AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
555 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am close to buying the Maxx D-ILA projector. I will probably go with a 9ft wides screen in a totally or mostly light controlled room. I will watch mostly HD and DVD. Do you think Firehawk or Greyhawk is a better choice?


Thanx
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,194 Posts
I had both for my G-150. I picked the Firehawk.


The Grayhawk just didn't have the punch.


I have a 10 ft. wide Micro-perf. I have the image dimmed on my G-150 DILA about 30%. Too bright without dimming - eye strain.


My room is 100% light controlled.


Your smaller screen and a Grayhawk might, however, be perfect if you cannot dim your projector or if you just plain like a really bright picture.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,051 Posts
Typically the JVC and Greyhawks go hand in hand and JVC recommends going with the Greyhawk. However as you get into the bigger sizes of screens, I think that the Firehawk would probably work better and I agree with Jeff that the Firehawk wold probably give it some more punch
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,720 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Warrenbonz
I am close to buying the Maxx D-ILA projector. I will probably go with a 9ft wides screen in a totally or mostly light controlled room. I will watch mostly HD and DVD. Do you think Firehawk or Greyhawk is a better choice?
The difference between the two is the gain; 1.35 for Firehawk and 0.95 for Greyhawk.


Whether you need the gain or not is dependent on how big your screen is - i.e. what is the luminance of the D-ILA

on the screen.


You state you have a 9ft wide screen - I'll assume that's a 16:9 aspect ratio - i.e 9ft x 5ft = 45 sq ft.


The specs on the Maxx gives a 1600 lumen output.


Therefore, if you have a Firehawk with a gain of 1.35, the luminance is:


1.35 x 1600 / 45 = 48 ft lamberts.


If you have a Greyhawk with a gain of 0.95, the luminance is


0.95 x 1600 / 45 = 33.8 ft lamberts


The Greyhawk luminance is much closer to ideal - and allowing for reduction in brightness as the bulb ages puts

it even more into the ideal range.


A Maxx LCOS will be plenty bright on the screen size you chose - the last thing you need is to put gain on top of that

and risk "hot-spotting".


Dan and JVC are correct - the Greyhawk would be the better choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,209 Posts
One thing to keep in mind is that the Maxx is a 4:3 projector, and therefore, only 75% of its light output (1200 lumens by the spec which we all know is inflated) would be used to illuminate a 16:9 screen. 1200 lumens is the rating of my current projector, a PLV-60, and I find myself wishing for a brighter image on my 125" wide microperforated GrayHawk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,720 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott B
One thing to keep in mind is that the Maxx is a 4:3 projector, and therefore, only 75% of its light output (1200 lumens by the spec which we all know is inflated) would be used to illuminate a 16:9 screen. 1200 lumens is the rating of my current projector, a PLV-60, and I find myself wishing for a brighter image on my 125" wide microperforated GrayHawk.
You can always get an ISCO II or Panamorph anamorphic lens and get that 25% back [ almost ].


Even so - w/o the anamorphic lens - you get 28 ft-lamberts for the Greyhawk - which is right where you should be for

a new bulb.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
555 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Thanx for the help especially Morbius and Scott for doing the math for me. I haven't figured out if I will go with a 4x3 with masking or a 16 x 9 screen yet. How does this projector handle 4x3 material if there is a panamorph attached. I guess it depends on the scaler. Any ideas what scaler is best (not interested HTPC) for this projector?


Thanx again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,735 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Morbius
The specs on the Maxx gives a 1600 lumen output.
I'm pretty sure the spec on the SX21 at CEDIA was 1500 lumens. Then reports were that they had to lower the brightness and up the fan speed to deal with some heat issues. Now MAXX is claiming 1600 and the lumens spec is conspicuously missing from this page of SX21 technical specs on JVC's site (maybe it is somewhere on their site that I didn't find). As far as MAXX claiming specs, it should be noted there are other things they claim about the 1400 that are BS. Their top guy has posted information here that contradicts their statements on their website. When I explained this issue to him at CES he assured me that he would look into it. It has not been fixed and they have not responded to my email on the issue. So, each person will have to decide how to use the 1600 lumens number claimed by MAXX Products. For one point of reference, in the one side-by-side that I've heard of with the SX21 and the InFocus 7200, the report posted here was that the 7200 looked brighter. The 7200 rating is 1000 lumens, but the extra CR could have contributed.


--Darin
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,051 Posts
I think but I am not positive that the Maxx/SX-21 internal scaler gives you the ability to use panamorph lens while watching 4x3 material. If you go with an external scaler, then it wont be any problem having the lens.


There are many scalers you can use. You can go with the the HD Leeza (now just coming out), the Asimilator (when it comes out), Focus Enhancement CS-2 (which Maxx uses), the NRS and finally the *** Rock Plus (I want to be fair)


On the issue of lumens, it should be 1200 and if you ever get projector calibrated, you will loose some more lumens. I would be conservative and probably use 1000 lumens when calculating your number. Better to play it safe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,718 Posts
I have the SX21 with a Panamorph and a Firehawk screen that is just over 9 feet wide. I am viewing in a light controled room.


I estimate the projector to be closer to 900 lumens without the lens and I measured it to be exactly 17% brighter with the lens attached. So you are looking at around 1000 lumens at its best. The 1600 lumen number is way inflated.


I find that with the lens and my Firehawk the brightness is just about right, so go with the Firehawk. It will not be too bright by a long shot. If you go with the Greyhawk, it might not have enough punch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
602 Posts
I have a G-15, which has similar output to the SX-21, Panamorph and 135-inch diagonal GreyHawk screen. I am very happy with the setup. It is possible that you would prefer the FireHawk but I don’t think you can go wrong with either choice.


Earl
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
555 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Earl,


I just checked out you theatre photos and am blown away. You have a really beautiful set up. I also like the Aerials. I have the 10T's in the front and side, CC5 center and SR3's in the rear.


I am going away for a few weeks and wont have much access to the internet so I just wanted to thank everyone for thier thoughts and help before I left.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
475 Posts
While most folks think of a narrow viewing angle as a deficit, I think of it as an advantage. It means that that a centrally located viewer will see more light from the projector and less light reflected from walls and such. To me, it's much more important to have a narrow viewing angle than a grey screen; the only real advantage of a grey screen in my mind is to turn down the output of an overly bright projector. And even that isn't usually necessary.


So my feeling is go with firehawk since it has a more narrow viewing angle. Extra light output helps, not hurts.


-Tom
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top