexing it's muscles for a bit. You could hear the other people's ooh's and ahh's in the theater so they were impressed with this setup like myself.

My room isn't going to be this cool unfortunately, but I'm definitely looking to get as close as my budget allows.
 
21 - 40 of 76 Posts
Top