AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
490 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hey there,


Well, the 5th Element was on TNT HD last night, so I was finally able to take this pic to compare my HC1500 with one of Clarence's classic screen captures using his G90 and Designer White laminate screen.


Clarence's G90 vs. my Mits HC1500 (on EasyFlex8 paint on drywall)





My conclusion, the HC's blacks aren't up to par with the G90, and the resolution isn't there either. Flesh tones look decent. Another interesting observation, the 2.35:1 widescreen version is not actually wider than TNT's 16:9 version. The 16:9 is taller and eliminates the top and bottom black bars. In this case, it was beneficial to not have the 2.35:1 version. Overall, I'd say the HC1500 is not too shabby for 800 bucks.


What do you guys think?


Here were my main settings. (Apologies for the blurriness.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
I am in the unique (i think) position that I have owned both a G90 and now have 1500 in my theater. I sold the G90 to finance some home improvement projects and bought the 1500 as a stopgap until I found a 1080p model I wanted to invest in. I agree with your assesment that the blacks are nowhere near as good, and the resolution is lacking. Also, the rainbow effect really bothers me, so I have to do my best to tune out the flashes of color while I am watching a movie. That said, I have enjoyed the 1500 and I don't regret selling the G90. The 1500 is bright and sharp, and great for ps3 and blu ray in my opinion. Do I miss the G90? Yes, but I like the extra money in my pocket!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by frorule /forum/post/12882812


Another interesting observation, the 2.35:1 widescreen version is not actually wider than TNT's 16:9 version. The 16:9 is taller and eliminates the top and bottom black bars. In this case, it was beneficial to not have the 2.35:1 version.

It depends on what you mean by "beneficial". The Fifth Element was shot in Super35 format. The film lacks sound strips on the top and bottom, causing more vertical information to be recorded than in standard 35mm format. Luc Besson composed a 2.35:1 image within that frame, which is then matted for theatrical release. That's what he intended you to see. However, because there is additional vertical information, you can also generate a "taller" image for home video release on 4:3 and 16:9 screens. It's an increasingly common way to "cheat", to avoid pan and scan. Also, computer generated visual effects sequences that are composed for the final theatrical aspect ratio will still be panned and scanned. It's only live action shots (and some composite effects sequences) that "benefit" from removing the matting. James Cameron uses this a lot, too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
490 Posts
Discussion Starter #5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steerforth /forum/post/12886792


It depends on what you mean by "beneficial". The Fifth Element was shot in Super35 format. The film lacks sound strips on the top and bottom, causing more vertical information to be recorded than in standard 35mm format. Luc Besson composed a 2.35:1 image within that frame, which is then matted for theatrical release. That's what he intended you to see. However, because there is additional vertical information, you can also generate a "taller" image for home video release on 4:3 and 16:9 screens. It's an increasingly common way to "cheat", to avoid pan and scan. Also, computer generated visual effects sequences that are composed for the final theatrical aspect ratio will still be panned and scanned. It's only live action shots (and some composite effects sequences) that "benefit" from removing the matting. James Cameron uses this a lot, too.

Thanks for the lesson in formatting 101. I am admittedly not very well versed when it comes to that stuff. By 'beneficial', I simply meant my screen was being utilized to the fullest without losing anything on the sides/top...similar to how a 16:9 image is a more fulfilling viewing experience than a 4:3. Personally, I could live without those bars on the top and bottom of WS movies. I would much rather watch a taller movie provided I'm not sacrificing anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
I find it amazing that we can even compare the HC1500 to the G90 .


What's curious is, out of the box, the HC1500 and the G90 have an almost identical color gamut with an under-saturated green primary.

I also agree with the above poster and feed my HC1500 a 1080i signal. It seems a little sharper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
Set your sharpness to negative 2 to turn it off. Also which port are you using HDMI or Component?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,097 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by PlinytheWelder /forum/post/12888001


I find it amazing that we can even compare the HC1500 to the G90 .


What's curious is, out of the box, the HC1500 and the G90 have an almost identical color gamut with an under-saturated green primary.

I also agree with the above poster and feed my HC1500 a 1080i signal. It seems a little sharper.

I agree this is amazing. We are comparing a $995 (msrp) projector to a G90 which is going for $10,000 used on audiogon right now and according to the owner sold for $43,000 when new.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
788 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by luptong /forum/post/12890060


Yeah but the G90 can still kill half your family if it's not mounted properly. You can't say that about the hc1500.

Thats true, you would only lose one member. Sit whoever you like the least under it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,140 Posts
What do you guys think?


Clarence is one lucky dude!

BTW, Kris has his G90 on the floor with a big coffee table over it. Works champion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,876 Posts
Clarence G90 has well over 10,000 hours on both the machine and tubes.

If you are there still you will see huge difference still after no. of hrs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
490 Posts
Discussion Starter #14

Quote:
Originally Posted by union1411 /forum/post/12882865


shocking

That was one of those Thank you Captain Obvious moments, huh?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,355 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by luptong /forum/post/12890060


Yeah but the G90 can still kill half your family if it's not mounted properly. You can't say that about the hc1500.

Please enumerate all the cases of an improperly mounted PJ killing someone.


This is one of those stupid myths that some people love to talk about in a fear mongering way. But, if it ever did actually happen (which it has not), it is natural selection in action. If you are too stupid to correctly mount something the weight of a heavy chandelier from your ceiling, we need you out of the gene pool.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,876 Posts
Hi Dave! Glad to see you posting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
490 Posts
Discussion Starter #17

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legairre /forum/post/12887567


For a sharper picture on the HC1500 set your player to output 1080i. The HC1500 has a good scaler and looks better at 1080i. Depending on the player of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlinytheWelder /forum/post/12888001


I also agree with the above poster and feed my HC1500 a 1080i signal. It seems a little sharper.

I've tried both. 720p seems to work better for me, but honestly there may be no difference at all. It appears (to my eyes) that using 720p makes graphics and text sharper.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyFace /forum/post/12888522


Set your sharpness to negative 2 to turn it off. Also which port are you using HDMI or Component?

Thanks, I'll try that. I am using component for my HDTV (the above pic), and HDMI for my upconverting SD DVD player. I have pics from both sources in my thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
778 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Person99 /forum/post/12894456


Please enumerate all the cases of an improperly mounted PJ killing someone.


This is one of those stupid myths that some people love to talk about in a fear mongering way. But, if it ever did actually happen (which it has not), it is natural selection in action. If you are too stupid to correctly mount something the weight of a heavy chandelier from your ceiling, we need you out of the gene pool.

He said "can", not "will" or "has," and I'm pretty sure he was making a tongue-in-cheek comment to elicit a chuckle. That being said, A 240 pound box that's 2.5 ft wide x 3.5 ft long certainly seems to have the potential to wipe out 2-4 people (depends on how "friendly" they are with each other) if it dropped from the ceiling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,876 Posts
A ceiling fan has more potential to get lose. It has been done for years safely.

After I mounted my CRT I grabbed the handles and did 50 pull ups as a safety check.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,747 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by luptong /forum/post/12890060


Yeah but the G90 can still kill half your family if it's not mounted properly. You can't say that about the hc1500.

More then likely the above would happen to a x-digital guy use to mounting something that is 9 lbs.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top